Rasori

There's no such thing as good or bad people?

Hmmm guess I have to get a little philosophical now...

To the above question: No there's not, unless you're a hardcore cristian/muslim who claims to possess the ultimate truth, of course.
Bad and Evil is something completely relativ. Even Osama and all he's followers believe they're doing the right thing, no matter how strange that might seem to people like us. Measured by their ideology we are the devil, for our ideology they are the devil. There are different kind of ideologies, and as soon as you claim to have "THE ULTIMATE IDEOLOGY" by calling others the "bad people" you are in some sense already applying the same mechanism of thought as these islamic fanatics, claiming to kill people in the name of the "only true religion".
Diffiret volks develop differently. In western cultures people started to adopt the believe that their nations are most powerful by respecting human life and put that human life into the center of all things. In other cultures the single human life has no value at all, but other things are valued far far higher instead ( family or God....).
Don't forget Rasori, your only rating people by what you believe is correct and just, but your perception of rightness can't claim to have any universal validity at all.
Why does Peace in Palistna/Israel seem so impossible to achieve? There is so much hate down there they don't recognise them selfs as human anymore, They point their fingers at each other calling the other one the devil. They both claim to have the ultimate truth, such a thinking leaves know room for compromises or any possibility for understanding of each other.
Why is Bush such a polarising Man? Because Bush claims to possess the ultimate truth by splitting up the world into bad states and good states, because he's throwing "bad" people (what ever his definition of bad is) into guantanomo prison for how long he wants, without informing the relatives of the prisoner, without having any true proof of the prisoner's guiltiness, without a trial etc.
Or has god appeared in your dreams telling you what is ultimate right or ultimate evil?

Oh, and in case you don't get the references above, all of the men whose "ideaologies contradict" those of the US are, in order, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Adolf Hitler.

And France and Germany. They both announced that they thought this war was wrong. Still remember the results?? I do, people spilling out French whine on the streets, boycotting German and French products, the quite extreme insults coming out of Rumsfelds mouth.....
This just shows once more how polarising the current US gouvernment is, be with us or against us!! that is their motto.

As for not seeing the reasons, you apparently didn't read the whole of my post. I wasn't even arguing that the war was justified because we were going after "bad people." I said (or meant, if you didn't read it the way I intended it to be read) that the war was justified simply because he broke the rules set after the first time we whooped him. One specific example: we had imposed a range limit of 100km on his missiles, but on the first day of fighting in the second Gulf War he fired on us from beyond that range.

Yes Yes I read your whole post, but I can only read what you have written and not more.

I don't know anything about these long range missles, I'm sure it was talked big in the us when an iraqy missle flew 101km instead of 100km. Plus if the us only recognised that saddam's missles fly farther than 100km after the war outbreak than that issue could not have been a criteria to go to war anyhow.
The only thing I remember is the us media made a big fuss when the army found missles that can fly 120km. Lol, this missles didn't even have any electronic guidance, depending on how the wind blew they had a range between 80 and 120km lol.
All this violations Iraq should have broken just so fussy. Can you give me any heavy violation that justifies a war?? The Us needed reasons to justify their actions so they gathered any possible mini-violation iraq comitted and blew it up.

It won't, so long as the US leaves it alone and stops sabre rattling...

Yes and history has shown us that the ugly little people that form dictatorships all over the world will never ever execute hundreds, thousands, millions of their own people before consolidation of their power base and the "stretching" of their borders.

I support your right to state what you want, when you want, how you want, and I will continue to support your right to say that until they pry my 45 from my cold dead fingers.

However, having said that, the reason that no missile from any country in the future may not hit the United States, Canada, Mexico or any other portion of the free world is not from countries "sabre rattling" but a positive defense that although is costly, ensures that no other offensive power that can be brought to light has any chance of prolonged success.

W/R
Suralle Straykat
Kat Lord @ Large

Rasori... If we didn't fight the Germans in WW2 we would all be saying HEIL HITLER.

(I just wonder how this topic started in a GAL CIV 2 FORUM?)

Anyway. I liked some people's interventions more than some others. (usually 50/50 between those with similar political views and those with opposed).

True, America is.. wait a second. Why calling the U.S.A. "america", as if ONE country was defining the whole goddamn continent?! I don't call the french "the europeans", and I sure don't think any of their neighbour would approve if they monopolized the name, took it for themselves. (Over here, we like to call them "États-Uniens, or United Staters")

The USA are coerced into a permanent war. You liberties are being taken away one by one (Patriot Act being the main element) because of a "state of war". Sadly, this "state of war" isn't even NEAR being over.

Can any of you think of the way this "war on terror" will ever end? They always find a new ennemy. The only time USA have been without a "real" ennemy (90s), it began solving its own problems for the first time (but still creating many more worldwide, as they did for the past century).

And can someone explain to me why the 2nd amendment is being so well protected? (I mean, except the zillion dollard lobbies). The main argument I hear about its rightgeouness, is that you need a gun to protect yourself. But why do you NEED a gun to protect yourself? 'cause everbody has a gun! Even a good man who just emotionnaly bursted (car-rage?) is a killing machine. Why everybody has a gun? because you need to protect yourself..! it's a circular argument, isn't it?

Why the Anti-U.N. fanatism? (when you think of it, who are usually the greatest loosers in the UP's laws? evil civs! mwahaha!!). Why is U.S.A. the greatest opponent to Small Arm sales to third world country, to protection of the regional cultures, Kyoto and others? Why Francophobia when France acted against U.S.'s invasion of Iraq? (at least, diplomacitly). Why AntiCanadian slogans when we choosed to stay out? (BUT AGREED on supporting U.S.A. more in Afgan)

Oops, I'm getting ahead of myself, and I'm kinda off-topic. But as an Non-Staters, these questions are REALLY bugging me.

And I beg those who will (and can) answer, to do so in a polite and decent way. No insult on me being a stupid tree-hugger liberal (would be surprised on the # I read on the internet!)

A war is something you can win, a conflict lasts forever.

And I beg those who will (and can) answer, to do so in a polite and decent way. No insult on me being a stupid tree-hugger liberal (would be surprised on the # I read on the internet!)

LOL. I'd laugh if some one called you a tree hugger...STUPID TREE HUGGER!



No offense, I just had to say that.

don't mind this post. testing font size.dargatend.

Cikomyr said: And can someone explain to me why the 2nd amendment is being so well protected? (quote function inop)

There are a couple of ways to answer this, so bear with me

1. A simple answer is: Because it is being so vociferously attacked both within the US and by foreign interests (see info about the proposed UN treaty banning individual ownership of firearms worldwide).
This would result in only 2 types of people &/or organizations having firearms - government entities and criminals (by definition). Neither governments nor criminals (and here I will make an exception for those formerly law-abiding citizens who are refusing to relinquish their property) have the best interests of individual members of the general population as the guiding principles for their actions - governments because they can't be bothered by the effects of their actions on individuals since their focus is supposedly on the "greater good" and any adverse effects on individuals are merely "societal costs" of the "benefits" of government actions. This also assumes the govenrment isn't one of those despotic organizations whose viewpoint is that the population is there to be exploited by those in power and their friends - although, unfortunately, there are and have been many many examples of them. Criminals prey on the general population. So the net effect is that a disarmed population is really nothing more than ready prey for both criminals and governments run by thugs. (See info about the exploding violent crime rates in those countries which have recently banned said private ownership of weapons.) (UK and Australia, for example) (Also see the stories about government massacres in Africa and the Sadam Hussein government abuses in Iraq as examples of what happens when governments turn against their people.)

2. A more politically philosophical answer would be:
(Quote from the US Declaration of Independence) "... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...."
It then follows that if the population governed DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY WITHHOLD THEIR CONSENT (to be governed), then the government is no longer a just government but a despotic one ( even if it is currently acting in an enlightened manner), because the ultimate check and balance - between that of the people and the government as a whole has been destroyed.

3. A more pragmatic view is: English common law has established over time that an individual has the right to protect one's self and family. It is also established precedent (at least in the US) that local/state police forces have NO LEGAL CULPABILITY FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT AN INDIVIDUAL FROM A CRIME. The police are society's (government's) agents to protect the community at large - if, in the performance of these duties, they also end up protecting you as an individual, that's a bonus. (And yes, many departments and individual policemen do a good job of enhancing the protection of the members of the community in which they serve and take that aspect of their jobs very seriously.) But the ultimate responsibility for protecting YOU as an individual, rests with YOU as an individual. The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution protects the right to have the tools/weapons to adequately perform this personal responsibility.
As a practical matter, even if you don't feel comfortable owning and learning to safely use a weapon (including firearms), there is a spillover of the protection if a number of folks in the community do exercise their rights. Example: If even 5% of the adults in a community have firearms, that will translate into around 10% of the homes having arms (figuring 2 adults per house). If you are a criminal bent on violent crime, would you rather prey upon a group of unarmed folks or one where you have a 10% chance of running into someone capable of effectively ending your criminal career? If you compare crime statistics between US states where the "shall issue" permits laws are in effect and those where they are not, you'll get your answer.

Now I know that these forums are read by folks outside the US, so let me acknowledge these points:
1. The US firearms industry IS highly regulated and only persons who are federally and state licensed may legally participate in this area of commerce.
2. There are many firearms laws regulating for which crimes or other conditions individuals may have their firearms rights revoked. These include drug users, persons convicted of felonies, persons convicted of domestic abuse, persons who have been psychiatrically committed, and quite a few more.
3. There are many state and federal laws dictating penalties for illegal possession or transfer of firearms. One of the federal laws calls for sentencing of up to 7 years for possession of any firearm and each round of ammunition by a "prohibited person". So if you have a pistol or rifle with 8 rounds of ammunition, if convicted, you could be sentenced to up to a total of 63 years in a federal prision. In areas of the country where priority has been given to enforcement of these laws, crime has dropped sharply.

Sorry for the long post, and I'll get off my soapbox.....

I just wonder how this topic started in a GAL CIV 2 FORUM?) Anyway. I liked some people's interventions more than some others. (usually 50/50 between those with similar political views and those with opposed). True, America is.. wait a second. Why calling the U.S.A. "america", as if ONE country was defining the whole goddamn continent?! I don't call the french "the europeans", and I sure don't think any of their neighbour would approve if they monopolized the name, took it for themselves. (Over here, we like to call them "États-Uniens, or United Staters") The USA are coerced into a permanent war. You liberties are being taken away one by one (Patriot Act being the main element) because of a "state of war". Sadly, this "state of war" isn't even NEAR being over. Can any of you think of the way this "war on terror" will ever end? They always find a new ennemy. The only time USA have been without a "real" ennemy (90s), it began solving its own problems for the first time (but still creating many more worldwide, as they did for the past century). And can someone explain to me why the 2nd amendment is being so well protected? (I mean, except the zillion dollard lobbies). The main argument I hear about its rightgeouness, is that you need a gun to protect yourself. But why do you NEED a gun to protect yourself? 'cause everbody has a gun! Even a good man who just emotionnaly bursted (car-rage?) is a killing machine. Why everybody has a gun? because you need to protect yourself..! it's a circular argument, isn't it? Why the Anti-U.N. fanatism? (when you think of it, who are usually the greatest loosers in the UP's laws? evil civs! mwahaha!!). Why is U.S.A. the greatest opponent to Small Arm sales to third world country, to protection of the regional cultures, Kyoto and others? Why Francophobia when France acted against U.S.'s invasion of Iraq? (at least, diplomacitly). Why AntiCanadian slogans when we choosed to stay out? (BUT AGREED on supporting U.S.A. more in Afgan) Oops, I'm getting ahead of myself, and I'm kinda off-topic. But as an Non-Staters, these questions are REALLY bugging me. And I beg those who will (and can) answer, to do so in a polite and decent way. No insult on me being a stupid tree-hugger liberal (would be surprised on the # I read on the internet!)

Dear USA hater First, Canada stole their name from all the indians they killed and stole land from:
Canada borrows its name from the Huron-Iroquois Indian word, "kanata," which means village or settlement. http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/origin-canada.html

I don't think "Americans" took the name "Americans".
I studied this a while back; it is thought the name was put on ALL people residing there in the 1700s and 1800s by OTHER peoples around the world. Since the Americans from the USA were the most recongnizable, later on the name stuck. And don't forget, the Americans were about 1 battle from owning all of eastern Canada . In fact, they own ALL of Canada it's just that noone has actually told the "Canadians" yet.

You liberties are being taken away one by one (Patriot Act being the main element) because of a "state of war

CAN YOU NAME ONE LIBERTY TAKEN?

And can someone explain to me why the 2nd amendment is being so well protected? (I mean, except the zillion dollard lobbies). The main argument I hear about its rightgeouness, is that you need a gun to protect yourself. But why do you NEED a gun to protect yourself? 'cause everbody has a gun! Even a good man who just emotionnaly bursted (car-rage?) is a killing machine. Why everybody has a gun? because you need to protect yourself..! it's a circular argument, isn't it?

Again, missing the point of the Amendment; it was written in the spirit of repulsing any dictatorship or "Royal" tyranny, NOT to protect you from other citizens...although if you take a walk in The Bronx an 3:30 am, you would WISH you had a gun!
And why, as you say, is it being so well protected? It protected by MILLIONS of AMERICANS who want it to stay. (some) Citizens want it. It's not being forced on them by Bush or anyone else.
And why are so many non-Americans so worried about America's gun laws? You, Sir, should worry about your OWN terrorist problems.

And lets not forget; Having the USA for a neighbor has allowed Canada to spend most of their money elsewhere (instead of military). Guess what? Let's imagine that USA had not protected Canada since the early days. For centuries Canada would have had to field an enormous standing army (like most countries). That would have taken away from much of Canada's developement and they would be nowhere near their current standard of living.
Not to imply that Canada hasn't been a great friend and ally of the USA.

But I REALLY want to hear MR. insiders' answer to this:

You liberties are being taken away one by one (Patriot Act being the main element) because of a "state of war

CAN YOU NAME ONE LIBERTY TAKEN?

WOW! Insults are flying all over the place.

CAN YOU NAME ONE LIBERTY TAKEN?

(liberty to have a privacy. That your privacy may not be intruded by any governement agency except with the express autorisation of a courthouse. And the President isn't a courthouse. Liberty to have a trial, and be judged by your peers, to know why you are incarcerated. Liberty to keep silence.)

(And I am not a U.S.A.-Hater. Just someone who's itching a lot about many things in your country. Can't anyone criticize?)

(and so far, these 2 answer have been the best and most polite answer on the topic I ever red. Thank for keeping your cold to both of you (except 1 or 2 sentences, but I'll pass over)

And lets not forget; Having the USA for a neighbor has allowed Canada to spend most of their money elsewhere (instead of military). Guess what? Let's imagine that USA had not protected Canada since the early days. For centuries Canada would have had to field an enormous standing army (like most countries). That would have taken away from much of Canada's developement and they would be nowhere near their current standard of living. Not to imply that Canada hasn't been a great friend and ally of the USA.

I haven't criticized this. Actually, Canada was created to defend the british colonies (and the conquered french colony - Quebec) against the U.S.A.. Well, it was one of the main reasons. For a time, we were ennemies (and at the beggining of the last Iraqi War, you sure looked at use as ennemies, and we suffered a lot economicly because our politicians didn't jumped screaming "Yes Sir!" to Bush)

Cikomyr said: And can someone explain to me why the 2nd amendment is being so well protected? (quote function inop) There are a couple of ways to answer this, so bear with me 1. A simple answer

Point taken! It's just that I never been able to read anything except circular arguments. Still, gun registration in Canada is helping a lot the police forces when they arrest suspects in their house. They know if someone has a gun when they come arrest someone. They know if they have to confiscate a weapon from someone who is arrested (because we have seen people coming back from jail, and shooting the hell out of their families/detractors).

And why can't the Background checking be used to check who has access assault rifles? (I mean, who need an assault riffle to defend himself?!) AK-47 is probably the greatest threat possible to us, in the hand of a madman (compared to handguns, hunting guns, etc...). Al-Qaeda trains their agents to FOLLOW the law, and never procure weapons in illegal ways. Until they should strike. (and we should know that many terrorists are 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, so they qualify as whole U.S. citizen)

(liberty to have a privacy. That your privacy may not be intruded by any governement agency except with the express autorisation of a courthouse

SO HOW HAS MY PRIVACY BEEN "INTRUDED"? Sir, you have no idea what you are talking about. No one is intruding on my privacy before or after 9/11.

Please,I invite you to give a SPECIFIC example of how ANY Americans' privacy has been "intruded". You are simply blindly believing the "anti-American media" which is rampant, both in the USA and elsewhere.
Have ANY Americans told you that they PERSONALLY have had their privacy "intruded"? None have told me, and I LIVE HERE!

Again, I invite you to give a SINGLE EXAMPLE if this happening.

And why can't the Background checking be used to check who has access assault rifles?

It IS, in EVERY STATE...again, you are making staements with no facts to back it up.
And guess what? most crimes are committed with UNregistered, ILLEGALLY BOUGHT GUNS.

(and we should know that many terrorists are 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, so they qualify as whole U.S. citizen)

AGAIN! A totally flawed statement! NOT ONE OF THE 19 9/11 HIJACKERS WAS A CITIZEN! What, Sir, are you talking about?

People like you like to throw out false statements, thinking none will challenge you.

So again, I ask you to BACK UP your statement:

SO HOW HAS MY PRIVACY BEEN "INTRUDED"?

The US government has been spying on its citizens phone records, e-mails and just recently uncovered by the NY Times, bank accounts. Now I agree, maybe not yours specifically, but the fact remains, all three are grievous violations of the 4th amendment. I'm no expert on what the government does, but if this is the stuff we do know about, then you can be guarantied that there is much more we don't know.

It really upsets me that nothing happened to anyone that was involved with the spying, it makes me wonder what the country is coming to, by like I said before (a few posts up); when the government creates a climate of fear, the people will allow them to get away with almost anything.

It saddens me Skyjack that you don't see everything that is going on, and I understand, it took me awhile too. The fact is, the US government abuses its powers and its citizens, and I have an example of both. domestic spying for the abuse of power (violation of the 4th amendment) and the fact that just recently congress voted again not to raise the minimum wage, but instead voted to give themselves a pay raise. Jon Stewart said it best "Kudos to congress for taking a giant shit on the poorest people in America"

I could continue on, but I really hate talking about this kind of stuff, as it generally gets nowhere and changes no one’s mind. It takes something bigger to cause someone to step back and see what is really going on (for me it was the death of my uncle in Afghanistan). So you can probably all see that I am very cynical about this country and its decisions, but I live here and there is nothing that I can do about it. (a liberal in a red state, I really have no say). Sad, I know.

So where are ANY examples of ANY AMERICAN being spyed on?

There are none. A climate of fear? I seem to vaquely remember some savages crashing two planes, loaded with innocent women, children and men, some with their throats already slit, into two buildings (one of which had two of my friends in it), killing almost 3000 people who were simply going to work or travelling.

Also the domestic wiretaps are only going after international calls to KNOWN terror-connected regions and known terror suspects. So if you call say, Pakistan regularly, maybe you could be a little uncomfortable, and I'm OK with that.

I don't think anyone is gonna tap your call to grandma in Vermont, calm down.

Again, WHERE is even ONE example of ANY American being spyed on illegaly? YOU CAN'T GIVE ANY, CAN YOU?

domestic spying for the abuse of power

so it's being done FOR THE SOLE purpose of "abuse of power"? Really? Not to prevent more innocents being murdered?

So, flayed_one, how would YOU try to prevent more savages from killing civilians?

I'm still waiting for Cikomyr to answer my #87 post.

Cikomry said: And why can't the Background checking be used to check who has access assault rifles? (I mean, who need an assault riffle to defend himself?!)


There is a requirement for purchasers from licensed firearms dealers to pass a background check - This is done at the time of purchase. Establishing and maintaining a registration database has impacts in the political philosophy part of my answers above;


1. If the location of all firearms are known, then confiscation is only an order away, and the final check and balance with it.



2. Historically, the one of the first things that occurs when a totalitarian or despotic government comes into power, is the confiscation of all means for the population to resist the government. I am not unsympathetic to your comment about the police, but I have to come down on the side of the side of the general population having the advantage over the government here. After all, the basic philospohy is that the government is ultimately the creature of the citizenry - not the ruler of the citizenry. (Think about this - I've worked with quite a few folks from overseas, and when we get down to it, I've found this attitude to be pretty unique to the US.)


The other clarification I want to make is about the term "assault rifle" - by definition, this refer to a fully automatic weapon such as a military issue AK47, M16, etc. If you are truly referring to these in your comment, then be advised that for someone to legally own an assault weapon is to really bury yourself in red tape - At one time (pre-86) you needed a special license, a $500 annual tax stamp, and had to agree to allow the BATF 24 hour access to ensure that the weapon was being securely stored. (Needless to say, I understand these inspections were not usually conducted at convenient times.) I think the 1986 law stopped the issueance of new licenses, but in any case, it's a real hassle.

If you are just talking about semi-automatic rifles that just look like assault rifles, then why not? If you want something similar to what you learned to use while serving your country, or want to take advantage of the extensive engineering that these weapons' military cousins went through, it makes perfect sense.

I cannot name any american who had his privacy intruded, because of a quite clever circular argument saying that "the names of the person concerned must not be release for national security reason". Off course you never heard of someone being spyed on, because no one must know!

And your governement think it has the right to spy on its allies without their consentement. And off course, it consider the paper who released the news as a traitor, because "no one is supposed to know because of national security".

SrGalen, thanks a lot, your answer have been really helpful. I think it's the way we should solve problem, by trying to understand someone else's point of view. If you have any question about mine, I invite you

Skyjack, I see you had nothing to say about the fact that spying on citizens is a violation of the fourth amendment, that said, an abuse of power is simply a person or a group of people using their position in society to break the law. Pres Bush, and whoever else was involved, violated the bill of rights (which is against the law) by using there position. That is the very definition of abuse of power.

Climate of fear? Yes, everyday on the news there is something new that is blown way out of proportion (like the korean missile), this keeps us fearing everything which then allows for the govenment to make questionable policy choices because we are so scared we let anything go, even violations of the bill of rights.

Of course no one knows they are being spied on, the government won't let that out, if they did they know that there would be hell to pay. I'd like to find out that I was spied on, then I would sue the hell out of the US govenment, and I would win for sure. Skyjack, you are going by what they tell you, that they only spy on known terrorists, yeah right. They probably use the same intel that said that Iraq had nuclear, bio, and chem weapons. So how do you think they find people who are calling and e-mailing terror connected organizations? It sure isn't by spying on known people. The fact is, you have NO idea who they are looking into, for all you know they could have computers sifting through all 300 million of us.

I'm not against increasing security in various places to help keep us safe, but I am against violation the very foundation this country was founded on.

One more thing, and I am not avocating any terrorist at all, but those people were not savages, there were normal people fighting for what they believe in the only way they know how. The US has killed far more civilians in Iraq and Afgan (so don't go talking about innocent people being killed, the US has done A LOT of that, probably close to the top in innocent people killed, but I'd have to look that up).

Like I said before, this will change no one's mind so it's almost not worth posting, that said, I think I'm done in this thread.

there were normal people fighting for what they believe in the only way they know how.

This statement says it all.

Flayed_one: OMG are you KIDDING ME? "Normal people" is that what THEY told YOU? Normal people DON'T go to terrorist training camps and learn how to make bombs, hijack airliners, use poison gas, etc. THESE ARE PSYCHOPATHS, brainwashed by "the religion of peace". They were/are SAVAGES, who saw through peoples' necks, skin faces, rape as state-punishment and want US ALL to live in the 7th century, yes, they actually stated so. Look it up.

"Allah must be fed the soul of the infidel". Sounds pretty normal, eh?

The US has killed far more civilians in Iraq and Afgan

...That's right, flayed_one, the US LOVES to kill civilians. Makes us feel proud...what a crock.

Climate of fear? Yes, everyday on the news there is something new that is blown way out of proportion (like the korean missile), this keeps us fearing everything which then allows for the govenment to make questionable policy choices because we are so scared we let anything go, even violations of the bill of rights.

...Back in the 1930's there was a little ex-convict named Adolf. Many people had your very attitude. If people were more aware, actually proactive, maybe WWII could have been prevented.

They probably use the same intel that said that Iraq had nuclear, bio, and chem weapons.

You mean the intel that came from France, Russia, Great Briton AND Kuwait? THAT intel? Maybe they were just saying that to make Bush stumble into a war?

So how do you think they find people who are calling and e-mailing terror connected organizations? It sure isn't by spying on known people.

REALLY? they NEVER spy on known people? Only us innocent people? If there really are phone-sniffers and such I really don't care if they are monitoring all 300 million of us. Do you really think they have a person listening to EVERY conversation? Do the math, it's impossible. They are machines, looking for key words, patterns, LOCATIONS, etc. I hope they listen to you all day!

@Cikomyr

And your governement think it has the right to spy on its allies without their consentement.

If you think Canada and the US don't spy on each other all day long you are naiive. ALL countries spy on each-other since the beginning of time. That's right, Canada spies on its allies.

This statement says it all. Flayed_one: OMG are you KIDDING ME? "Normal people" is that what THEY told YOU? Normal people DON'T go to terrorist training camps and learn how to make bombs, hijack airliners, use poison gas, etc. THESE ARE PSYCHOPATHS, brainwashed by "the religion of peace". They were/are SAVAGES, who saw through peoples' necks, skin faces, rape as state-punishment and want US ALL to live in the 7th century, yes, they actually stated so. Look it up. "Allah must be fed the soul of the infidel". Sounds pretty normal, eh?

No need to scream, please. Let's keep this conversation and trade of opinion on a pleasant level.

It is a known fact that U.S. military is responsible, through careless manoeuvers and crazy soldier acts, of the death of thousands of civilians and ally troops in Iraq and Afganistan. The main problem is, where U.S.A. don't scream "Arr! DIE INFIDEL!", they usually respond by the "We don't care". We never hear the "thousandS of civilians died" (the same civilians you were suppose to "liberate") reason to leave Iraq, we just hear "we lost billions and 3000 troopers over there!".

...Back in the 1930's there was a little ex-convict named Adolf. Many people had your very attitude. If people were more aware, actually proactive, maybe WWII could have been prevented.

and back in the 50's, there was a senator called McGarthy (did I spelled it right?), for "national security" reason, he violated many rights of U.S. citizens. I think we are re-living history here.

You mean the intel that came from France, Russia, Great Briton AND Kuwait? THAT intel? Maybe they were just saying that to make Bush stumble into a war?

France and Russian didn't beleived there was WMD in Iraq. They trusted the U.N. inspectors. And the inspectors did their job right.

If you think Canada and the US don't spy on each other all day long you are naiive. ALL countries spy on each-other since the beginning of time. That's right, Canada spies on its allies.

There is "monitoring" and "spying". the recent spy on bank transactions in europe from the CIA was a pure act of spy. The CIA stepped on the juridiction of foreign intelligence agencies, and should have collaborated with them, making sure to every country involved that no foul play was used.

but no, the CIA went alone, and now everybody knows that the U.S.A. enforce rules that it doesn't follow itself. Enforce trough economic bullying.

Starting on topic:

North Korea has more artillery than the US.
They also have near the same number of tanks and heavy armor as us.
Their equipment is old from WWII, but still can pack quite a punch.
North Korea is Mountainous, making it hard for the US to form effective airstrikes as there are many hiding places for their armies.
Results: North Korea's initial strikes against South Korea would be a veritable blood bath. The US would likely win in the end but it won't be a clean victory. I don't remember the exact numbers but they were quoted in basic training, and North Korea is the one country our Army does not want to fight at this time. Also their citizens fanatically support their leader. The slave labor spoken about exists as the freely given support by the people to thier leaders. In short, they're crazy enough to do anything.

Iran does not produce or have a large stockpile of oil for us to be interested in. What we are interested in is they have always looked to invade Iraq. Iran and Iraq have never been friends.

I find it hard to believe that so many civilians were "slaughtered" in Iraq. I am sure though that certain civilians were killed to protect the force under our ROE (Rules Of Engagement). For example from Vietnam: Yes we killed toddlers and children. Why? There were often militants holding towns at gunpoint, and they would strap bombs to these children, send them out to greet the troops as they arrived, then blow them up. The children often had no idea what was going on and wouldn't know what a bomb was. Were the children at fault? No. Were the troops at fault for the childs death? Questionable at best, I believe not because the child would have died anyways. I blame the enemy troops involved for creating the situation.

As far as civilians in Iraq, I can believe that a large number were killed by our forces for a variety of reasons. First Saddam Hussein threatened many men that their families would be killed if they did not perpetrate various acts of violence upon our military, and promised to support their families after their death. Our troops had a right to defend themselves. I blame the dictator.

Second, It is very difficult to tell who is a terrorist and who is just a civilian. Cell phones for one have been used to A) Call in artillery upon US installations, and Detonate IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) or AEDs (Automobile Explosive Devices) that are being driven unbeknown by civilians. (Often the vehicle has been altered by a terrorist without the driver even knowing) It is not unknown for cell phones to be confiscated upon entry to a US base, and if someone is seen a certain number of times viewing US troops while on a cell phone in a certain time frame, it may be in the troops ROE to shoot the person as he may be calling in artillery fire. Best not to take chances.

Third, Middle Eastern wemon wear a lot of clothing, in fact often you can't tell if its a woman or a man with a bomb strapped to him. As such troops may be ordered to attempt to keep all civilians at a decent distance in order to prevent suicide bombers. Increase of aggression may involve steps like shouting at them to move away, showing your weapon, arming your weapon, aiming at them, and if they still don't get the picture shooting at them. There is a warning shot only if you miss. Our troops to carry thousands of rounds on them and need to preserve each one in case they do need it. I'm sure that many innocent civilians were killed this way before we got the word out to them to stay clear of our troops.

Finally, various Middle Eastern news companies support terrorism against the US and may twist the news to fit their agendas. I'm not saying that the US agencies don't do the same thing, but if you get these numbers off those news reports and their web sites, I would not trust the information as it's designed to incite civilians to join the radical's cause. They leave information out, like the fact that they consider their own terrorists to be civilians, prior attacks that incited our response, and may even make up stories and apply footage to them to make them more believable.

Terrorism is a multiheaded beast, and while I think this conflict could last a long time, eventually the people that they abuse into thinking like them will start to realize that it's them that get hurt by the cause, not us in the end. There are many ways to fight it, just like they use many weapons other than guns and bombs against us, but unless we use everything at our disposal, we leave them with an advantage to fight back with. Our non military weapons consist of humanitarian aid, anti-terrorism propaganda, diplomacy, politics (sometimes it is a tool for good), trade, economics, etc. All of these things can help convince more people out there that we are no the green monsters that terrorists want them to believe. We just have to use them.

Finally, this talk of Bush, the middle east, and terrorism is way off topic and needs a thread of it's own. Over 3/4 of this thread is devoted to off topic converation as it is and I'm not sure how far it needs to go before the mods lock a topic.

Skyjack:

The incidents that Cikomyr was refering to were the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First:
For several years the US government has been receiving detailed information about money transfers worldwide from the company SWIFT, a company which performes several million money transfers a day. Now this is nothing illigal, governments are permitted to request information if there is substantial suspicion of criminal money transfers. In that case you get the permission to oversee money transfers of a certain country/region/Bank for a limited amount of time.

Over many years the US gathered Information from SWIFT, there was no specific target to spy on, no specific suspicion. It was simply an action of gathering a tremendious amount of information from everybody, from the little plumber somewhere in Greece to the mightiest people on this planet. Until now SWIFT hasn't given an explanation/excuse of how this could happen. The only thing that is known is that the US government has made an mandatory request to SWIFT for getting acces to this information.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second:
I'm sure you heard of the spy programm executed by the NSA that became public recently. Here again, US-citizens were spied on collectivly without any suspicion at all. Telephone calls and emails were recorded secretly, without permission. Eavesdroping on citizens is only allowed if a special court( I forgot the name) gives permission to do so. No permission has been requested though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, now you might find that all very cool skyjack. But why are people fighting such developments? Because it easily leads to an police state government which controls everythings. A government that Knows everything. The whole country becomes a puppet with the government as the string pullers. A state that possesses absolute control, contradicts the very basics of democracy, free elections become a farce, the previous democracy developes into a "managed" democracy. It even becomes worse when this absolute control is distributed among only a few men, that is the path to despotism, and it seems that's the path Bush has already started to walk on a bit.
The favorite citizen of a government is a citizen that doesn't ask any questions, a citizen that believes everything what comes out of the mouth of his president, for that allows the government to do what ever it desires. Ask yourself skyjack, if your not a liitle bit to uncritical with your government, maybe you should ask yourself more questions....

By the way: Deaths caused by terrorism is a minor factor if you compare it to the numbers of deaths caused by Aids, car accidents, consequences of smoking, crime etc etc.. Invest that tremendious amount of money that the US spent on counterterrorism/Iraq war into the latter issues and we'd nearly have heaven on earth.

Still a sentence to this weapon stuff:
Now these oppinions of some people about why weapons should be purchasable legally by everyone (of course with the exceptions stated above) make me...wonder:

Argument No.1: There must be balance of power between government and its citizens.
What?? Now sorry, in the USA you will achieve just nothing with a barrel. As long as you don't elect Osama as your next president the US remains a democracy, in wich you only achieve power by convincing poeple of your Ideas, participating in political parties, by campaigning, all these things you usually do in a democracy. For heaven's sakes, you're not living in Afganistan man!
Do you expect the government to suddenly beat down the citicens? Or do you want to force the president to resign by pointing a gun at his head? The correct way to fight despotism is by the good old seperation of powers. C'mon, you certainly don't need a gun to maintain ballance, I know that and you know that.

Argument No.2:The police doesn't have the capacity to defend everyone, so the individual is responsible for his own safty.
If you had 50% less guns in the US, you maybe could get rid of the other half of the guns because you wouldn't need them anymore to defend yourself. Some people make the equation: More weapons=more security for the individual. Th number of muders in the US doesn't reflect that equation at all, in fact the us has one of the very highest murder rate in the world, by total amount and relative amount.

think about it

North Korea has more artillery than the US. They also have near the same number of tanks and heavy armor as us. Their equipment is old from WWII, but still can pack quite a punch. North Korea is Mountainous, making it hard for the US to form effective airstrikes as there are many hiding places for their armies. Results: North Korea's initial strikes against South Korea would be a veritable blood bath

North Korea is an incredibly poor country, they have nearly nothing, all they have is their army. Just about every cent that country generates is invested into the military, and so I can imagine that NK's army isn't as weak as some people depicted it on this forum. fact is: NK has has the 5th largest army in the world and they have modern equippent for long range weapon technology.

Were did you get that information? Also: There are different qualities of oil.
We actually get most of our oil from North and South of us. And...the last statement is not entirely incorect, Oil Rigs are the same as Garbage Dumps, NIMBY (Not in my backyard)

Also: China is a member of the UN, they have been vetoing resolutions pertaining to punishment of Sudan for a while now.
Also: Korea would get WTF PWNed if they nuked a Wal-Mart, I'm sure China would act on it to add another province to their nation.

Finally, this talk of Bush, the middle east, and terrorism is way off topic and needs a thread of it's own. Over 3/4 of this thread is devoted to off topic converation as it is and I'm not sure how far it needs to go before the mods lock a topic.

Why I strongly advocate we keep our cold. I don't think there is anything wrong with having the topic deviating from the OP, just as long as we are not screaming insults and spamming this forum.

Were did you get that information? Also: There are different qualities of oil. We actually get most of our oil from North and South of us. And...the last statement is not entirely incorect, Oil Rigs are the same as Garbage Dumps, NIMBY (Not in my backyard)

Hi yay54,

I don't know which post are you referring to, but since I wrote something about oil quality in a previus post, I'll tell you what I know about it:

Oil quality can be meassured in different ways, but I think the most important one is "sulphur content". Depending on sulphur content, we differenciate between "sweet oil" and "sour oil". More sulphur (sourer oil) means lower quality, because final products, like transportation fuels, must have very little sulphur,and the process of geting rid of the sulphur costs money, that's why sour oil has higher refining costs. Other caractheristics that affect crude oil quality are acidity and density (light, intermediate and heavy). I think you'll find a lot of information about this if you do some googling.

As for oil consumption comming mostly from within the US, it's true yes and no. Domestic oil production is bigger than the imports from any single country, but if you add all imports and compare that figure with domestic production, you will see that the US produces about one third the oil it consumes. At the end of 2005 the year average was a 5,121 thousand barrels/day produced and imports where at 10,057 thousand b/d. (Crude oil)


A good source for US statistics is www.eia.doe.gov/ (energy information administration), although they have so much information that it becomes somewhat difficult to find what you're looking for. The two figures above where obtained at:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

US crude oil production peaked during the 1970's, eversince the US produces less and less barrels per day, and consumes more and more, thus imports are increasing:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus2a.htm

A word to our Canadian friend, IF I was being spyed on by my government, I would have nothing to worry about. It is only the bloddthirsty terrorist who should worry. And yes Canada owes the US at leats a "We're with ya man" after defending them and most of Europe during both World Wars. And as to the "Climate of Fear" I feel much better knowing this stuff than not. I am glad to see that my government (which I elect and can kick out of office if I feel threatened by them)is ramming bombs down the throat of those crazies who are turning thier noble religion into a blood cult. And on the original topic: NK would be insane to attack the US. Considering that I think it is unlikely that the American people have anything to worry about. All in all we are the freest nation on the planet. That is shown by our liberal media tearing at our president daily. I am opposed to the UN, which is in essence an American creation. Also what separates a government with those dreaded Anti-weapon ownership laws from a police state? I respect your views but as a citizen of this country I can tell you that most of what you hear is cooked up by European US-haters that are still mad about getting thier butts kicked by Germany in WWII.Thank you and good night.