Politics Thread

[Ray]

Who then, is the all knowing one about politics?

That would be me.

Damn beat me to it!

I will write a response soon, don't have the time to think it through right now. But I hope we are making each other mad with this debate. People are sensitive about this stuff.

[monkeyboy1976]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24

=D>

[DaveKillens]

But I hope we are making each other mad with this debate. People are sensitive about this stuff.

Nah, Poltics should be considered important, but it's hard to blow a gasket over what some stranger a thousand miles away is saying. Besides, I am a true believer in free speech. Just because someone is saying someting you don't like or disagree with doesn't make it wrong, it's just their opinion. As well, when you start to close your ears to any persuasion, then you start to become , what can I call it, ignorant?
I listen to everyone, weigh what they are saying, and make my own mind up. I put as weight into what Giancarlo is saying, as Bin Laden. In my mind, they carry equal weight.

And what's important to me is that we all have something in common, despite our various locations and cultures and beliefs. We're all Formula One fans, and that brings us all just a little bit closer.
Group hug.

[Ciro Pabón]

Dave, a warm embrace...

Anyway, let me say two things:

First, even Giancarlo can use some information (he was so kind to send me a PM, thanking my post on USA foreign wars, saying he is searching for data, instead of opinions and promising to analyze it! The guy is noble, let me tell you...).

The right to free speech is limited, on the engineering and technical world by the right to be right: by this, I mean that if you're wrong, well, somebody is going to notice it. That's the point of threads like this: it has been enlightening to me and it is also a pleasure to participate in it. I know Tom has a point: if you limit yourself to give your opinion, well, you can be annoying. It's exactly what Giancarlo told me, privately.

It's like somebody saying once and again that turbo engines are better. When you take the time to explain why... ahhhh, that's when a forum serves its purpose.

Second and final: religion is, even for me, an agnostic, not only a remote possibility. We learn more about Man than what we learn about God when we analyze the different forms of praying to Him (note: I use capitals only out of respect).

We learn about man wishes, fears and ambitions. There is a strong undercurrent of feelings, of things that cannot be expressed in words, of atonement with the world, that historically and REALLY has came to me, another man, from what religion has to say about the world. Being atheist, without proof, and dismissing religion as pure mumbo-jumbo is as naive as being credulous. Anyone that wishes to learn a little about this way of thinking could well take a look to one of the books that have impressed me more: "The hero of the thousand faces", by Jhon Campbell. If someone reads it, this post is justified. Let me give you just a couple of paragraphs:

"The wonder is that the characteristic efficacy to touch and inspire deep creative centers dwells in the smallest nursery fairy tale - as the flavor of the ocean is contained in a droplet, or the whole mistery of life within the egg of a flea. For the symbols of mythology are not manufactured; they cannot be ordered, invented or permanently supressed. They are spontaneous productions of the psyche, and each bears within it, undamaged, the germ power of its source....

... Most remarkable of all, however, are the revelations that had emerged from the mental clinic. The bold and truly epoch making writings of the psychoanalisis are indispensable to the student of mythology; for whatever may be thought of the detailed and sometimes contradictory interpretations of specific cases and problems, Freud, Jung, and their followers have demonstrated irrefutably that the logic, the heroes, and the deeds of myth survive into modern times. In the absence of an effective general mythology, each one of us has his private, unrecognized, rudimentary, yet secretly potent pantheon of dream. The latest incarnation of Oedipus, the continued romance of The Beauty and The Beast, stand this afternoon at the corner of Forty Second Street and Fifth Avenue, waiting for the traffic light to change."

I fail to see in post-modernism a reason to behave "like the good men". This, has to be confronted, somehow, head-on. Man is a poor substitute for God. Manchild pointed clearly to it, when compared USA deeds, made for money, with some radical islamist actions. What's the difference, he asks?

Just another comment: I did not post (to be neutral) photographs of jihadists to compensate my Saruman/White House photo, but another thing that impresses me is this: the modern Islamism, the nation-state directed by a religion, like Iran is, has not been explained by the social theories, that I know. It has a reason to exist, the same way some wings and sidepods in an F1 car that I do not understand have.

And about Aristotle and the war, well, the "old goat" was wrong in many things. He distorted physics for 1,000 years. He did the same with politics. A quote from him ("Politics", my translation from spanish):

"Naturally there are some free men and other are slaves: is convenient for the later to serve, and it is just for them to serve".

Yeah, sure.

To Giancarlo's Aristotle quote on war, I oppose "Civil Disobedience", also known as "Resistance to civil government"by Henry David Thoreau:

"A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart.

They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?"

[f1.redbaron]

Their women do dress like ninjas, there isn't a better way to explain it. But human rights & religion should have its own thread...if needed.

You see, that right there is part of the problem why the US is not so popular in the world. I tell you that you might offend some people by saying such things (possibly even some forum members as this is an international forum), and you respond by saying…yeah, well it’s true. Picture this – you and your best friend had just returned from the war. Unfortunately, your friend had lost both of his legs in that war. Now, imagine me coming up to him and calling him legless…you’d (try to) drop me, right? Why? Because nobody wants to see his best friend treated like that. But, what if my argument was that what I said is, in fact, true…i.e. if I said that the word “legless” just means that he doesn’t have any legs – which would be true. You see, calling somebody an amputee or legless is the same thing (well, almost…amputee is much broader)…but which one do you prefer? Exactly, that is the point. Btw, I looked up the proper name of the clothing they wear and it’s called “hajib”…so that is the word I’d use if I was talking about women being covered-up…not refer to them as ninjas. It’s offensive.

But, don’t ask me to explain why they would find it so offensive. I don’t know. Just like I don’t know why did my fiancée get mad at me a few weeks ago because my meeting ran a little longer than anticipated, which almost caused us to lose our reservations (keyword: almost). But just because their religion teaches them to do something that you and I don’t agree with, doesn’t mean that they should be exterminated. Every religion has their fanatics – even the Christians. Ever hear of KKK? Another example…remember stem-cell research? The bill was stopped by Bush who believes that such research would be against the religion. F***, why don’t we just forget about science altogether and return to the dark ages? Can you imagine where we would have been right now had the Church not destroyed Archimedes Palimpsest . And then you tell me that their religion is the one that is f***ed up? They all are!

Then you talk about how they would be pissed off at the Americans because of the freedoms Americans enjoy, etc. Are you living in the 50’s and 60’s and still listening to those anti-communist commercials (that, by the way, would explain your statements like “we have the finest engineers in the world”)? That era is gone. Most countries have degrees of freedom which are higher than those enjoyed by the Americans. For example, remember just a few weeks ago when Top Gear visited America, how the Americans reacted to a simple “Hillary for President” written on a car? What happened to the freedom of the speech?

But we could spend years and years discussing these things. The bottom line is that neither race, religion or whatever are perfect. They all have their “fanatics” who believe in some, truly warped things, and trying to talk some sense into them would be the equivalent at shouting at a brick wall. That is why you don’t do the Indian bravery test on them.

Now, the “Satanic Verses. So, you’ve read the book. Have you? Honestly? I mean, perhaps I’m overanalyzing things, but based on that SIU FSAE signature, I’m guessing that you are in your mid-20’s, which would mean that 12-15 years ago, you would’ve been in your pre-teens. And for somebody who doesn’t seem to be up-to-date with the world events that had taken place before 9/11, you don’t strike me as somebody who would devote some of his free time to read a book about the people he hates so much…not to mention the fact that you’d have no clue what you were reading.

However, I don’t want to stray off-topic too much. You have asked me not to be so ambiguous and give you the specific examples about the U.S.’s wrongdoings. Well, there is the reason for my ambiguity…I was just testing the waters, trying to see who I was dealing with. Is it somebody who actively follows the geo-political issues on regular basis, or somebody who has been spoon-fed some b******t seen on Fox. Since you seem to belong to the latter group, seeing as how you have no idea what I was talking about, I will clarify. In March 1999, US started a war against (what is now) former Yugoslavia. It was the U.S.’s most recent pet project, part of their crusade which has one thing in mind – ridding the world of evil dictators who kill a couple of hundred of innocent civilians before breakfast – you know, just for kicks. Actually, the official reason was to stop the Yugoslavian forces from killing the ethnic Albanians in one of their provinces. But you see, this war was very confusing to me. On one hand, there is a Christian nation in Europe protecting its citizens from the Muslim terrorists who killing them (this is only 2 years before 9/11). On the other, you have the Muslims who are killing the Christians, who are funded by Osama. What the Yugoslavians did initially, in order to protect their citizens, was exactly the same as what you and Ray are now advocating…they’ve sent in the army to get rid of these terrorists. Of course, in process, the whole conflict had turned into a huge mess, innocent civilians were getting killed, people were fleeing their homes, etc. By the way, does this sound familiar?

So who does the U.S. do? Certainly, since you seem to think that all of Muslim population is only good for target practice, you’d think that they’d side with the Yugoslavians. But, they didn’t. They bombed the crap out of Yugoslavia for some 3 months, bombing power plants (cutting power to civilians in one of the major cities in Europe), destroying bridges so far north that they could not possibly have had any military value, causing an incredible amount of damage to all kinds of non-military infrastructure, not to mention the ecological impact generated with the use of the DU shells, or the bombings of the refineries, etc. Oh, and some 7000 people (Christians, by the way) found themselves in a group called the “collateral damage” on some pie chart.

Naturally, this got me confused. Six year prior to those bombings, the chief f***head tried to blow up the WTC. He failed that time. Five years later, he bombed two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. You’d thing that the U.S. would hate them. But, a year later, in March 1999, US decided to help the very same group (those Islamic extremists) who has been inflicting civilian casualties on them. Where is the sense? I mean, Yugoslavia was U.S.’s ally in World War II, and their president had said no to Stalin’s desire include his country in the Warsaw pact. Hell, just yesterday the UN had found Serbia ‘not guilty’ for the events that had taken place in Bosnia during the early 90’s (yes, I know that this last sentence is a completely different topic, and highly debatable). So, with all that in mind, why did the US support the same people who were getting funding from Osama? It just doesn’t make any sense!

Then I realize that it’s not supposed to make any sense, because during that period, US interests were elsewhere And that phrase, “U.S. interests”, is the key to understanding this whole thing. Ray might naively think that the war in Iraq was just an attempt to stop the madman (who turned out to be a woman, because he never had the b**ls to use those weapons, not even to defend himself) from using the WMD. So the threat was never really there, now, was it? If he didn’t use them to defend his own life, what would make you think that he’d use it for any other reason. Now, I can’t really provide Bush’s memo where it clearly states that its all about the oil, but I can use common sense to come to that conclusion. Here is how:
- US/UN imposed the embargo on Iraq (an oil laden country), only to change it so that certain trades are allowed – Iraq was to ship their oil in return for food and medicine – before you start telling me how that never worked, just to let you know, that is not the point. The point is that the US realized that Iraq has an ample supply of oil, which modern countries of the Western civilization so desperately need).
- This worked well for the US, the biggest consumer of oil. However, as long as Saddam was in power, it was impossible to guarantee the stability. So what do they do…they start a war, claiming that the war was due to their proofs that Saddam had the WMD’s.
- Well, no WMD’s were found, but with the US in control of the Iraqi government, at least the supply of oil is not a problem – hey, look how that worked out. Maybe that is why the extremist love targeting oil lines.

So, in essence, even it the war was truly about the WMD, which makes me wonder what is the purpose of CIA and how do they manage to f**k so many things up…even with their budget, it turns out that the US might benefit from having a new government, a government which will be more willing to cooperate with the states. So again – look how that worked out. And that constant “how will this benefit us” belief is the reason why U.S. tends to piss most of the world off. However, don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending those extremists who hate you. I think that they’re all idiots. But, all I’m saying is that you’re giving them the reason.

Fortunately, judging by the 2000 election results, at least 50% of America is smart, and judging by the recent polls, more and more of them are smartening up. I say “fortunately” because I’ve had the opportunity to live in it for about half-a-year, and it really can be a great place, so it’d be a shame if it continued in this downward spiral.

This is where I stop. (I can see people quoting this last sentence, replying to it with a simple “Thank you”). Not because I’m afraid of getting into an argument with you. I have no problem with that. I, actually, agree with Tom that this is no place for such discussions. I like this forum too much not to disrespect it by getting into retarded arguments over some things I cannot control. So, cheers!

[Giancarlo]

You see, that right there is part of the problem why the US is not so popular in the world. I tell you that you might offend some people by saying such things (possibly even some forum members as this is an international forum), and you respond by saying…yeah, well it’s true.

See the similarity? And since you did so much research on islam fashion, you would also know that what they are wearing is a 'burka' not a 'hajib'.

Picture this – you and your best friend had just returned from the war. Unfortunately, your friend had lost both of his legs in that war. Now, imagine me coming up to him and calling him legless…you’d (try to) drop me, right? Why? Because nobody wants to see his best friend treated like that. But, what if my argument was that what I said is, in fact, true…i.e. if I said that the word “legless” just means that he doesn’t have any legs – which would be true. You see, calling somebody an amputee or legless is the same thing (well, almost…amputee is much broader)…but which one do you prefer?

Saying that a certain group of people turn their women into slaves and make them dress like ninjas is quite different from a disabled war veteran. The vet VOLUNTEERED (unless he was drafted) and served his country, risking life and limb. Muslims on the other hand have a different take on individual freedoms and whatnot. Here's an example of what might happen if islam fashion police catch you: you get shot in the face! A women recently was shot in the face just before she was to give a speech - why? She refused to wear her head-scarf and according to the murderer - he was doing allah's work.

Now, comparing the conditions that some islamic women live in deserves another thread - hell - call it 'the human rights thread'. And you comparison to a disabled war veteran to a woman who wears a burka is mixing apples and a**holes. People do not go up to cripples and shoot them when they refuse to wear their prosthetic leg, a prosthetic leg is not part of a religion. A prosthetic leg is not part of any law nor is it a form of slavery. Alex Zanardi lost both legs, is still a kick-ass driver and now is even bigger hero. In the sandy-er parts of this world, people have gone up to others and have killed them b/c of a dress-code violation. All in the name of islam. You could compare a duck to a bowling ball all you want - that will never make your argument valid.

And no, I wouldn't beat you up if I was strolling along and you called my buddy a cripple or whatever, I wouldn't need to. Knowing my friends that have served, if they didn't have legs and you gave them a hard time about it or a hard time about being a Marine - they'd beat you with whatever appendages they have left until I pry them off of you. So no, I wouldn't beat you up nor would I ever care to.

Btw, I looked up the proper name of the clothing they wear and it’s called “hajib”…so that is the word I’d use if I was talking about women being covered-up…not refer to them as ninjas. It’s offensive.

If you 'really' looked it up, you'd notice that a hajib is only part of their fashion line.

Every religion has their fanatics – even the Christians.

Name one 'fanatic' Christian sect that runs an entire country in the same way islam does! The ayatollah calls the shots in Iran, not the sociopath giving all the speeches, and certainly not the people. Nations built on Christian values have tolerance and diversity - nations built on sharia law have violence and intolerance.

Another example…remember stem-cell research? The bill was stopped by Bush who believes that such research would be against the religion. F***, why don’t we just forget about science altogether and return to the dark ages?

Stem cell research is not the issue - embryonic stem cell research is the issue. So far, adult/mature stem cells are currently successful in curing ailments. But are they crying to get federal $ for research funding - no. They get LOTS of investment from the private sector and have no need for the government sticking its nose in and screwing share/bond holders. Embryonic stem cell research has found the cures for....wait for it....not quite yet....NOTHING! The reason they're screaming is b/c they can't find private investors b/c their research has only proved to be a waste. If there was any success possible for embryonic stem cell research, the private sector would HEAVILY invest in it. Since know one is investing - they want fed. money. There is also some issues that that concern Roe v. Wade...but we'll leave that out of here. The markets never lie - and the markets say embryonic stem cell research is not worth investing in. END OF STORY!

Can you imagine where we would have been right now had the Church not destroyed Archimedes Palimpsest . And then you tell me that their religion is the one that is f***ed up? They all are!

Saying that one religion made a mistake centuries ago does not excuse the actions of the leaders of another religion today. You have difficulty in making simple analogies and comparisons, but I think I know what you are trying to say: religion is the problem and every faith is wicked and evil. Well, IMO you're wrong. Religion isn't the problem, people just take it too damn seriously and leaders manipulate a piece of literary work to further their ambitions of power and control. Religion is not evil, quite the opposite. It's important to have some guidelines of ethical behavior and morals, but when religion goes wild...watch out. The teachings that belong in the 7th century should stay in the 7th century.

Then you talk about how they would be pissed off at the Americans because of the freedoms Americans enjoy, etc. Are you living in the 50’s and 60’s and still listening to those anti-communist commercials (that, by the way, would explain your statements like “we have the finest engineers in the world”)? That era is gone. Most countries have degrees of freedom which are higher than those enjoyed by the Americans. For example, remember just a few weeks ago when Top Gear visited America, how the Americans reacted to a simple “Hillary for President” written on a car? What happened to the freedom of the speech?

Freedom of speech does not have a hidden clause that says 'you can't be criticized back.' Using Top Gear as a model for human behavior is both irresponsible (its an entertainment show) and illogical. You say most countries have a degree of freedom higher than the US, well - who? In the UK, it would be unheard of owning a car when you're 17, in Canada if you seek medical treatment - you have to wait 6mo and you can't choose your doctor. In the US, you can (if you have ins.) My friend Sumir is a doctor and frequently sees Canadians for cancer treatment b/c they would rather pay and see a doctor in 6 days than have their income stripped away 'in the name of free heath care' and be forced to wait 6mo. to see a crappy doctor. Hmm. My Rushdie post points out the nations that say you can't have a book, in Russia you're poisoned is you speak out, and the list can go on. America is a country where everyday people can still get rich if they work hard. It's called 'The American Dream', ever hear of it?

But we could spend years and years discussing these things. The bottom line is that neither race, religion or whatever are perfect. They all have their “fanatics” who believe in some, truly warped things, and trying to talk some sense into them would be the equivalent at shouting at a brick wall. That is why you don’t do the Indian bravery test on them.

So is this advocating bombing their countries and killing all their political/religious leaders? B/C you can't talk to them, and you can't just leave them alone, so.....

Now, the “Satanic Verses. So, you’ve read the book. Have you? Honestly? I mean, perhaps I’m overanalyzing things, but based on that SIU FSAE signature, I’m guessing that you are in your mid-20’s, which would mean that 12-15 years ago, you would’ve been in your pre-teens.

I'm working on my 2nd degree after my former company closed and I was laid off. Now go to your bathroom, look in the mirror, and repeat the words "I am an ass"

And for somebody who doesn’t seem to be up-to-date with the world events that had taken place before 9/11, you don’t strike me as somebody who would devote some of his free time to read a book about the people he hates so much…not to mention the fact that you’d have no clue what you were reading.

You can't even grasp islamic fashion, guessed wrong on my age, don't have a clue on the stem cell issue, and you still think you can psychoanalyze me? Wow, get off your podium.

However, I don’t want to stray off-topic too much. You have asked me not to be so ambiguous and give you the specific examples about the U.S.’s wrongdoings. Well, there is the reason for my ambiguity…I was just testing the waters, trying to see who I was dealing with. Is it somebody who actively follows the geo-political issues on regular basis, or somebody who has been spoon-fed some b******t seen on Fox. Since you seem to belong to the latter group, seeing as how you have no idea what I was talking about, I will clarify. In March 1999, US started a war against (what is now) former Yugoslavia.

*On 24 March 1999, NATO saw its first broad-scale military engagement in the Kosovo War, where it waged an 11-week bombing campaign against what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. (wikipedia)

*NATO is comprised of 26 countries (currently)

You seem to suffer from either seeing history as you see fit or rewriting history as you see fit. In either case, data/historical records should lead you to your conclusions - HOWEVER - it seems that you came to a conclusion and substitute in false history or omit documented fact (NATO involvement) to re-affirm what you believe. And you said you are a man of science!

The rest of your remarks on the Kosovo war are moot. If you can't even identify the groups that were involved in the war (NATO) you cannot have logical argument on why the campaign was initiated. You believe that the US started everything and you will post whatever you see fit. Do some homework!

So who does the U.S. do? Certainly, since you seem to think that all of Muslim population is only good for target practice

You're putting words in my mouth. Find me a quote where I said 'all muslims must die'. Oh wait - you can't.

Naturally, this got me confused. Six year prior to those bombings, the chief f***head tried to blow up the WTC. He failed that time. Five years later, he bombed two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. You’d thing that the U.S. would hate them. But, a year later, in March 1999, US decided to help the very same group (those Islamic extremists) who has been inflicting civilian casualties on them.

There's a pattern of Clinton doing nothing concerning terrorism throughout his presidency. The only times action was ever taken was during his 'sexual relations' scandal. And even then, his military action was quite useless and cost the lives of brave and honorable men.

Where is the sense? I mean, Yugoslavia was U.S.’s ally in World War II,

With that logic, you can say that Germany/Japan/Italy were are enemies and should still be today. Alliances change just as friendships do - its a fact of life.

So, with all that in mind, why did the US support the same people who were getting funding from Osama? It just doesn’t make any sense!

Take your time, get your history correct, and ask me this question again. If you cannot understand or fail to recognize NATO, then I can only assume that your memory or the information you have obtained is incorrect. I will not respond until you can get the easy stuff right.

Now, I can’t really provide Bush’s memo where it clearly states that its all about the oil, but I can use common sense to come to that conclusion.

Oh this should be good!

Here is how:
- US/UN imposed the embargo on Iraq (an oil laden country), only to change it so that certain trades are allowed – Iraq was to ship their oil in return for food and medicine – before you start telling me how that never worked, just to let you know, that is not the point. The point is that the US realized that Iraq has an ample supply of oil, which modern countries of the Western civilization so desperately need).
- This worked well for the US, the biggest consumer of oil. However, as long as Saddam was in power, it was impossible to guarantee the stability. So what do they do…they start a war, claiming that the war was due to their proofs that Saddam had the WMD’s.
- Well, no WMD’s were found, but with the US in control of the Iraqi government, at least the supply of oil is not a problem – hey, look how that worked out. Maybe that is why the extremist love targeting oil lines.

I'm still looking for the common sense you promised. Saddam was in violations of agreements ever since the end of the Gulf War (well, just about). That alone is legal justification. Saddam sponsored terrorist cells w/in his country, and after the Bush Doctrine - that justifies the war. Saddam offered $25,000 to the families of anyone who killed a jew - IMO, that justifies war. Saddam was a mass-murdering f-head. The UN Oil for Food scandal exposed the incompetence of the UN and the motives of countries that we thought were A-OK. You can scream 'oil-oil-oil' until the cows come home, but until you see EVEY event instead of the events that lead you to your conclusion that "it's all 'bout oil", you'll never fully understand. Let the historical records take you to a conclusion - not your gut feelings.

So, in essence, even it the war was truly about the WMD,

'Global War on Terror' - do those words ring a bell or do you like chanting 'Bush Lied, Kids Died' instead? Stop jumping from one ill-founded conclusion to another.

which makes me wonder what is the purpose of CIA and how do they manage to f**k so many things up…even with their budget, it turns out that the US might benefit from having a new government, a government which will be more willing to cooperate with the states.

Anything the gov can do - the private sector can do better and for less money. The problem with these elected officials is that they have too much greed - they need to get their hands in everyone's business. This was the problem with the CIA/FBI: Clinton put forth red-tape and road-blocks for inter-agency communications. Some of those limitations are now gone - others are still around. You can see this today with congress trying to run the war as they see fit and not how the generals see fit. They want to be part of everything, but in the process, people who are well qualified for their jobs cannot do so. I have no love for politicians.

But the point is, and you hit it on the head, the government is the problem. You might just be a Reagan Republican after all!

[Ray]

Yet again, another claim that we went to Iraq for the oil, and no fact to support this. Will everyone that has said that military action in Iraq was for the sole purpose of the US to take over their oil resources explain why our oil prices haven't gone down? If we really are pumping it out of the ground and sending it here, the prices would have fallen.

That's because you don't have the region under control.

I'm really effin tired of hearing this in forms from a joke to a declaration without proof.

Proofs? I can spend days talking about the US alleged proofs (not just in Iraq), but that would be pointless and time consuming.

Okay, so I ask you to bring me facts that the military took oil rigs by force, and that we are employing workers form here to pump it out of the ground, and you can't back it up. If you can't back it up with proven facts from a source other than Wikipedia, not that you have, don't say things like that.

I want to know exactly how you figure out that it's not 'dangerous' anymore. Take the lid off and sniff it?

No, there are labs for that. Chemicals have their expiration dates...just go to your medicine cabinet, take out your bottle of Tylenol, and you'll see.

And I bet you a vast amount of money, those guys that tested that stuff weren't wearing t-shirts when they did it. They had no idea it was bad until after they tested it. They wore the protective suits, and they point the finger afterwards like "duh, you idiot, you should have known they were no good." That's the mentality of the people who do things like that. They try their best to turn something around on people. Both sides of our political party are that way.

I personally think that all those weapons are either buried in the middle of the deserts out there, or in Syria.

Well, then its time to attack Syria, then. Oh, weren't you the one who said that we shouldn't make statements for which we have no proof.

I'm not the first one to think so. I think they are there cause they shot at one of our 47's (or a Chinook to you, a shithook to me) almost ten miles inside Iraq airspace. The helo was running parallel to their border searching for smugglers and they shot at them unprovcated. Or in other words, no reason to come and shoot at a helicopter that wasn't violating their airspace. So I think they have something to hide. You don't accidentally fly ten miles into someones airspace (ILLEGALLY!!!!, where's your argument for that?) and almost shoot them down. Only the US Army is that good at friendly fire. That's my proof.

I've seen ENTIRE MiG-29s buried full of ordnance and fuel buried in the sand out there, so I'm suspicious that they are there somewhere, but we are too busy screwing things up trying to control a civil war.

Here is something for you to think about. If they were really ready to use those weapons, don't you think that they would've done so when the invasion begun (just don't tell me that MiG-29 were incapable of taking-off due to the lack of usable airports).

Actually Mr. Smarty Pants, that's EXACTLY why they weren't used. THEY destroyed their runways so we couldn't use them. Afterwards we fixed the runways for our use. The airbase I was on had a crater in the left runway about 30 feet across and over ten feet deep. That and their aircraft are not well maintained at all, and only a few of them looked serviceable. You think you know everything about the war, you obviously don't. You think you are so smart and make cute little comments, without thinking that statement through. Why do you think they would bury an airplane? They couldn't use it, knew it wasn't good enough, wasn't ready for flight, or any number of reasons. So they buried it in hopes we wouldn't find them, or what ever crazy reason they thought of.

So quit being a smartass, do some real research instead of believing what you hear in the media, and think through your questions. Remember I've seen things you haven't, and you will never hear about from either the conservatives or liberals. For instance, I bet you with your vast knowledge, that there is French, Chinese, and Russian ordnance in our enemies hands? All of it BRAND NEW IN THE WRAPPERS. Wonder who sold them that?

And if you think peaceful negotiations are the answer, you are both wrong and right.

Who said negotiations...over what? Leave them alone, and they will leave you alone...simple as that. You don't hear about (example) Mexico, Peru, Dominican Republic, etc., being bombed by Al Qaeda.

It will work if your enemy is willing to do the same. If not, the only answer is pummeling them until their will is broken.

I am sorry, but I didn't mean this in this particular case. I'll be clearer next time. I wasn't using this war as an example, just being general. I think of it as a bar fight. If some guy wants to fight you, do you back down and negotiate with him, or do you kick his ass? I'm going for a defensive posture if he doesn't look like the agreeable type, if he is willing to not fight, I'm all for that. It seems to me that everyone thinks I like to fight, I don't. No one hates war than those who have fought in it. Remember that.

Yet another example of the American (republican) democracy...I guess you're only free to think what you want as long as you think like Bush, right?

You again don't read. I HAVE NEVER said I liked Bush. Show me ONE instance I have supported this war without a GOOD reason, or supported Bush. You people that bash people that sound like they like Bush are a broken record. When will you, and those that support Bush, realize our politicians are the same animal in different clothing. They get the two sides to bicker, then split them down the middle. Divide and conquer. Name me one Democrat or Republican that has been true to their word and made this country a better place. Things that YOU F1redbaron have benefitted from. I can think of a thousand politicians that would do a better job. Democrats and Republicans have been in power way too long, we need a change.

I don't think we should have gone into Iraq at all. But we are there and we have to do something to fix what we messed up.

I agree...the best thing to do is to leave.

I'm don't know exactly what to do about this war, you have me there.

As far as the attacks from Islamic crazies out there, if they hate the government so much, why did they kill innocent civilians?

That is the thing...they don't see them as innocent civilians. Yes, I agree, its f****** retarded, but they think that those are the same people who put the man who is now bombing them, in power. Besides, US does it too. They call them "the collateral damage".

So we should just let it slide then? They killed 3000 of our people, innocent people remember, and we should just let it go because they made a slight error? You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. They hit those buildings and killed those innocents civilians because they knew it would be more of a physcological impact than killing our President. They killed those people ON PURPOSE. Reason? Without a doubt, killing women and children are more saddening than killing a serviceman. They also know, without resorting to guerilla warfare, they CANNOT beat the US military. Never in a million years. So they attack defensless civilians. No make a statement, 'we know what hurts you the most, killing the innocent.' This has happened before with these same people. Remember the WTC bombing in 1993? Not a military base, a civilian hotbed. Argue all you want, they target civilians because it's a bigger physcological impact and they don't shoot back. Simple really.

AS for your stupid remark about collateral damage, I know exactly what kind of person you are now. You are just as brainwashed by the media as I thought. You have no clue how hard the US military works in order to NOT hit an innocent civilian. Ever heard of the Rules of Engagement. Those very rules get more innocent civilians, and our guys killed than enemy fire. But you don't have any clue about that, cause you weren't informed nor did you do any research on that fact. When you have some inkling of how a war is fought, militarily, physically and mentally will you understand what I am talking about.

They attacked British civilians and Spanish civilians. Whom never fired a shot at them, yet they murdered them in cold blood for insane religious reasons.

Oh? British civilians were killed because their gov't decided to help the U.S. gov't. So, because of W's policies, British are now in ---. Take the French for example...were they bombed? As for Spain, Spain also had the troops in Iraq. But it should be pointed out that the ETA was heavily involved in those attacks.

Soooooooo, Tony Blair didn't give the order huh? I guess it's our fault GWB had his arm wrenched around and made him do it huh? Petty shame a grown man can't make his own decisions isn't it? They aren't getting out of it now huh? So why did they go in the first place? Oh yeah, according to you Tony Blair can't think for himself, or GWB has some kind of ray gun that makes people do what he wants. GWB policies! Please. You are as brainwashed on the left as the ones on the right are.

Besides, that's not a justification to kill innocent civilians, but then again they are the masters at killing innocents and our news media ooozes sympathy for them. They did it in Vietnam and they are doing it now. We do our damdest to not hurt civilians, and the bad apples that do are swiftly punished. There are more guys in the brig than I'd care to count for killing a civilian, accidental, mistake, or on purpose. But you don't know about that, cause no one told you. Ever heard of the Pendelton Eight. If you'd like to hear that story let me know. How many of their guys do you know of that are punished for setting off car bombs and killing 70 innocent men, women, and children? Huh? What's that you say? None? Exactly.

Ray might naively think that the war in Iraq was just an attempt to stop the madman (who turned out to be a woman, because he never had the b**ls to use those weapons, not even to defend himself) from using the WMD.

So by the wording of that sentence, you convey that he DID in fact have the weapons we were looking for. So which is it, he did or didn't have them? But it must be a mistake, you saying that as an example of why he's a woman. Sorry for the mistake?


Before you stupidly call me naive, I've NEVER SUPPORTED STARTING THE WAR IN IRAQ!! I just counterpoint all the things you say that aren't true. Be it your ignorance, lack of understanding, lack of knowledge, incompetence, or whatever. I have never agreed with you more we shouldn't be there. If you can show me one instance where I have, you will get my humble apology. Let the mighty UN, that liberals love so much, fix the problems they created. With our help if course. You continue to say things like that and they aren't true. Quit putting words in my mouth, it's getting old. And it's making you look bad too.

Last point

- US/UN imposed the embargo on Iraq (an oil laden country), only to change it so that certain trades are allowed – Iraq was to ship their oil in return for food and medicine – before you start telling me how that never worked, just to let you know, that is not the point. The point is that the US realized that Iraq has an ample supply of oil, which modern countries of the Western civilization so desperately need).

Here's an example of your hatred for President Bush. You completely leave out the Oil for Food scandal that rocked the whole UN. Who was responsible? Koffi Anon, his son, the UN security Council, and on and on. Yet you still somehow blame President Bush. HE WASN'T EVEN IN OFFICE WHEN THE WHOLE THING STARTED YOU IDIOT! Clinton was. How can you blame a scandal on him if he wasn't around? You're brainwashed that's how.

[bhall]

Anything the gov can do - the private sector can do better and for less money.

Medicare is cheaper and more efficiently run than private insurance companies. Look it up.

The problem with these elected officials is that they have too much greed - they need to get their hands in everyone's business. This was the problem with the CIA/FBI: Clinton put forth red-tape and road-blocks for inter-agency communications. Some of those limitations are now gone - others are still around.

The CIA was created to exist in a vacuum so as to have no interference or influence from outside sources. This is why the CIA headquarters is in Langley, VA rather than metro D.C. with everything else. It was done on purpose to prevent exactly what happened during the lead-up to Iraq War II when Cheney and his cronies like Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton cherrypicked intelligence to support the cause for war. Look it up and see for yourself just how many CIA "lifers" are happy with being folded into the DHS. And be very, very afraid if the CIA and FBI cooperate too much on anything, as they have entirely different constitutional jurisdictions.

You can see this today with congress trying to run the war as they see fit and not how the generals see fit. They want to be part of everything, but in the process, people who are well qualified for their jobs cannot do so. I have no love for politicians.

I have no love for recent revisionist history. Why is it such a problem now that commanders on the ground are seemingly being ignored? It didn't seem to matter when the GOP was in charge of it all. Generals asked for more troops, more armor and better treatment of returning vets. The GOP-led Congress and W denied them ON EVERY OCCASION. Look it up.

I applaud the attempt by Congress to reign in W's war powers because they are ILLEGAL. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution places the authority to declare war with the Congress and no one else. It was a mistake for Congress to give the president war powers leading up to Vietnam in the War Powers Act. It's about time that power be reclaimed in the way the Framers saw fit.

Neo-conservatism is dead.

[manchild]

I hope that Giancarlo has no doubt that woman in Islam countries are not dressing like that because they like but because they are living in constant fear from dominant male population from childhood till death. Man make them dress up like that, man can kill them when they don't like them anymore, man don't give them rights they enjoy, man treat them like cattle and pleasure and reproductive machine. Woman in Islam countries are slaves, slaving away they whole life. It is my opinion that civilized west should have primary goal in destroying such societies just as it stood against apartheid, slavery... if you want it - just as North stood against slavery in the South.

Yugoslavia was U.S.’s ally in World War II,

Officially and technically speaking that is not the truth.

1. October 1940, Yugoslavia introduces anti-Jewish laws.

2. March 25, 1941 in Vienna, Prince Paul (Pavle), Regent of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, signed the Tripartite Pact with Hitler.

3. March 27. 1941, after demonstrations held the regime was overthrown by a military coup d'état with British support, and the 18-year-old King Peter II of Yugoslavia seized power but declared that Yugoslavia would adhere to the Tripartite Pact.

4. April 6. 1941, Germany attacked Yugoslavia

5. April 17. 1941, Yugoslavia capitulated

From April 17th 1941 till 1945 there was no Yugoslavia since it fell apart and all official local regimes were on the side of powers of axis. However there were several different guerrillas that had contacts with allies but as much as they fought powers of axis they also fought for their own religious-ethic and ideological causes turning Balkans into bloodbath. Kingdom of Yugoslavia wasn't restored as communist partisans with the help of USSR took control over whole territory and turned it into communist dictatorship.

So officially, neither kingdom of Yugoslavia and neither communist Yugoslavia was ever ally of allies during WWII. The only alliance was those short-term between kingdom of Yugoslavia and powers of axis just as its all regional governments were.

Allies did send special envoys to get in touch with guerrillas and that did result in some deals and material help to some of guerrilla but one of guerrillas - the communists partisans never officially took power/formed government before WWII was over.

When people call upon alliance between Yugoslavia and allies during WWII they rely on that cooperation of communist partisans and allies but communist partisans were not in power and they did not represent all citizens of kingdom that fell apart but only themselves and their sympathizers.

The way they took power after WWII ended was as bloody as it always is in such cases. Number of killings of local population in certain parts of Yugoslavia by partisans after liberation exceeded killings of fascists during WWII on large scale with identical use of fascistic methods like deportations, mass executions and death by exhaustion and diseases in concentration camps built by partisans after they took control.

[Ray]

]

Medicare is cheaper and more efficiently run than private insurance companies. Look it up.

And how much is Hillarys' wonderful govt heallthcare plan gonna cost us to pay for it. They don't want people that don't have healthcare to have it, they want EVERYONE to have it. Socialism at it's finest. Who the hell are they to tell me what doctor I have to go to. Who the hell are they to tell me I have to pay more in illegal taxes(income tax and others) for someone else to have shi**y healthcare? What is it their business in telling me anything that is my responsibility? I know people don't have it, and they need it, but to take from me and give to someone else is wrong, you know like STEALING. I think that we should help those people, but not steal from others so they can have it. Robin Hood is a fairy tale and it should remain that way.

The neoconservatism comments are funny as hell to me. The term 'neo-con' was originally about liberals, but I bet about 99% of liberals don't know that. You guys are fighting with each other over who is right and who needs to be in power instead of shutting up and fixing things. You can point the finger at whomever, but you are both the problem. No ones doing anything. Jeez we are screwed cause people are too stupid to see past the end of their ego.

[West]

I don't like politics, especially on an F1 thread, but this woman pretty much sums what I believe. Her name is Wafa Sultan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Negt6IzxPTo

The problem with Islam in this country is that I haven't heard many Islamic leaders in the U.S. publicly or nationally denounce the kind of Islam practiced in the Middle East. Take Fox News as it is, but an interview with a cleric or imam proved fruitless. It's on Youtube called "Radical Islam." Anyway, E.D. Hill of Fox asks him why Muslims in this country don't denounce these acts, and he pretty much just gives a cop-out. Her response is "I think it's because people are threatened with death if they say anything."

The other problem US citizens have is that the people over there think it's their god's will to kill us, and they will be rewarded for living in their poorly-ran countries. Personally, when those cartoons came out last year, I thought it was bogus that these people's reactions was to burn down embassies and blame the West, as usual. Then you have people with signs saying "death to those who insult Islam" and "Islam is a peaceful religion." Remember when the Pope made comments regarding Islam, on his trip to Turkey? Muslims demanded an apology and again blamed the United States.

There's also groups like the MSU at my college (UCI) that promote Palestianian suicide bombings and anti-semetic dialogue. The fact that they state "we will protest in our own way... and let our brothers overseas protest in their way" is kinda scary. And retarded.

It might not be brainwashing to Muslims in the Middle East, but seeing kids on TV over there saying sh*t like "I want to kill Jews" and local clerics stating that Jews are naturally enemies makes me sick. You can see all kinds of stuff like this on YouTube as well, but I like to go to http://www.memri.org.

In summary, the Middle East is f*cked up; invading Iraq just increased the exposure of how much Muslims really hate us. Instead of trying to make their countries better, it looks like they would rather blame the US or Europe instead of actually looking around and saying we live in a sh*t hole. Killing seems to be the only solution - people are rewarded for just thinking about it. For example, I've seen videos of Muslims in Afghanistan just yelling "Allah Akbar" for firing SA-7s that don't even destroy aircraft. They cheer anything remotely violent against us, and when we fight back and kill them in acts of self-defense, they would like to say we are the aggressors and blah blah blah.

Obviously this post didn't have a lot of sources but it was an opinionated post... sometimes if I have to chill the f*ck out about the Middle East I just go here:

http://www.you-got-mail.com (beware not work safe)

Some will find it of really poor taste, but again the opinions seem very funny. Maybe I just have a weird sense of humor

[manchild]

Ray, even the greatest evils had some good in them. Socialism was one of those evils but free health care for all was one of the good things. It worked very simple - from everyone's paycheck same amount was taken and placed into health care fund. So when you get ill government paid costs of treatment from fund no matter how high they are.

No ones paycheck was burdened very much with that form of tax and it gave a peace of mind and security to everyone regardless on material status. And don't be fooled by movies or "urban legends" about socialism; there were people in socialist countries who had villas, several apartments or houses, most expensive cars etc. Differences were not as high as in capitalism, but they surely existed.

As a US citizen if you're a rich man you can say I don't give a *hit about poor who can't afford to pay BUT if as Declaration of independence says "all man are created equal" and if all citizens of US are treated as equal when they are forced by federal government to pay taxes than federal government should take care for the health of each of its citizen no matter what his material status is.

Federal government collects billions of dollars to blow them of foreign wars so if it wants to be considered as civilized, humane and democratic than it must set priorities straight. Blowing 1 million $ on a single Tomahawk or 2 bil $ on a single B2 bomber is just blowing.

Practically, federal government cares more how efficient will it kill someone 10.000 miles away than how many US citizens could be healed, fed, educated and employed with those astronomical sums they blow away every year.

I hope you notice I've spoken against government for the sake of US citizens. Those two are not the same thing to me.

[Ray]

I agree totally Manchild. We are spending money on things we shouldn't. I know that. But to FORCE somone to pay for something they don't want is wrong. I don't want government healthcare. I don't want to depend solely on the goverment for anything. They have more red tape and looholes than any private anyting. I've said repeatedly I don't like how our government is run. We create problems and then try to fix them. And I think that it's for money than anything else. We do bad things, but we do good things too. That's why I get upset that opinions of the US are largely about the bad and not the good. We have more freedom than the average person knows what to do with, or how to use it effectively.

[Giancarlo]

Medicare is cheaper and more efficiently run than private insurance companies. Look it up.

You posted that, now back up your claim and post where everyone participating in this thread can see the basis of that statement.

The CIA was created to exist in a vacuum... Look it up and see for yourself ...

Why don't you spare all us the time and post EXACTLY where that information can be found. Stop trying to make this all about whatever grudge you have against myself and put forth information so ALL CAN SEE AND MAKE UP THEIR OWN MIND!

It didn't seem to matter when the GOP was in charge of it all...Look it up.

Anyone seeing a pattern?

I applaud the attempt by Congress to reign in W's war powers because they are ILLEGAL. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution places the authority to declare war with the Congress and no one else.

After combat operations against Iraqi forces ended on February 28, 1991, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions remained a War Powers issue, until the enactment of P.L. 107-243, in October 2002, which explicitly authorized the President to use force against Iraq, an authority he exercised in March 2003, and continues to exercise for military operations in Iraq. (wikipedia)

With most things, the details is what matters. According to P.L. 107-243, the action against Iraq is LEGAL! Sorry, you lose... Congress voted and law was passed.

Here it is: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/17330.pdf

Go ahead, read it... Its pretty clear: the war was justified.

Public Law 107-243

(H.J.Res. 114). To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
against Iraq. Authorized the President to use armed force to defend
the national security of the United States against the threat posed by
Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq.
Became public law: October 16, 2002

House Resolution 322:

Supported the pursuit of peaceful and diplomatic efforts in seeking
Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions
regarding the destruction of Iraq’s capability to deliver and produce
CRS-4 weapons of mass destruction. However, if such efforts fail,
“multilateral military action or unilateral military action should be
taken.” Passed in the House: November 13, 1997

House Resolution 612:

Reaffirmed that it should be the policy of the United States to
support efforts to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and
to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime. Passed in the House: December 17, 1998

But I guess those are all lies too huh?

Neo-conservatism is dead.

As long as people buy homes, get jobs, pay taxes, and want to improve themselves - conservative values and philosophy are not going anywhere...unless you live in San Fran.

[Ray]

Who then, is the all knowing one about politics?

That would be me.

Damn beat me to it!

I will write a response soon, don't have the time to think it through right now. But I hope we are making each other mad with this debate. People are sensitive about this stuff.

YIKES!!! I just realized I made a grammatical error. I meant that I hope we aren't making each other mad. Oops! [/i]