Why do we send people to jail that are at most causing loss of revenues for a certain industry?... Why not just fine him for every copy he sent out? $1000/upload sounds like it would be more fit for the crime.
Can't get blood from a stone. And why $1000 per upload? Why not $1 per upload? Isn't that more in line with the actual damage? Ok, let's do triple damages then. $3 per upload. Of course they still need a way to track how many uploads you've done. And I suppose there's no reason they couldn't just sit around and track you for a good long while before they turn you in, just to scale up the damages.
I'd like them to get back to me on this one after they finish banning cigarettes, alcohol, television, violent movies, exercise, and chocolate. Then maybe I'll take them seriously. (Actually by that time they'll all have been tossed out of office and I won't have to worry about it. Neat, huh?)
For the record, three (3) separate installs took place on opening day among various computers in the possession of myself an my roommates. No hitches, nothing took more than 40 minutes... reasonable, for a game that comes on five (5) CDs.
What difference does that make to those of us who had to spend over 4 hours waiting for Valve to get their shit together enough that we could even connect? I started installing at 2pm CST. Couldn't connect to Steam until after 5pm, and then had to wait about an hour for whatever it was that Steam had to do.
Did you, or did you not, purchase Half-Life the first day it was on sale? Mmkay, then. If you want less of an effort *wait a week*.
So what? If Valve couldn't support its users, then they should have put a warning on the box saying that you may want to wait a week to buy the game. I don't recall seeing any such warning. They took my money, they should damn well be providing the service. If they couldn't provide the service, then they shouldn't have required authentication for offline play in the first place!
Who doesn't? That's capitalism and completely normal.
I'm not saying that they aren't capitalists. I'm saying that they aren't really our allies. They want to sell us oil, and we want to buy their oil. Beyond that, we don't share many interests.
How much do we really do to stop organizations that may obtain money in the U.S. for their causes at home around the world? I'm not talking about Islamic extremists. I'm talking about Colombian rebels, IRA, etc. How much did we really do prior to 9/11?
Honestly, I really don't know how much we did. As I recall, there was usually a lot of noise and head shaking whenever the IRA blew people up, but beyond that I don't remember us taking much action aside from trying to get both sides to sit down and work things out. Of course if you're going to rationalize in that way for the Saudis and the US, then you should do so for Iraq as well and forgive the fact that some terrorists were hanging out there. Once that is done, there is basically no connection between Iraq and the WoT anymore.
They were reasons that the administration made. They just didn't receive as much press as the WMD issue. That may be the administration's fault or it may be a sensationalist media's fault or a combination of the two. But WMDs was definitely not the only reason given by the administration.
It is most definitely the administrations fault. Whenever Bush, Rumsfeld, or Rice were giving their little talks to drum up support, they always focused on WMDs, alleged links to Al-Qaida and terrorism in general, the fact that Saddam is a bad bad man who kills his own people (conveniently forgetting to mention that we were supporting him before, during and after he committed those attrocities), etc. They claimed over and over that this was part of the WoT and that they were going to attack Iraq as part of their strategy to stamp out terrorism wherever they may find it. They hardly ever mentioned anything else. Why? Because nothing gets people's support like telling them that they are in danger. Politics of fear anyone?
I guess I don't care whether something is under the umbrella of the war on terror or not and I'm not going to get all pissed off at the administration for, at worst, mislabeling the war. We all knew (or should have) what was at stake and all the reasons for it. What you want to call it is rather superficial.
Not just mislabelling, but misleading us entirely about the reasons for it. We know that our intelligence services failed us, but that's only half of it. When you only listen to what you want to hear, then you are just as much to blame. There were many dissenters debunking the info that Bush was basing his decision on. He just refused to listen to them.
Well then there's corruption at the U.N. because the U.N. itself has the double-standards I already mentioned.
Don't pretend it's just the U.N. The US is just as guilty. We're the ones that always stand in the way of any sort of sanctions against Israel.
Maybe. But he only had a mandate to remove Saddam from Kuwait, not to remove him from power. And the threat of WMDs back then probably was much higher than today so there may have been a very real risk of the invading forces being hit my chemcial weapons. It also wouldn't have been necessary to remove Saddam if he had complied with the resolutions and cease-fire he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
Considering that they were claiming that the threat of WMDs was high (imminent even) this time as well, and we went in anyway, what's the difference? And since the US goes against the U.N. all the time, why should they have cared whether the U.N. supported their decision to take Saddam down? He was just as bad a man then as he is now, so why expect him to comply with anything? We knew him better than just about anyone else, so we should have known better.
Short of asking Bush what his line of reasoning was and trusting his answe
Don't go saying it's 'fraud' when it easily could be either underhanded political trickery or bumbling bureaucratic idiocy.
I don't think you understood my post. The things that are talked about in the article I linked to are almost certainly some form of fraud. As for the machines and discrepancies between the exit polls (which are historically significantly more accurate than they were during this election), I merely said that it bears investigating. This is both due to the degree of error and the fact that from what we've seen of the machines so far, they are FAR from being reliable enough to be trusted with an election.
I just wish there wasn't so much grandstanding about fraud when any irregularity shows up..
Well there has been quite a bit of fraud, but we don't yet know if the machines were compromised as well. Knowing what I do about the machines and such systems in general, and the numbers I've seen comparing exit polls and actual results, there is certainly ample reason to suspect that many of them malfunctioned or were manipulated. I'd like to see a serious investigation done before the next election.
Saudi's government was not hostile to the United States. It's the closest thing we have to a major ally in the area, not to mention its oil production (no, I won't pretend that's not a factor... it's been a factor for every administration in recent memory).
The Saudi's are anything but an ally. We need their oil. They try to make as much money off of us as they can without killing the goose. While the Saudi government doesn't officially support terrorists, there are plenty of people within that government and the private sector that do. We know it. They know it. They just chose not to do anything about it. At least not until recently when they started getting hit as well. Then they realized that playing with extremists is a bit like playing with fire.
The legal basis is there. They violated the terms of the cease-fire and multiple U.N. resolutions regarding arms inspectors. They fired almost daily on aircraft patrolling the U.N.-authorized no-fly zone: That's an act of war right there. And it's not that Iraq was an imminent threat against Kuwait, it's that Saddam had proven himself to be an ongoing destabilizing player in the region. Of Iraq's 5 neighbors, Saddam had attacked 2 and lobbed SCUDs over a third to try to provoke Israel.
Fine. But those are not the arguments that Bush made when he was trying to sell us on the idea of invading Iraq. I'm not arguing that there was no reason at all to invade Iraq. I'm just saying that there was no reason to try to connect it to the War on Terror. He was just using the WoT to gain support for going to war against Iraq. All of his reasons that were tied to terrorism turned out to be BS.
I understand that there are double-standards in the world. That's reality. Don't try to blame that on Bush.
I'm not blaming him for double-standards. I'm just pointing out that the argument that Iraq's violation of UN resolutions is grounds for invasion is garbage. Selective enforcement is a sign of corruption.
It's something that Clinton should have done in 1998 if he had any balls. It was a pending issue and it was time to finish the game.
It's something that the elder Bush should have finished when he had the chance too. None of that matters now though. Maybe Bush should have listened more closely to those that were telling him he didn't have enough troops though. He could have saved himself some grief, and maybe a lot of lives as well.
That's not a politician's job. Every politician is going to make the case for what he thinks is the best course of action. It is the responsibility of the opposition and the press to question the case that is made. A leader leads by instilling confidence, not by creating doubt. There is doubt in everything but no leader is ever going to get anything done if he publically questions his own decisions before he even makes them. Please...
Problem with that is that not everyone is allowed to have all the information in a timely fashion. This creates the situation where we find out later what information the President had, and what he was not telling us about. Now I'm really not sure, given everything that he knew and/or should have known, whether he's a liar or an idiot, or both. I do know who is paying the price for it though. I'm beginning to think that it should be a requirement for politicians to have their own children in combat units in order to vote on whether to go to war or not. Most of the Bush administration has never even served in the military, let alone in combat roles.
France (as far as we know, heheh) and Mexico didn't have anything to do with 9/11 either, but somehow it makes more sense to invade them than Iraq which has a history of destabilizing the region, using WMDs on their own people, engaging in mass executions, and not cooperating with the U.N.? See, this is why the liberals lost the elections. Their position doesn't make any sense.
That's one way to look at it, but you implied that Iraq was a hotbed of terrorist activity, which is complete BS. Aside from a handful, there weren't any that we know of. Again, Saudi Arabia would have been a much more logical target if you're trying to stamp out terrorism.
The difference is that rank and file liberals are seriously arrogant and think they are somehow superior just because they don't like Bush. Likewise they think people who voted for Bush were duped, corporate pawns, etc. You need look no further than some of the responses to my posts here to see what I'm talking about.
There's absolutely no difference between the things that the left was calling the right and the things that the right was calling the left. You're just listening selectively. Both sides have been railing at each other.
678 and 687. More information here.
So the best argument they have is that Saddam is still a threat to Kuwait? That's why we invaded? You guys are REALLY grasping at straws, aren't you? You combine several bullshit reasons and call it a strong legal basis for invading another country. Unbelievable.
So now you are comparing the U.S. to Iraq? Sorry, I don't follow your logic...
Well, you said that Iraq's violations of UN resolutions was grounds for invasion. I'm simply saying that the US has violating quite a few as well. And if you want an even better example, Israel has violated more UN resolutions than anyone, yet we aren't invading them. So your argument was completely bogus.
There is no evidence he ignored evidence for or against. On balance he decided that it would be prudent to move forward.
Yep, because it's what he wanted to do. Between fabricated evidence (think Nigeria), and selectively ignoring statements by many experts, he picked and chose the evidence that he wanted to present to the American people. He didn't tell us about the fact that there was other evidence that didn't support his position, or that there was a lot of disagreement about the evidence he was presenting. He made it seem like it was an open and shut case. No doubts at all. He's a liar. Plain and simple.
So we should attack every country from which people who commit crimes against the U.S. come? Should we attack Mexico because dozens of Mexicans have killed dozens of Americans? That sounds even more irrational than what you accuse Bush of.
Nope. But it makes a hell of a lot more sense than invading Iraq, which had nothing at all to do with 9-11. If you're going to fight a war on terror, then you should attack those that are terrorists, and those that fund terrorists. Saudi Arabia has more of both than just about anywhere else, excepting Afghanistan. Certainly they are more of a threat to us than Iraq. Oh, and the Mexican comment was just plain stupid. I think you're probably smart enough to realize the difference between simple murders and terrorist attacks. Right?
Can you provide evidence that Bush is any more a buddy with the Saudis than any other recent president, including Clinton?
Didn't say anything about him being more of a buddy than Clinton. Clinton isn't the president, so I don't give a damn if Clinton was buddies with the Saudis too. That was before 9-11 and if he had turned his back on the problem I'd be pissed about that too. Fact remains that we won't invade Saudi Arabia despite the fact that that's where many of the terrorists and a lot of the money comes from.
Ok, so like he said. Conservatives believe in the law of the jungle as the basis of their principles. You're saying that there is no legitimate international lawmaking body in the world, so anything goes. Why then do you support Bush and all the bullshit rhetoric he spews about terrorists and rogue nations and illegal attacks on the US, etc?
Sure, there's a problem with terrorists in Iraq but I'd rather the terrorists be busy there than in our country. Plus that is to be expected when you hit the hornet's nest.
If you'll recall, the vast majority of the "terrorists" in Iraq weren't there until we invaded. Then they flocked from all over to defend Iraq/attack the US.
That kind of condescending extremism is also part of why Bush won.
Give me a break? The right isn't arrogant and condescending? Have you listened to any of the conservative mouthpieces? Limbaugh? O'Reilly? Coulter? They don't get anymore arrogant, condescending and downright venemous than those people. Could you possibly be any more hypocritical?
1. The invasion wasn't illegal. It was supported by previous U.N. resolutions stretching back over a decade.
Bullshit. The US has violated quite a few UN resolutions as well. Don't see anyone invading us. And which resolution, exactly, authorized an invasion?
2. It has been shown that Bush received information that was incorrect and based his decisions on that bad information. Hence the allegation that he invaded based on "false pretenses" is simply false. I'll accept "he invaded based on bad information", but even so it was fully legal and warranted under previous U.N. resolutions.
Again, bullshit. He picked and chose the people he wanted to listen to. He took just the interpretations of data that supported his desire to invade Iraq. He didn't listen to those that gave contradictory info and interpretations (that surprise surprise, turned out to be correct in many cases). What the hell are we invading Iraq for? Iran has an active nuke program. Saudi Arabia is the place where most of the 9-11 hijackers came from and that we know funds a lot of terrorist organizations. They are (were) second only to Afghanistan in their harsh treatment of women. Oh yeah, but Bush is buddies with the Saudis. Can't invade them.
You could be right but the longer you are in the minority the more statistically improbable that becomes.
Yet another ridiculous statement. You act as if no group that is in the wrong ever lasts very long. History can prove that statement wrong over and over and over.
Illegal how? Precisely? The Congress of the United States authorized the use of force. I'm sure you'll argue that it was illegal due to some international law we somehow violated. The United States is a sovereign nation. We can make war on whomever we wish.
I think that's exactly what he was talking about when he said that conservatives use the "law of the jungle" as the bedrock of their principles. So, by your logic, 9-11 was completely legal and legitimate, right? They can make war on whomever they wish?
Dictionary.com lists the following definition of "establish" wrt religion: "To make a state institution of (a church)." None of the religious institutions in the United states can be considered a state institution, in the sense that the Church of England is established in the United Kingdom, or the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece.
One could make the argument that by adopting only christian rituals, texts, and ideas, the state is making christianity the defacto religion of the state. This is why it is best if the government simply leaves religion alone and shows no preferences. There was really no need for them to add religious wording to our money or our pledge back in the 50s. It was a case of tyranny of the majority. They did it and got away with it because christians outnumber non-christians in this country.
They were probably balanced out by the criminal and borderline criminal acts the Democrats engaged in prior to the election.
Umm, actually no, they weren't. Read about it here. You may want to skip about 2/3s of the way down the page to this part:
This is the way these stories go. Both sides make charges that seem roughly the same. But on this issue, there is a qualitative difference between Democrats and Republicans. I called both camps and asked them to give me their worst stuff about the other side. Here's what the Republican spokesman, Scott Hogenson, said.
[Scott] We have been compiling hundreds of pages of media reports from all over the country of documented cases of investigations of fraudulent voter registration cases. Everything from police in Ohio investigating a pro-Kerry effort to submit faulty voter registration forms, then pay the people with crack cocaine, to a gentleman in Denver, CO, who brags and laughs on television about having registered to vote 35 times, that it's just the... the number and degree of faulty and questionable and outright fraudulent registrations is really quite stunning in its depth and breadth.
[Reporter voiceover resumes] He sent me a copy. It's all newspaper clips, many of them unverified charges. There are a few that check out. There really was, for example, this white guy working for an outfit affiliated with the NAACP, who registered voters under names like Mary Poppins and Jeffrey Dahmer, and it's true, he was paid in crack cocaine. Very bad... and a great story. And then there was the Colorado guy who registered himself 35 times. Also true. Also very bad. But the reason you're going to be hearing about these two examples over and over in the offical Republican talking points in the next few days is that that's the best they've got in their hundreds of pages.
This sums it up though:
"So, are they all the same? Is the crackhead faking a handful of registrations for Jeffrey Dahmer the same kind of thing as wiping 17,000 voters in Nevada, 23,000 voters in Florida, 30,000 voters in Ohio completely off the rolls?"
We have an isolated problem, which was identified and corrected, and regardless of the results of the electoral college or the general will of the people expressed in the popular vote, he was already willing to spend the next four years decrying a "stolen" election, rather than reflecting inward, discovering what about his party's message (or lack thereof) failed to connect with the majority of voters, and attempting to correct it. It borders on cognitive dissonance.
First of all, the problem is not isolated. There have been many reports of malfunctioning machines coming in. And how can you expect people to not be suspicious, given the criminal or borderline criminal acts that republicans engaged in prior to the election? How about Jim Toobin? How about Jeb Bush and his felon list? If you want me to get out the list, I will.
On the total reversal, if Kerry had won, a Replublican STILL wouldn't have tipped a reporter off.. at least in my opinion. This is simply because, as Democrat friends of mine have said, "Democrats are whiners.".
If that Republican gave a shit about democracy and the sanctity of the election system, then he damn well should start talking since that's the only way the problems will get fixed.
As we saw in 2000, the popular vote count means nothing. It's what happens in a few particular places that makes all the difference. Makes it that much easier to screw with things too. Especially when the half of the country that got what they wanted will deliberately ignore and play down the many many problems that caused a lot of votes to be lost. I guess being in touch with the rest of the country means being willing to ignore serious problems with the the systems we use for voting and the people who put those systems in place. On top of all the other things we've heard about the republicans doing, this isn't too surprising though. Party of morals and values my ass. You guys are pretty selective when it comes to ethical standards.
Heh. I'm thinking the mods didn't try to load the story within the first few minutes of it being posted. Instead of loading up the story page and comments, it just loaded a page that said "Nothing for you to see here. Move along."
That's kind of my point - if a Democrat is going to complain that Gore won the popular vote but lost the election, it would be hypocritical to then go and say that Kerry should have won the election based on the electoral college.
Some may want to change the system, but most just felt that Bush definitely didn't have his "mandate from the people" in 2000. Second, the great thing about having the 2 biggest swing states run by republicans is that you can keep things going your way. Blackwell (Ohio Sec. of State) wants to keep using punch card machines despite all the problems they've caused. In Florida, they're using un-auditable electronic machines in some areas now. How convenient.
We've already had one. Deal with it. Your guy lost.
Saying that doesn't make it true. But conservatives got the result they wanted, so they will now stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen when it comes to the problems with the election. Voting fraud is something abhorrent that should be stamped out regardless of whose favor it is done in. Conservative morals just don't seem up to the task though.
I think the reason Bush won was because people got tired of the left throwing insults.
Oh yeah, and the right was just the picture of graciousness through the whole thing weren't they? You're delusional if you think they weren't slinging the insults just as much as the left.
It would be nice if such sources weren't so rabidly liberal--I'd rather see honest concern for democracy than myopic, immature resentment.
Well, considering that the country is pretty much split in half, and that you won't get the rabidly conservative to admit to any of it (like Ohio's Sec. of State Blackwell), all you can do is examine their evidence. The fact that Blackwell wants to keep using punchcards despite all the problems they cause should tip you off to his intentions though. Then we should also figure out who is responsible for obtaining electronic voting machines that cannot be audited. They should become prime suspects as well. Americans should never accept such a thing.
And the reason for those laws (that discriminate against homosexual couples) is that homosexual couples will not breed. The system wants growth in the form of more consumers, and babies are consumers.
Then they should just give incentives for having kids instead of for marriage. Why give benefits to useless infertile people? Or people that just don't want kids?
Problem is, the science anybody can get is boring to the general scientific community, while the stuff geared towards egg heads is too advanced for people with an average IQ.
IQ isn't really the whole picture. A lot of people could understand a lot of science if they had spent 4-8 years or more studying it, and then more years working with it. Since most people don't have the background of basic stuff, they will have a tough time really understanding the harder stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do we send people to jail that are at most causing loss of revenues for a certain industry? ...
Why not just fine him for every copy he sent out? $1000/upload sounds like it would be more fit for the crime.
Can't get blood from a stone. And why $1000 per upload? Why not $1 per upload? Isn't that more in line with the actual damage? Ok, let's do triple damages then. $3 per upload. Of course they still need a way to track how many uploads you've done. And I suppose there's no reason they couldn't just sit around and track you for a good long while before they turn you in, just to scale up the damages.
I'd like them to get back to me on this one after they finish banning cigarettes, alcohol, television, violent movies, exercise, and chocolate. Then maybe I'll take them seriously. (Actually by that time they'll all have been tossed out of office and I won't have to worry about it. Neat, huh?)
For the record, three (3) separate installs took place on opening day among various computers in the possession of myself an my roommates. No hitches, nothing took more than 40 minutes... reasonable, for a game that comes on five (5) CDs.
What difference does that make to those of us who had to spend over 4 hours waiting for Valve to get their shit together enough that we could even connect? I started installing at 2pm CST. Couldn't connect to Steam until after 5pm, and then had to wait about an hour for whatever it was that Steam had to do.
Did you, or did you not, purchase Half-Life the first day it was on sale? Mmkay, then. If you want less of an effort *wait a week*.
So what? If Valve couldn't support its users, then they should have put a warning on the box saying that you may want to wait a week to buy the game. I don't recall seeing any such warning. They took my money, they should damn well be providing the service. If they couldn't provide the service, then they shouldn't have required authentication for offline play in the first place!
You forgot one...
I'm pissed, and so are a LOT of others judging by the posts on the various HL2 forums. Valve screwed its customers over pretty good this time.
Who doesn't? That's capitalism and completely normal.
I'm not saying that they aren't capitalists. I'm saying that they aren't really our allies. They want to sell us oil, and we want to buy their oil. Beyond that, we don't share many interests.
How much do we really do to stop organizations that may obtain money in the U.S. for their causes at home around the world? I'm not talking about Islamic extremists. I'm talking about Colombian rebels, IRA, etc. How much did we really do prior to 9/11?
Honestly, I really don't know how much we did. As I recall, there was usually a lot of noise and head shaking whenever the IRA blew people up, but beyond that I don't remember us taking much action aside from trying to get both sides to sit down and work things out. Of course if you're going to rationalize in that way for the Saudis and the US, then you should do so for Iraq as well and forgive the fact that some terrorists were hanging out there. Once that is done, there is basically no connection between Iraq and the WoT anymore.
They were reasons that the administration made. They just didn't receive as much press as the WMD issue. That may be the administration's fault or it may be a sensationalist media's fault or a combination of the two. But WMDs was definitely not the only reason given by the administration.
It is most definitely the administrations fault. Whenever Bush, Rumsfeld, or Rice were giving their little talks to drum up support, they always focused on WMDs, alleged links to Al-Qaida and terrorism in general, the fact that Saddam is a bad bad man who kills his own people (conveniently forgetting to mention that we were supporting him before, during and after he committed those attrocities), etc. They claimed over and over that this was part of the WoT and that they were going to attack Iraq as part of their strategy to stamp out terrorism wherever they may find it. They hardly ever mentioned anything else. Why? Because nothing gets people's support like telling them that they are in danger. Politics of fear anyone?
I guess I don't care whether something is under the umbrella of the war on terror or not and I'm not going to get all pissed off at the administration for, at worst, mislabeling the war. We all knew (or should have) what was at stake and all the reasons for it. What you want to call it is rather superficial.
Not just mislabelling, but misleading us entirely about the reasons for it. We know that our intelligence services failed us, but that's only half of it. When you only listen to what you want to hear, then you are just as much to blame. There were many dissenters debunking the info that Bush was basing his decision on. He just refused to listen to them.
Well then there's corruption at the U.N. because the U.N. itself has the double-standards I already mentioned.
Don't pretend it's just the U.N. The US is just as guilty. We're the ones that always stand in the way of any sort of sanctions against Israel.
Maybe. But he only had a mandate to remove Saddam from Kuwait, not to remove him from power. And the threat of WMDs back then probably was much higher than today so there may have been a very real risk of the invading forces being hit my chemcial weapons. It also wouldn't have been necessary to remove Saddam if he had complied with the resolutions and cease-fire he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
Considering that they were claiming that the threat of WMDs was high (imminent even) this time as well, and we went in anyway, what's the difference? And since the US goes against the U.N. all the time, why should they have cared whether the U.N. supported their decision to take Saddam down? He was just as bad a man then as he is now, so why expect him to comply with anything? We knew him better than just about anyone else, so we should have known better.
Short of asking Bush what his line of reasoning was and trusting his answe
Don't go saying it's 'fraud' when it easily could be either underhanded political trickery or bumbling bureaucratic idiocy.
I don't think you understood my post. The things that are talked about in the article I linked to are almost certainly some form of fraud. As for the machines and discrepancies between the exit polls (which are historically significantly more accurate than they were during this election), I merely said that it bears investigating. This is both due to the degree of error and the fact that from what we've seen of the machines so far, they are FAR from being reliable enough to be trusted with an election.
I just wish there wasn't so much grandstanding about fraud when any irregularity shows up..
Well there has been quite a bit of fraud, but we don't yet know if the machines were compromised as well. Knowing what I do about the machines and such systems in general, and the numbers I've seen comparing exit polls and actual results, there is certainly ample reason to suspect that many of them malfunctioned or were manipulated. I'd like to see a serious investigation done before the next election.
Saudi's government was not hostile to the United States. It's the closest thing we have to a major ally in the area, not to mention its oil production (no, I won't pretend that's not a factor... it's been a factor for every administration in recent memory).
The Saudi's are anything but an ally. We need their oil. They try to make as much money off of us as they can without killing the goose. While the Saudi government doesn't officially support terrorists, there are plenty of people within that government and the private sector that do. We know it. They know it. They just chose not to do anything about it. At least not until recently when they started getting hit as well. Then they realized that playing with extremists is a bit like playing with fire.
The legal basis is there. They violated the terms of the cease-fire and multiple U.N. resolutions regarding arms inspectors. They fired almost daily on aircraft patrolling the U.N.-authorized no-fly zone: That's an act of war right there. And it's not that Iraq was an imminent threat against Kuwait, it's that Saddam had proven himself to be an ongoing destabilizing player in the region. Of Iraq's 5 neighbors, Saddam had attacked 2 and lobbed SCUDs over a third to try to provoke Israel.
Fine. But those are not the arguments that Bush made when he was trying to sell us on the idea of invading Iraq. I'm not arguing that there was no reason at all to invade Iraq. I'm just saying that there was no reason to try to connect it to the War on Terror. He was just using the WoT to gain support for going to war against Iraq. All of his reasons that were tied to terrorism turned out to be BS.
I understand that there are double-standards in the world. That's reality. Don't try to blame that on Bush.
I'm not blaming him for double-standards. I'm just pointing out that the argument that Iraq's violation of UN resolutions is grounds for invasion is garbage. Selective enforcement is a sign of corruption.
It's something that Clinton should have done in 1998 if he had any balls. It was a pending issue and it was time to finish the game.
It's something that the elder Bush should have finished when he had the chance too. None of that matters now though. Maybe Bush should have listened more closely to those that were telling him he didn't have enough troops though. He could have saved himself some grief, and maybe a lot of lives as well.
That's not a politician's job. Every politician is going to make the case for what he thinks is the best course of action. It is the responsibility of the opposition and the press to question the case that is made. A leader leads by instilling confidence, not by creating doubt. There is doubt in everything but no leader is ever going to get anything done if he publically questions his own decisions before he even makes them. Please...
Problem with that is that not everyone is allowed to have all the information in a timely fashion. This creates the situation where we find out later what information the President had, and what he was not telling us about. Now I'm really not sure, given everything that he knew and/or should have known, whether he's a liar or an idiot, or both. I do know who is paying the price for it though. I'm beginning to think that it should be a requirement for politicians to have their own children in combat units in order to vote on whether to go to war or not. Most of the Bush administration has never even served in the military, let alone in combat roles.
France (as far as we know, heheh) and Mexico didn't have anything to do with 9/11 either, but somehow it makes more sense to invade them than Iraq which has a history of destabilizing the region, using WMDs on their own people, engaging in mass executions, and not cooperating with the U.N.? See, this is why the liberals lost the elections. Their position doesn't make any sense.
Maybe if he'd simply used those arguments I wo
Better they flock to Iraq then flock to the U.S.
That's one way to look at it, but you implied that Iraq was a hotbed of terrorist activity, which is complete BS. Aside from a handful, there weren't any that we know of. Again, Saudi Arabia would have been a much more logical target if you're trying to stamp out terrorism.
The difference is that rank and file liberals are seriously arrogant and think they are somehow superior just because they don't like Bush. Likewise they think people who voted for Bush were duped, corporate pawns, etc. You need look no further than some of the responses to my posts here to see what I'm talking about.
There's absolutely no difference between the things that the left was calling the right and the things that the right was calling the left. You're just listening selectively. Both sides have been railing at each other.
678 and 687. More information here.
So the best argument they have is that Saddam is still a threat to Kuwait? That's why we invaded? You guys are REALLY grasping at straws, aren't you? You combine several bullshit reasons and call it a strong legal basis for invading another country. Unbelievable.
So now you are comparing the U.S. to Iraq? Sorry, I don't follow your logic...
Well, you said that Iraq's violations of UN resolutions was grounds for invasion. I'm simply saying that the US has violating quite a few as well. And if you want an even better example, Israel has violated more UN resolutions than anyone, yet we aren't invading them. So your argument was completely bogus.
There is no evidence he ignored evidence for or against. On balance he decided that it would be prudent to move forward.
Yep, because it's what he wanted to do. Between fabricated evidence (think Nigeria), and selectively ignoring statements by many experts, he picked and chose the evidence that he wanted to present to the American people. He didn't tell us about the fact that there was other evidence that didn't support his position, or that there was a lot of disagreement about the evidence he was presenting. He made it seem like it was an open and shut case. No doubts at all. He's a liar. Plain and simple.
So we should attack every country from which people who commit crimes against the U.S. come? Should we attack Mexico because dozens of Mexicans have killed dozens of Americans? That sounds even more irrational than what you accuse Bush of.
Nope. But it makes a hell of a lot more sense than invading Iraq, which had nothing at all to do with 9-11. If you're going to fight a war on terror, then you should attack those that are terrorists, and those that fund terrorists. Saudi Arabia has more of both than just about anywhere else, excepting Afghanistan. Certainly they are more of a threat to us than Iraq. Oh, and the Mexican comment was just plain stupid. I think you're probably smart enough to realize the difference between simple murders and terrorist attacks. Right?
Can you provide evidence that Bush is any more a buddy with the Saudis than any other recent president, including Clinton?
Didn't say anything about him being more of a buddy than Clinton. Clinton isn't the president, so I don't give a damn if Clinton was buddies with the Saudis too. That was before 9-11 and if he had turned his back on the problem I'd be pissed about that too. Fact remains that we won't invade Saudi Arabia despite the fact that that's where many of the terrorists and a lot of the money comes from.
Ok, so like he said. Conservatives believe in the law of the jungle as the basis of their principles. You're saying that there is no legitimate international lawmaking body in the world, so anything goes. Why then do you support Bush and all the bullshit rhetoric he spews about terrorists and rogue nations and illegal attacks on the US, etc?
Sure, there's a problem with terrorists in Iraq but I'd rather the terrorists be busy there than in our country. Plus that is to be expected when you hit the hornet's nest.
If you'll recall, the vast majority of the "terrorists" in Iraq weren't there until we invaded. Then they flocked from all over to defend Iraq/attack the US.
That kind of condescending extremism is also part of why Bush won.
Give me a break? The right isn't arrogant and condescending? Have you listened to any of the conservative mouthpieces? Limbaugh? O'Reilly? Coulter? They don't get anymore arrogant, condescending and downright venemous than those people. Could you possibly be any more hypocritical?
1. The invasion wasn't illegal. It was supported by previous U.N. resolutions stretching back over a decade.
Bullshit. The US has violated quite a few UN resolutions as well. Don't see anyone invading us. And which resolution, exactly, authorized an invasion?
2. It has been shown that Bush received information that was incorrect and based his decisions on that bad information. Hence the allegation that he invaded based on "false pretenses" is simply false. I'll accept "he invaded based on bad information", but even so it was fully legal and warranted under previous U.N. resolutions.
Again, bullshit. He picked and chose the people he wanted to listen to. He took just the interpretations of data that supported his desire to invade Iraq. He didn't listen to those that gave contradictory info and interpretations (that surprise surprise, turned out to be correct in many cases). What the hell are we invading Iraq for? Iran has an active nuke program. Saudi Arabia is the place where most of the 9-11 hijackers came from and that we know funds a lot of terrorist organizations. They are (were) second only to Afghanistan in their harsh treatment of women. Oh yeah, but Bush is buddies with the Saudis. Can't invade them.
You could be right but the longer you are in the minority the more statistically improbable that becomes.
Yet another ridiculous statement. You act as if no group that is in the wrong ever lasts very long. History can prove that statement wrong over and over and over.
Illegal how? Precisely? The Congress of the United States authorized the use of force. I'm sure you'll argue that it was illegal due to some international law we somehow violated. The United States is a sovereign nation. We can make war on whomever we wish.
I think that's exactly what he was talking about when he said that conservatives use the "law of the jungle" as the bedrock of their principles. So, by your logic, 9-11 was completely legal and legitimate, right? They can make war on whomever they wish?
Dictionary.com lists the following definition of "establish" wrt religion: "To make a state institution of (a church)." None of the religious institutions in the United states can be considered a state institution, in the sense that the Church of England is established in the United Kingdom, or the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece.
One could make the argument that by adopting only christian rituals, texts, and ideas, the state is making christianity the defacto religion of the state. This is why it is best if the government simply leaves religion alone and shows no preferences. There was really no need for them to add religious wording to our money or our pledge back in the 50s. It was a case of tyranny of the majority. They did it and got away with it because christians outnumber non-christians in this country.
They were probably balanced out by the criminal and borderline criminal acts the Democrats engaged in prior to the election.
Umm, actually no, they weren't. Read about it here. You may want to skip about 2/3s of the way down the page to this part:
This sums it up though:
We have an isolated problem, which was identified and corrected, and regardless of the results of the electoral college or the general will of the people expressed in the popular vote, he was already willing to spend the next four years decrying a "stolen" election, rather than reflecting inward, discovering what about his party's message (or lack thereof) failed to connect with the majority of voters, and attempting to correct it. It borders on cognitive dissonance.
First of all, the problem is not isolated. There have been many reports of malfunctioning machines coming in. And how can you expect people to not be suspicious, given the criminal or borderline criminal acts that republicans engaged in prior to the election? How about Jim Toobin? How about Jeb Bush and his felon list? If you want me to get out the list, I will.
On the total reversal, if Kerry had won, a Replublican STILL wouldn't have tipped a reporter off.. at least in my opinion. This is simply because, as Democrat friends of mine have said, "Democrats are whiners.".
If that Republican gave a shit about democracy and the sanctity of the election system, then he damn well should start talking since that's the only way the problems will get fixed.
As we saw in 2000, the popular vote count means nothing. It's what happens in a few particular places that makes all the difference. Makes it that much easier to screw with things too. Especially when the half of the country that got what they wanted will deliberately ignore and play down the many many problems that caused a lot of votes to be lost. I guess being in touch with the rest of the country means being willing to ignore serious problems with the the systems we use for voting and the people who put those systems in place. On top of all the other things we've heard about the republicans doing, this isn't too surprising though. Party of morals and values my ass. You guys are pretty selective when it comes to ethical standards.
Heh. I'm thinking the mods didn't try to load the story within the first few minutes of it being posted. Instead of loading up the story page and comments, it just loaded a page that said "Nothing for you to see here. Move along."
"Nothing for you to see here. Move along."
That's kind of my point - if a Democrat is going to complain that Gore won the popular vote but lost the election, it would be hypocritical to then go and say that Kerry should have won the election based on the electoral college.
Some may want to change the system, but most just felt that Bush definitely didn't have his "mandate from the people" in 2000. Second, the great thing about having the 2 biggest swing states run by republicans is that you can keep things going your way. Blackwell (Ohio Sec. of State) wants to keep using punch card machines despite all the problems they've caused. In Florida, they're using un-auditable electronic machines in some areas now. How convenient.
We've already had one. Deal with it. Your guy lost.
Saying that doesn't make it true. But conservatives got the result they wanted, so they will now stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen when it comes to the problems with the election. Voting fraud is something abhorrent that should be stamped out regardless of whose favor it is done in. Conservative morals just don't seem up to the task though.
I think the reason Bush won was because people got tired of the left throwing insults.
Oh yeah, and the right was just the picture of graciousness through the whole thing weren't they? You're delusional if you think they weren't slinging the insults just as much as the left.
It would be nice if such sources weren't so rabidly liberal--I'd rather see honest concern for democracy than myopic, immature resentment.
Well, considering that the country is pretty much split in half, and that you won't get the rabidly conservative to admit to any of it (like Ohio's Sec. of State Blackwell), all you can do is examine their evidence. The fact that Blackwell wants to keep using punchcards despite all the problems they cause should tip you off to his intentions though. Then we should also figure out who is responsible for obtaining electronic voting machines that cannot be audited. They should become prime suspects as well. Americans should never accept such a thing.
And the reason for those laws (that discriminate against homosexual couples) is that homosexual couples will not breed. The system wants growth in the form of more consumers, and babies are consumers.
Then they should just give incentives for having kids instead of for marriage. Why give benefits to useless infertile people? Or people that just don't want kids?
Problem is, the science anybody can get is boring to the general scientific community, while the stuff geared towards egg heads is too advanced for people with an average IQ.
IQ isn't really the whole picture. A lot of people could understand a lot of science if they had spent 4-8 years or more studying it, and then more years working with it. Since most people don't have the background of basic stuff, they will have a tough time really understanding the harder stuff.