Does "submit to us or else" sound like the message broadcast by a reasonable, benevolent, and peace-loving nation?
In the studies of American history that I got at the hand of public school I had to take on faith that we are a reasonable, benevolent, and peace-loving nation. The only times in our history that can be said to be peace-loving was when our foreign policy was "isolationist", and that policy is cited as a contributing factor to two world wars.
I still have to take it on faith. Too bad I don't take anything on faith.
Besides, even if that were true, you cannot invade another nation because they will 'probably' attack. You just can't, and maintain any sort of moral high ground at all. Tell me, when North Korea invades the South for suspected terrorist weapons, what will we say?
Actually, it's a different world than it used to be. If a country's first attack will wipe out half your population and leave the other half glowing in the dark, wouldn't it be wise to invade them first?
Now, before you get off on this, I don't know that Iraq has that capability, or that they will ever have it. I can't say this threat is justification for going into Iraq *now*, but I can say that in a general situation, it is justification when the target nation actually has that capability.
Now, this is where the matter gets muddy and everyone wants proof. If you wait until the nation has the capability to do your first strike, then you risk them doing their first strike anyway. While you go in with so-called conventional weapons, they hit up your continent with nukes. So you have to get them before they have the weapons in the first place.
With that basic understanding (at least, that's what dubya's been spilling, and I agree with the reasoning), now you need to prove that the nation in question (Iraq) is attempting to acquire these weapons.
That being where we stand with Iraq, and leaving the debate for a moment, how about the other nations? You didn't mention this, but others in the thread have, so I'll mention it and talk about it.:)
North Korea has nukes. But it's not quite so simple. If we go into North Korea, we can expect China to retaliate. OTOH, if we have China's backing, we can expect them to go in with us. We may not want to, since we'll be trying not to hit civilians, and they only know how to shoot civilians.
India and Pakistan both have nukes. In my opinion, they both need to be disarmed. India's easy enough, just quit sending them food.;) Pakistan should be easy enough as well. I don't know the full political implications there, though. I suspect there would be a lot of trouble if we started targetting India, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were terrorist groups in India practicing. There's some pretty remote areas there. Of course, so far as I know the Indian government wouldn't support them (it *is* against their religion, theoretically). Anyway, India is always a tricky political situation. On the one hand we send them food, and in return they bash the shit out of us everytime we open our mouths. Pakistan might be easier politically, but probably won't be easier than Iraq was.
Iran is known to have chemical weapons, or once had them anyway. So far as I know they haven't sponsored any terrorism for awhile.
And there's still a certain situation in Israel to deal with. Plenty of people are mentioning Israel having more UN resolutions against them and so forth. now, I don't feel like arguing about why Israel was created in the first place (doesn't make sense to go build your house knowing your neighbors want to slaughter you, but hey, I wasn't there). However, for them it's a matter of survival. Worry about the UN resolutions? Hm, should I comply with this document, or LIVE. That's why Israel is such a tricky problem for us, we want them to live, but their neighbors don't. Sooner or later, though, we'll go in and try to stabilize the area immediately aroud Israel in the name of terrorism. There's always some sort of terrorist attack in Israel from one of their neighbors, that won't be too hard to justify in relation to how we're already justifying shit.
Point is, you can't solve all of your problems at once. You have to take them one at a time.
Anyways, keep in mind that I haven't expressed any opinions, just trying to point out some stuff that keep falling through the cracks. Hope it helps!:)
Saddam must of been a huge donkey pr0n consumer, this is the only rational explantation.
Donkey Pron, I remember that game! That's the one with the little fat naked Italian running around the construction site trying to rescue his ape from a giant woman throwing barrels at him, right? Wasn't it originally supposed to be called Monkey Pron, but the first 100 machines got mislabelled?
Great, I write all that beautiful literature and you throw NT at me?:)
Maybe it would've made more sense if I'd've only copied'n'pasted the stuff in parenthesis, since that's what I had been replying to. The rest I ignored, because it's already being posted a dozen times in every article and I'm not going to reply to all of them. I just wanted to argue history with you. You game?
Fuck you anonymous coward! Why don't you get a fucking username so I know you're listening when I come around to scrap? eh? You fucking AFRAID of me? Come over here you little twerpin' shiteatin' cocksuckin'....
um....
Hey, you posted with a username, Robi! Nice to see you!
I have heard a number of rational arguments against the war from lots of people, like for instance the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and China. But they don't really count as protesters, do they?
Call that rational? The leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and China aren't running around in SF, Seattle, etc. disrupting traffic and acting like thugs! (Yes, I'm very worried about my pregnant wife walking through the protestors to get to work every day, and to come home, mob psychology and pregnant women don't go well together)
What if that traffic disturbance prevents an ambulance from picking up someone who's having a heartattack in time for treatment?
Well, that's ok, because it's also preventing the trucks from shipping the stuff to the airport where it'll go to Iraq for them to set their own people on fire. Or something like that.
Preventing the infrastructure from moving (disrupting traffic) is an excellent way to protest the war, because you are symbolically preventing the country from producing the war machine. Now, for enough protesters to actually prevent the production of the war machine they'd need guns and stuff and do a lot more than disrupt traffic, however we're talking about protesting, not violent revolution.
Tha ability to start a war and the ability to call it a war officially don't really matter. Vietnam was not a war. It was a police action. Desert Storm was not a war. Really? It looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck.
Actually, it does matter, because without formal declaration Congress can impeach the president, and then remove him when he's found guitlty. But only if the "war" goes on for too long. There is a time bomb on this power of his.
Let's see how well this protects us to determine if the ability to call it a war officially doesn't really matter:
1. The President can't conquor the world without Congress support.
2. The President can invade a country and attempt to occupy it. Then the UN decides to go to war against us. Congress says "No, wait until the time limit expires, and we can impeach him. It's not our country's fault, we'll get another president."
3. Long-term military action requires popular support, embodied in Congress' formal declaration.
Let's examine some of the other relevant checks and balances, and I'll leave it as an exercise to the student to figure out some benefits for these:
1. Congress holds the purse strings. Specifically, any money-related bill may only be introduced in the House of Representatives. The president can order the troops around, but he can't pay them. Congress writes their checks.
2. Congress must ratify any treaty or other international legal agreement. The President can't dictate foreign policy in this matter, he requires Congress' support.
also - could you please point out where in your 2nd link that it indicates that an election winner lost the popular vote? the only thing i'm seeing like that is that lincoln had less votes than the sum of all other candidates. if this is the case, he did win the popular vote (because he had the highest of all individual candidates).
Benjamin Harrison vs. Grover Cleveland, late 1800's, I forget the exact year. Dakota was still a single territory. There's a Disney musical about that election.:) Grover Cleveland had been president and was running for re-election. He lost, after winning the popular vote. Next election, he won again and also became the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.
Where is the Congressional declaration of war? Without that, this "war" is illegal. Not that that stopped us from fighting wars on Grenada, Panama, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq (twice), or anywhere else we decided to go towar with since the end of WWII.
Actually, it takes Congress to declare war, as you said, but iirc there is a law that states that without a declaration of war, any military action must cease by a certain time. It's something like 2 weeks, or 4 weeks, or 60 days, or something like that.
Panama took something like 3 days.
Vietnam was the reason the law was passed, iirc. It may be in the constitution itself, but I don't remember it being there. It's been awhile since I read it, though.
If the law was passed after Vietnam, then it was also passed after Korea, which was before Vietnam.
I don't recall Grenada, sorry. I remember something happened, but I don't remember any details.
Finally, Congress declared war on Iraq for the first Gulf War. Not only did they have the president's support of action in Iraq, they also had the UN's support.
Now, Congress is being careful. They do NOT want Bush to keep fighting in Iraq for too long. So, they exercise their check on military action and do not declare war. This doesn't mean that Bush can't fight this war, it only means that he has to finish it within a certain period of time, and then bring the troops back home. That should show the UN that we're not going to stay too long, our own laws prevent it. But our laws do not prevent the President from arbitrarily attacking countries. Our election laws make it a stupid thing to do, however, unless he's nearing the end of his second term, in which case it'd be a helluva practical joke.
So, if I go rob the liquor store down the street, it's not illegal until I go to court?
Um, no, actually, robbing a liquor store is illegal any number of ways. However, you are not guilty until proven so in a court of law. Careful with your examples, even the simplest ones can be wrought with flaws.;)
I'm okay with not depriving them of their free speech as long as they don't try to deprive me of my right to use public highways and roads to drive myself to work.
Uh, do you have that right? I don't recall anything in the Constitution saying that I have a right to use public highways and roads to drive to work.
Besides, can't you just tell the officer that you didn't see that mass of human flesh out in the middle of the street, and you'll pay more attention next time? Isn't vehicular homicide only a misdemeanor in California?
A Patriot is someone who is willing to put his/her own life on the line in defense of their country against all foes, both foreign and domestic.
Revolution, when carried out by the people (as in the case of both American Revolutions), is the ultimate struggle, sacrifice, and victory of a Patriot.
It is therefore dishonest for the U.S government to be using these events as evidence of Saddams sick and evil regime when at the the time it was looking the other way because it was in the nations interest to keep good relations with Baghdad.
Just in case you don't realize this about American politics, but we literally get a new government every 8-10 years. Many congressmen stick around for a long time, that is true. However, military action must be ordered by the President, and he's mostly in charge of foreign policy. There are checks in place, and I'm certainly oversimplifying the matter. Point is, in a country where the #1 song changes every couple of weeks, clothing trends change every season, do you really expect a government from the last election to indicate what the government from the next election will do? It's supposed to be representative of the will of the people, and since the will of the people is an indeterminate, incongruous, and constantly changing thing, I'd say the inconsistencies you cite show our government is working well within it's stated goals.
The soldiers may be brave and willing, but the Army is so risk-adverse they are willing to do almost anything, at any cost, to avoid American combat casualties.
It's a worthy goal, but it does balance well. It might look cheaper to replace a man than a piece of technology, but you gotta remember. The enemy has men too, they do not have smart bombs and cruise missiles and (in this case, hopefully) nukes. If an army uses its men as it's main force of attack, then it will be faced with an enemy with the same resources. If you want to win a war in this day and age, you need technology.
Am I equating the protestors with Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein? Yes. Am I questioning their patriotism? Yes. Am I justified? You decide.
I've decided. I call troll.:) Here's some food:
This "with us or against us" crap has got to stop. You can equate protestors with terrorists all you want, especially since some of them use a less-strong fear tactic as well. However, why would they even bother protesting if they didn't give a shit about their country? Why bother being heard to have a certain opinion in your country if you don't give a shit about it?
Not that I think protesting is useful in this situation, actually. It's just that your statements are the kinds of things that lead to fascism.
The only way for someone to convince/convert me is to make an argument that I agree with or cant counter.
Trust in your gut. Just because you can't counter an argument doesn't mean you're wrong. It's a good indication, but it's only an indication. Remember, the average human uses a very small portion of their brain, and the rest could well have already figured it out and be influencing you.:)
Gut feelings are not to be ignored, even if they can't be explained.
That is the single best question I have seen asked in my entire life. Unfortunately, you asked the wrong person, since he was just citing something he saw.
Still, that question made the ground shake when I read it. It has such wide-reaching implications... I also know that I have personally heard the answer to that question as "everything", and then everything said after that made about as much sense as a double-boxed smoker from New Braunfels on a torpedo.
The only thing flatly rejected by the French (you remember, the people who made it possible for this little country cede from the British Empire a few years back) was a timeline.
All right, that's enough of that. Wanna say that since the French helped us establish our freedom from England that we owe them a debt? Well, since we joined up with our former oppressors to LIBERATE FRANCE FROM HITLER, I consider that debt paid in full.
Now let's scrap. And perhaps the next time the French say "You have your freedom because of us, you must do as we say" we'll just turn our backs when dictators show up wanting to murder their Jewish population. Eh? Is that what you want?
Fuckin' shit, last time we bail out the French. Maybe if you would've paid more attention to our revolution you wouldn't feel the need to surrender everytime someone points a water gun at you.
All right, I'm ranting now. I'm getting pretty irritated at people saying we owe our freedom to France and ignoring the fact that we have possibly paid it back at least twice since then. Let's also ignore the fact that the very issue here is that Ben Franklin, through his contacts with the devil-worshipping Hell-Fire Club, was able to secure France's help in our revolution.
Any more reason we should do what France tells us? What're they gonna do if we don't follow orders, surrender?
While we're deconstructing, it's worth noting that the original "irony" we're supposed to see only works if you subscribe to the flawed arguments voiceofthewhirlwind pointed out
Well, in that case, I think it's also worth pointing out that "irony" doesn't depend on any beliefs, it is merely a condition that exists. The irony is that the protestors would be killed if they protested in the country their protests are targetted to save. Acknowledging the irony doesn't require an opinion either way on the war, it's merely acknowledging that the country in which they perform the protest is a free country nominally attempting to free the country, through a war which is the object of protest.
The irony then is the fact that the one action taken is not supported by the recipient of the gift (Iraq).
We can further tear it apart by pointing out that our completely unbiased and honest press is telling us that our completely truthful and honorable politicians have been informed by their completely trustworthy staff that many Iraqi citizens are calling "Bush, bush" and cheering and so forth.
This, in itself, is a further irony, since what they mean when they cheer "Bush, Bush" is that after Saddam is no longer in power, they will no longer have to circumcise their women.
Disclaimer: I do not know if Iraq circumcises their women or not, I only know that it is a practice in some Islamic countries.
Frames are evil. Tables are useful for presentation of some types of information, but too many clueless webmasters use tables to do layout jobs that are better handled with CSS.
Or maybe they're clued in to the fact that up to 30% of their potential audience won't be able to see the site properly with a CSS layout. Point IE 5 here. IE 5 is the default-installed browser for Win2k and WinME, and win98 iirc. It has about 30% of the market, last time I saw any strong numbers on it. Moreso than 5.5, since 5.5 requires you to download an upgrade. 5 and 6 both install with the OS (XP has 6, of course), but 5.5 requires a downloaded upgrade.
And yes, I know, I've *really* gotta fix that page.
Slashdot Mirror
Does "submit to us or else" sound like the message broadcast by a reasonable, benevolent, and peace-loving nation?
In the studies of American history that I got at the hand of public school I had to take on faith that we are a reasonable, benevolent, and peace-loving nation. The only times in our history that can be said to be peace-loving was when our foreign policy was "isolationist", and that policy is cited as a contributing factor to two world wars.
I still have to take it on faith. Too bad I don't take anything on faith.
Besides, even if that were true, you cannot invade another nation because they will 'probably' attack. You just can't, and maintain any sort of moral high ground at all. Tell me, when North Korea invades the South for suspected terrorist weapons, what will we say?
Actually, it's a different world than it used to be. If a country's first attack will wipe out half your population and leave the other half glowing in the dark, wouldn't it be wise to invade them first?
Now, before you get off on this, I don't know that Iraq has that capability, or that they will ever have it. I can't say this threat is justification for going into Iraq *now*, but I can say that in a general situation, it is justification when the target nation actually has that capability.
Now, this is where the matter gets muddy and everyone wants proof. If you wait until the nation has the capability to do your first strike, then you risk them doing their first strike anyway. While you go in with so-called conventional weapons, they hit up your continent with nukes. So you have to get them before they have the weapons in the first place.
With that basic understanding (at least, that's what dubya's been spilling, and I agree with the reasoning), now you need to prove that the nation in question (Iraq) is attempting to acquire these weapons.
That being where we stand with Iraq, and leaving the debate for a moment, how about the other nations? You didn't mention this, but others in the thread have, so I'll mention it and talk about it. :)
North Korea has nukes. But it's not quite so simple. If we go into North Korea, we can expect China to retaliate. OTOH, if we have China's backing, we can expect them to go in with us. We may not want to, since we'll be trying not to hit civilians, and they only know how to shoot civilians.
India and Pakistan both have nukes. In my opinion, they both need to be disarmed. India's easy enough, just quit sending them food. ;) Pakistan should be easy enough as well. I don't know the full political implications there, though. I suspect there would be a lot of trouble if we started targetting India, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were terrorist groups in India practicing. There's some pretty remote areas there. Of course, so far as I know the Indian government wouldn't support them (it *is* against their religion, theoretically). Anyway, India is always a tricky political situation. On the one hand we send them food, and in return they bash the shit out of us everytime we open our mouths. Pakistan might be easier politically, but probably won't be easier than Iraq was.
Iran is known to have chemical weapons, or once had them anyway. So far as I know they haven't sponsored any terrorism for awhile.
And there's still a certain situation in Israel to deal with. Plenty of people are mentioning Israel having more UN resolutions against them and so forth. now, I don't feel like arguing about why Israel was created in the first place (doesn't make sense to go build your house knowing your neighbors want to slaughter you, but hey, I wasn't there). However, for them it's a matter of survival. Worry about the UN resolutions? Hm, should I comply with this document, or LIVE. That's why Israel is such a tricky problem for us, we want them to live, but their neighbors don't. Sooner or later, though, we'll go in and try to stabilize the area immediately aroud Israel in the name of terrorism. There's always some sort of terrorist attack in Israel from one of their neighbors, that won't be too hard to justify in relation to how we're already justifying shit.
Point is, you can't solve all of your problems at once. You have to take them one at a time.
Anyways, keep in mind that I haven't expressed any opinions, just trying to point out some stuff that keep falling through the cracks. Hope it helps! :)
northern New Mexico home owned by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
Donald Rumsfeld is from New Mexico? No wonder he's a megalomaniac! Him and Bill Gates are probably sisters! (er, whatever)
Saddam must of been a huge donkey pr0n consumer, this is the only rational explantation.
Donkey Pron, I remember that game! That's the one with the little fat naked Italian running around the construction site trying to rescue his ape from a giant woman throwing barrels at him, right? Wasn't it originally supposed to be called Monkey Pron, but the first 100 machines got mislabelled?
Great, I write all that beautiful literature and you throw NT at me? :)
Maybe it would've made more sense if I'd've only copied'n'pasted the stuff in parenthesis, since that's what I had been replying to. The rest I ignored, because it's already being posted a dozen times in every article and I'm not going to reply to all of them. I just wanted to argue history with you. You game?
Fuck you anonymous coward! Why don't you get a fucking username so I know you're listening when I come around to scrap? eh? You fucking AFRAID of me? Come over here you little twerpin' shiteatin' cocksuckin'....
um....
Hey, you posted with a username, Robi! Nice to see you!
I have heard a number of rational arguments against the war from lots of people, like for instance the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and China. But they don't really count as protesters, do they?
Call that rational? The leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and China aren't running around in SF, Seattle, etc. disrupting traffic and acting like thugs! (Yes, I'm very worried about my pregnant wife walking through the protestors to get to work every day, and to come home, mob psychology and pregnant women don't go well together)
What if that traffic disturbance prevents an ambulance from picking up someone who's having a heartattack in time for treatment?
Well, that's ok, because it's also preventing the trucks from shipping the stuff to the airport where it'll go to Iraq for them to set their own people on fire. Or something like that.
Preventing the infrastructure from moving (disrupting traffic) is an excellent way to protest the war, because you are symbolically preventing the country from producing the war machine. Now, for enough protesters to actually prevent the production of the war machine they'd need guns and stuff and do a lot more than disrupt traffic, however we're talking about protesting, not violent revolution.
Are you sure? I thought it was:
Bush: "I dream of Free Bear"
He is a Texan, you know.
Tha ability to start a war and the ability to call it a war officially don't really matter. Vietnam was not a war. It was a police action. Desert Storm was not a war. Really? It looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck.
Actually, it does matter, because without formal declaration Congress can impeach the president, and then remove him when he's found guitlty. But only if the "war" goes on for too long. There is a time bomb on this power of his.
Let's see how well this protects us to determine if the ability to call it a war officially doesn't really matter:
1. The President can't conquor the world without Congress support.
2. The President can invade a country and attempt to occupy it. Then the UN decides to go to war against us. Congress says "No, wait until the time limit expires, and we can impeach him. It's not our country's fault, we'll get another president."
3. Long-term military action requires popular support, embodied in Congress' formal declaration.
Let's examine some of the other relevant checks and balances, and I'll leave it as an exercise to the student to figure out some benefits for these:
1. Congress holds the purse strings. Specifically, any money-related bill may only be introduced in the House of Representatives. The president can order the troops around, but he can't pay them. Congress writes their checks.
2. Congress must ratify any treaty or other international legal agreement. The President can't dictate foreign policy in this matter, he requires Congress' support.
Any more questions?
also - could you please point out where in your 2nd link that it indicates that an election winner lost the popular vote? the only thing i'm seeing like that is that lincoln had less votes than the sum of all other candidates. if this is the case, he did win the popular vote (because he had the highest of all individual candidates).
Benjamin Harrison vs. Grover Cleveland, late 1800's, I forget the exact year. Dakota was still a single territory. There's a Disney musical about that election. :) Grover Cleveland had been president and was running for re-election. He lost, after winning the popular vote. Next election, he won again and also became the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.
Where is the Congressional declaration of war? Without that, this "war" is illegal. Not that that stopped us from fighting wars on Grenada, Panama, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq (twice), or anywhere else we decided to go towar with since the end of WWII.
Actually, it takes Congress to declare war, as you said, but iirc there is a law that states that without a declaration of war, any military action must cease by a certain time. It's something like 2 weeks, or 4 weeks, or 60 days, or something like that.
Panama took something like 3 days.
Vietnam was the reason the law was passed, iirc. It may be in the constitution itself, but I don't remember it being there. It's been awhile since I read it, though.
If the law was passed after Vietnam, then it was also passed after Korea, which was before Vietnam.
I don't recall Grenada, sorry. I remember something happened, but I don't remember any details.
Finally, Congress declared war on Iraq for the first Gulf War. Not only did they have the president's support of action in Iraq, they also had the UN's support.
Now, Congress is being careful. They do NOT want Bush to keep fighting in Iraq for too long. So, they exercise their check on military action and do not declare war. This doesn't mean that Bush can't fight this war, it only means that he has to finish it within a certain period of time, and then bring the troops back home. That should show the UN that we're not going to stay too long, our own laws prevent it. But our laws do not prevent the President from arbitrarily attacking countries. Our election laws make it a stupid thing to do, however, unless he's nearing the end of his second term, in which case it'd be a helluva practical joke.
So, if I go rob the liquor store down the street, it's not illegal until I go to court?
Um, no, actually, robbing a liquor store is illegal any number of ways. However, you are not guilty until proven so in a court of law. Careful with your examples, even the simplest ones can be wrought with flaws. ;)
I'm okay with not depriving them of their free speech as long as they don't try to deprive me of my right to use public highways and roads to drive myself to work.
Uh, do you have that right? I don't recall anything in the Constitution saying that I have a right to use public highways and roads to drive to work.
Besides, can't you just tell the officer that you didn't see that mass of human flesh out in the middle of the street, and you'll pay more attention next time? Isn't vehicular homicide only a misdemeanor in California?
Mind if I add to your definition of a Patriot?
A Patriot is someone who is willing to put his/her own life on the line in defense of their country against all foes, both foreign and domestic.
Revolution, when carried out by the people (as in the case of both American Revolutions), is the ultimate struggle, sacrifice, and victory of a Patriot.
It is therefore dishonest for the U.S government to be using these events as evidence of Saddams sick and evil regime when at the the time it was looking the other way because it was in the nations interest to keep good relations with Baghdad.
Just in case you don't realize this about American politics, but we literally get a new government every 8-10 years. Many congressmen stick around for a long time, that is true. However, military action must be ordered by the President, and he's mostly in charge of foreign policy. There are checks in place, and I'm certainly oversimplifying the matter. Point is, in a country where the #1 song changes every couple of weeks, clothing trends change every season, do you really expect a government from the last election to indicate what the government from the next election will do? It's supposed to be representative of the will of the people, and since the will of the people is an indeterminate, incongruous, and constantly changing thing, I'd say the inconsistencies you cite show our government is working well within it's stated goals.
The soldiers may be brave and willing, but the Army is so risk-adverse they are willing to do almost anything, at any cost, to avoid American combat casualties.
It's a worthy goal, but it does balance well. It might look cheaper to replace a man than a piece of technology, but you gotta remember. The enemy has men too, they do not have smart bombs and cruise missiles and (in this case, hopefully) nukes. If an army uses its men as it's main force of attack, then it will be faced with an enemy with the same resources. If you want to win a war in this day and age, you need technology.
Am I equating the protestors with Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein? Yes. Am I questioning their patriotism? Yes. Am I justified? You decide.
I've decided. I call troll. :) Here's some food:
This "with us or against us" crap has got to stop. You can equate protestors with terrorists all you want, especially since some of them use a less-strong fear tactic as well. However, why would they even bother protesting if they didn't give a shit about their country? Why bother being heard to have a certain opinion in your country if you don't give a shit about it?
Not that I think protesting is useful in this situation, actually. It's just that your statements are the kinds of things that lead to fascism.
All irrelevant, I think you were just trolling. :)
The only way for someone to convince/convert me is to make an argument that I agree with or cant counter.
Trust in your gut. Just because you can't counter an argument doesn't mean you're wrong. It's a good indication, but it's only an indication. Remember, the average human uses a very small portion of their brain, and the rest could well have already figured it out and be influencing you. :)
Gut feelings are not to be ignored, even if they can't be explained.
What the fuck does race have to do with anything?
That is the single best question I have seen asked in my entire life. Unfortunately, you asked the wrong person, since he was just citing something he saw.
Still, that question made the ground shake when I read it. It has such wide-reaching implications... I also know that I have personally heard the answer to that question as "everything", and then everything said after that made about as much sense as a double-boxed smoker from New Braunfels on a torpedo.
The only thing flatly rejected by the French (you remember, the people who made it possible for this little country cede from the British Empire a few years back) was a timeline.
All right, that's enough of that. Wanna say that since the French helped us establish our freedom from England that we owe them a debt? Well, since we joined up with our former oppressors to LIBERATE FRANCE FROM HITLER, I consider that debt paid in full.
Now let's scrap. And perhaps the next time the French say "You have your freedom because of us, you must do as we say" we'll just turn our backs when dictators show up wanting to murder their Jewish population. Eh? Is that what you want?
Fuckin' shit, last time we bail out the French. Maybe if you would've paid more attention to our revolution you wouldn't feel the need to surrender everytime someone points a water gun at you.
All right, I'm ranting now. I'm getting pretty irritated at people saying we owe our freedom to France and ignoring the fact that we have possibly paid it back at least twice since then. Let's also ignore the fact that the very issue here is that Ben Franklin, through his contacts with the devil-worshipping Hell-Fire Club, was able to secure France's help in our revolution.
Any more reason we should do what France tells us? What're they gonna do if we don't follow orders, surrender?
While we're deconstructing, it's worth noting that the original "irony" we're supposed to see only works if you subscribe to the flawed arguments voiceofthewhirlwind pointed out
Well, in that case, I think it's also worth pointing out that "irony" doesn't depend on any beliefs, it is merely a condition that exists. The irony is that the protestors would be killed if they protested in the country their protests are targetted to save. Acknowledging the irony doesn't require an opinion either way on the war, it's merely acknowledging that the country in which they perform the protest is a free country nominally attempting to free the country, through a war which is the object of protest.
The irony then is the fact that the one action taken is not supported by the recipient of the gift (Iraq).
We can further tear it apart by pointing out that our completely unbiased and honest press is telling us that our completely truthful and honorable politicians have been informed by their completely trustworthy staff that many Iraqi citizens are calling "Bush, bush" and cheering and so forth.
This, in itself, is a further irony, since what they mean when they cheer "Bush, Bush" is that after Saddam is no longer in power, they will no longer have to circumcise their women.
Disclaimer: I do not know if Iraq circumcises their women or not, I only know that it is a practice in some Islamic countries.
ps Wasn't it France who helped you guys when you revolted?
A debt paid in full no later than liberating France from the Nazis. :)
Then today, it was reporting that it had undergone a DOS attack, and would be back up as soon as they could shake free.
That's gotta be embarrasing when someone using a *really* old MS OS can attack your website and tear it down.
Or did I read that wrong? ;)
Frames are evil. Tables are useful for presentation of some types of information, but too many clueless webmasters use tables to do layout jobs that are better handled with CSS.
Or maybe they're clued in to the fact that up to 30% of their potential audience won't be able to see the site properly with a CSS layout. Point IE 5 here. IE 5 is the default-installed browser for Win2k and WinME, and win98 iirc. It has about 30% of the market, last time I saw any strong numbers on it. Moreso than 5.5, since 5.5 requires you to download an upgrade. 5 and 6 both install with the OS (XP has 6, of course), but 5.5 requires a downloaded upgrade.
And yes, I know, I've *really* gotta fix that page.