So we should allow the highest bidder to choke off the bandwidth from their less wealthy competitors? Honestly, can someone explain to me how this would be a good idea?
Relax, Sparky, I was agreeing with you... but since you brought it up: Have you expressed your disagreement to the President. Mr. Bush has made it quite clear that a failure in Iraq will result in other people getting their oil and preventing us from having it. I have not read this quote, but I assume you and your sources are honest enough. Besides, he's right. If Iraq were to fall into, say Iran or AlSadre's hands, then yes, the US would have to look elsewhere to meet its energy demands. However, if someone else, say China were to purchase Iraqi oil and we were cut off, this would free up the oil from Saudi Arabia, Russia, The UAE, Kuwait, or whoever the Chinese normally purchase their oil from. The would have the affect of lowering the price from those other producers temporarily (about as long as it would take us to say, "Yes, we'll buy your oil"). So losing oil from one source is not a problem as long as someone else is able to purchase that oil. Besides, we were already buying Iraqi oil before the wars. Going to war to be able to purchase something that you can already purchase would be pretty stupid, don't you think? So Bush did not go into Iraq so that we could purchase Iraqi oil. Saying "That is the argument of the one person who took the nation to war." means about as much saying "We need to save social security is an argument made by the person who took the nation to war". The two are not related.
The other reasons have been panned for what they are - lies and deceptions. This may be true, bit I wouldn't say that it was the President who was lying. It's well known that George Tenet told GWB that WMD's in Iraq was a "slam dunk". (Google tenet "slam dunk" for multiple sources). Of course, Tenet was just the director of the CIA, appointed by the Neo-Con Warhawk Clinton. Why should Bush trust an intelligence evaluation from the Director of the CIA, anyway? At best, you could say that the President was misled, much in the same way that Colin Powell was misled, but I wouldn't really say either of them was lying. Tenet was wrong, and the current situation is the cost of that miscalculation.
Even the President has retracted the 16 words - which scooter Libby is today in court Libby is in court for perjury when he testified the first time. He was unable to accurately recall word-for-word a conversation he had several years before. It is well known now that he was not the one who leaked Valery Plame's name to Robert Novak. From here:
On August 29, 2006 Neil A. Lewis of The New York Times reported that Armitage was the "initial and primary source" for columnist Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 article, which named Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative".[3] On August 30th 2006, CNN reported that Armitage had been confirmed "by sources" as leaking Ms. Wilson's CIA role in a "casual conversation" with Robert Novak.[4]
...effort by the Administration to use any means available - legal or not - to drag a nation into an unconstitutional and undeclared war. You mean that the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, even with congressional approval, can not Constitutionally take military action? Which Constitution are you reading?
But even if we cannot, they deserve at least the recognition of their sacrifice. So it is not unreasonable to point out that oil costs in both blood and treasure. Agreed, and the only thing I was trying to point out in my original post was the environmental impact was well. And this is just using oil, not acquiring it.
While I disagree that Iraq is about oil, I grant you that we wouldn't be there if Iraq had no oil. We aren't there because we want the oil, but because of what 15% of the world's oil could finance. Still your point is not lost.
I would also like to add the environmental impact that could be avoided with clean energy. Like your example, you really can't put a dollar amount on it. However, I don't want to be the one that has to pay for it at these prices. I could see $50,000 as that could be recouped within the life of the mortgage provided it lasts that long without expensive maintenance, but at half a million is a bit out of reach.
You appear to not be aware of this, but Conservative sites are largely funded by Mellon-Scaife, Koch and other sugar daddies working through "grassroots organizations". Not advertising. PajamasMedia was an attempt to follow the model created by the BlogAds used on the liberal sites, and while it has had some limited success it doesn't generate near the revenue for the sites.
Anyway, that's what this bill was about. Trying to force conservative blogs out of the closet and admit who they were getting paid by. It's too bad it failed, as that sunshine would have been quite enlightenining to people who have been hiding in the closet for so long.
Anyway, I just always thought it funny that conservative blogs rely on a communist economic model, and liberal blogs are largely funded through free market operations.
I modded you funny then realized it was Alderan. Dammit. That was my last mod point.
Dammit! You're right. "Dantooine is too remote to make an effective demonstration. But don't worry. We will deal with your Rebel friends soon enough." Damn Tarkin!
Sorry to make you cough up your mod point, but "What's in a name? That which we call a Alderan by another name would explode as sweet"
I could be wrong, but I think the target was talk radio and/or conservative sites that are advertiser funded like LittleGreenFootballs, but not MoveOn.org, which is funded by contributors (George Soros)
Quick tip from the summary: One of the main purposes of invading Iraq was to reduce the supply of oil and make the price go up. Before the invasion, Iraq was selling 3.5 million barrels a day. Now the country sells 2 million. The Bush family and Cheney have investments in oil and weapons, and they act to make the value of their investments increase.
Wouldn't it be better to have invested in corn and really push ethanol. How about investing in batteries and push hybrids. Maybe buy soybean futures and mandate that all truckers use bio-diesel. These seem a lot less likely to piss anyone off and would actually make more money than what you proposed. You can make much bigger killing on future markets like corn or soybean (without actually killing anyone) than you can on the Bush and Cheney investments you mention. (Their investments are in blind trusts, btw. No one, including themselves have any idea as to what they are invested in.) Besides, oil slid below $50 today. If their goal was to raise the price of oil, don't you think they could have been more successful? Don't you think they would have bombed the shit out of the Iraqi oil fields instead of securing them?
No, starting a war for profit in the way you describe doesn't make much sense. Maybe you should step away from the bong, remove your tinfoil hat and rethink this. I'm sure you can come up with a better conspiracy theory than that joke you just proposed. Come on! I want something good. I love a good conspiracy!
Yes, and George bush believed him... right. There was plenty of evidence that the facts were misrepresented. Probably with knowledge of bush himself. And if he didnt know, he was incompetent, he is the president, he shouldnt just believe just anything. Going to war isnt a small decision either..
Well you have a point. I mean, why would the Prez believe the friggin director of the CIA. I mean, what the hell does he know about intelligence anyway. Once he gets promoted to "Executive Director", then maybe he deserves to be listened to. Besides, it's pretty obvious that Tenet was just a Republican hack appointed by the Clinton administration. The Prez shoulda ignored his advisors, department heads, and Generals and do the job of all these people himself. It's the only way to be sure!
Excellent, well educated post. I actually feel smarter by just skimming it.
To be fair, btw, the US is not in the list because the US signed, but didn't ratify. The same can be said of Australia. According to Wikipedia, anyway, where I got the rest of the data.
Excellent point, and you are right. (Something rarely, if ever heard on Slashdot!)
Yes, you are correct, things get banned little by little until the ban is complete. I'm sure that some of the people supporting this law have the intention of banning violent video games completely. I agree with the law, but for different reasons.
Tighter controls can actually lead to more liberty. A bar can hang a poster of a topless chick, use naked lady coasters on the counter and even have a cigarette vending machine! Why? Because no one under 21 is allowed inside a bar. Such things would be banned in a business that may be frequented by children. Same can be said for video games. If you can guarantee that a game with an R rating may not be sold to legally to anyone under 18, then we could have Hot Coffee all the time! So what if a game has a hooker blowing a hired killer, it's only adults playing the game! If that's the game that adults want to play, then why shouldn't they be able to play it? Parental groups have no case when they try to say what adults can and can't do. What would movies be like without a rating system? Do you think porn would be legal if there were absolutely no age restrictions on who could buy it?
Excellent point, and you are right. Hot Coffee all the time! So what if a game has a hooker blowing a hired killer, it's only adults playing the game! If that's the game that adults want to play, then why shouldn't they be able to play it? Parental groups have no case when they try to say what adults can and can't do. What would movies be like without a rating system? Do you think porn would be legal if there were absolutely no age restrictions on who could buy it?
Evil is as evil does, no matter how many times they are elected. What an insightful, well thought out argument.
Unlike your group-think, coming straight from Fox News.
Let me make sure I understand: I bash group-think and try to encourage an open mind, so I must be spouting group-think from Fox News? Oh, you must be one of those people that want Fox News shut down because they put both sides of the story, including the view that is different than your own. Of course, free speech and freedom of the press does not include those that disagree with you. I think I get it now.
Never, ever before have I seen someone attack the Kyoto Treaty by pointing out the nonsignatory status of the Vatican, which is about a kilometer wide and largely consists of St. Peter's Basilica and the Apostolic Palace. You write this as if you didn't see all the other countries listed there. I've seen some selective reading before, but that's pretty pathetic!
Please do any kind of fact-checking before presenting your facts. I'm sorry, I didn't think a link was necessary. It was copied directly from that site. (sorry, all the countries are listed twice, copying and pasting had all countries listed as "Flag of X X". I removed the "Flag of" but missed the country name) So please don't assume that because you don't understand or disagree with what a post says that there was no fact checking or research behind it. Although, I'm kinda honored that you thought I was able to memorize all those countries and threw in the Vatican for good measure. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not that smart!
If "violent" games can be purchased by anyone of any age, then these do-gooder politicians have an excuse to ban them completely. However, limit these games to 18+ only, and you can make the argument of, "I'm an adult and only adults can purchase these games. Stay the Hell out of my business."
(assuming that the law is 18+, not 30+ as the summary says.)
Strange, I didn't see any civilians, much less women and children in those pictures. I was thinking more along the lines of these pictures.
Your comparing the deaths of fleeing uniformed Iraqi soldiers to mass graves filled with civilians is like comparing a German machine gunner on D-Day to Anne Frank!
Speaking of the ABM treaty: The US being less of a dick would help things a lot, but you don't do that by locking yourself in your room, you do it by working together with other countries towards common goals and through diplomatic channels.
How has that worked out with respect to N. Korea? Last I heard, they tested a nuclear weapon and a missile that could hit the west coast of the US. Do you think that the Union of Concerned Scientist have a better way to knock down a N. Korean Nuke headed for LA? do you think they really care? I'm sorry, but if taking action to protect your citizens is being a dick, then I hope that we are blue-veigned Ron Jeremy sized dicks!
Kyoto is just a means to cripple the US economy in the eyes of many. Other countries that did not sign onto Kyoto: # Afghanistan # Andorra Andorra # Angola Angola # Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina # Brunei Brunei # Central African Republic Central African Republic # Chad Chad # Comoros Comoros # Republic of the Congo Republic of the Congo # Côte d'Ivoire Côte d'Ivoire # Iraq Iraq # Montenegro Montenegro # Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Kitts and Nevis # San Marino San Marino # São Tomé and Príncipe Sao Tome and Principe # Serbia Serbia # Somalia Somalia # Tajikistan Tajikistan # East Timor Timor-Leste # Tonga Tonga # Turkey Turkey # Zimbabwe Zimbabwe # Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Sahrawi Republic (Western Sahara) # Palestinian National Authority Palestine # Republic of China Republic of China (Taiwan) # Holy See Holy See (Vatican City)
Are they all dicks too? Why are you not bashing Tonga Tonga's environmental policies? (OK China would be a better example)
Regardless of whether or not Bush could have done anything to prevent 9/11 I severely doubt his 9 months of foreign policy actually caused 9/11 (which was probably in the works long before).
Very true. I wasn't pinning the blame of 9-11 on Bush's foreign policy, but pointing out that 9-11 proved that the US is not immune from attack and can not simply "turtle" into our shell.
What you call "giving the populace the chance to vote", others call "giving the populace of another country the chance to die" See Halabja poison gas attack" for an Iraqi example. I hope I don't need to give you one from Afghanistan.
and "underfunding the schools in our country to pay for a war somewhere else" You mean our schools were adequately funded before the war?
and "causing children to die because their parents are part of the wrong religious sect". Or was the civil war in Iraq worse before we invaded? Again, see Halabja poison gas attack" for an Iraqi example. I hope I don't need to give you one from Afghanistan.
If you need links to mass graves and the real torture that went on before both of these wars, I guess I could dig those up too.
if the US was telling MY country how to vote, who can go to school, and whether children are allowed to stay with their parents based on religious belief, I'd call it "behaving like a dick" too.
Not if you were one of the people who were not allowed to attend school, vote or leave the house unattended.
And as far as your examples, what? Do you actually think that women in Iraq weren't allowed to go to school? See Afghanistan.
My advice, meet someone from Iraq. I have. I spent 6 months over there.
As for the "religious sect" bullshit, that stuff for some reason was never a problem before we lead the insurrection into Iraq. So you agree that it was a problem. Funny how that slavery stuff was never a problem before the civil war! Just because something wasn't considered a problem before X happened, doesn't mean that it wasn't a problem.
The voting thing, yes true, but it's a shame that now that they voted we've decided we don't like their choices and are still fucking with them. We've overthrown their new government? When did this happen?
American is so scared shitless of the "terrorists" a "terrorist" could set off a fire cracker in a Greyhound bus station in the middle of nowhere and the country would be in panic for a month.
What's responsible for this fear? It isn't any "terrorist". It's our media and our leaders. Thanks to them most of America would completely cease to function if someone pulled anything now. There have been ample opportunities, and NOTHING has happened. It's all media hype at this point.
Okay, here's another one; why aren't we equipping trains with these? Why are people still allowed on trains with significant amounts of liquid. Is it because trains are actually less at risk, or because everyone's running around panicking about planes?
Because no one takes trains in the US with the exception of the few subways on the east coast (and Chicago).
Slashdot Mirror
So we should allow the highest bidder to choke off the bandwidth from their less wealthy competitors? Honestly, can someone explain to me how this would be a good idea?
Heck, the pirate can randomly filter out a few more bits and thus fingering some other patsy instead of him/herself?
SHHHHH! Don't give it away, patsy!
Have you expressed your disagreement to the President. Mr. Bush has made it quite clear that a failure in Iraq will result in other people getting their oil and preventing us from having it.
I have not read this quote, but I assume you and your sources are honest enough. Besides, he's right. If Iraq were to fall into, say Iran or AlSadre's hands, then yes, the US would have to look elsewhere to meet its energy demands. However, if someone else, say China were to purchase Iraqi oil and we were cut off, this would free up the oil from Saudi Arabia, Russia, The UAE, Kuwait, or whoever the Chinese normally purchase their oil from. The would have the affect of lowering the price from those other producers temporarily (about as long as it would take us to say, "Yes, we'll buy your oil"). So losing oil from one source is not a problem as long as someone else is able to purchase that oil.
Besides, we were already buying Iraqi oil before the wars. Going to war to be able to purchase something that you can already purchase would be pretty stupid, don't you think? So Bush did not go into Iraq so that we could purchase Iraqi oil. Saying "That is the argument of the one person who took the nation to war." means about as much saying "We need to save social security is an argument made by the person who took the nation to war". The two are not related.
The other reasons have been panned for what they are - lies and deceptions.
This may be true, bit I wouldn't say that it was the President who was lying. It's well known that George Tenet told GWB that WMD's in Iraq was a "slam dunk". (Google tenet "slam dunk" for multiple sources). Of course, Tenet was just the director of the CIA, appointed by the Neo-Con Warhawk Clinton. Why should Bush trust an intelligence evaluation from the Director of the CIA, anyway? At best, you could say that the President was misled, much in the same way that Colin Powell was misled, but I wouldn't really say either of them was lying. Tenet was wrong, and the current situation is the cost of that miscalculation.
Even the President has retracted the 16 words - which scooter Libby is today in court
Libby is in court for perjury when he testified the first time. He was unable to accurately recall word-for-word a conversation he had several years before. It is well known now that he was not the one who leaked Valery Plame's name to Robert Novak. From here:
You mean that the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, even with congressional approval, can not Constitutionally take military action? Which Constitution are you reading?
But even if we cannot, they deserve at least the recognition of their sacrifice. So it is not unreasonable to point out that oil costs in both blood and treasure.
Agreed, and the only thing I was trying to point out in my original post was the environmental impact was well. And this is just using oil, not acquiring it.
While I disagree that Iraq is about oil, I grant you that we wouldn't be there if Iraq had no oil. We aren't there because we want the oil, but because of what 15% of the world's oil could finance. Still your point is not lost.
I would also like to add the environmental impact that could be avoided with clean energy. Like your example, you really can't put a dollar amount on it. However, I don't want to be the one that has to pay for it at these prices. I could see $50,000 as that could be recouped within the life of the mortgage provided it lasts that long without expensive maintenance, but at half a million is a bit out of reach.
You appear to not be aware of this, but Conservative sites are largely funded by Mellon-Scaife, Koch and other sugar daddies working through "grassroots organizations". Not advertising. PajamasMedia was an attempt to follow the model created by the BlogAds used on the liberal sites, and while it has had some limited success it doesn't generate near the revenue for the sites.
Anyway, that's what this bill was about. Trying to force conservative blogs out of the closet and admit who they were getting paid by. It's too bad it failed, as that sunshine would have been quite enlightenining to people who have been hiding in the closet for so long.
Anyway, I just always thought it funny that conservative blogs rely on a communist economic model, and liberal blogs are largely funded through free market operations.
So I guess George Soros is an advertisor?
I modded you funny then realized it was Alderan. Dammit. That was my last mod point.
Dammit! You're right. "Dantooine is too remote to make an effective demonstration. But don't worry. We will deal with your Rebel friends soon enough." Damn Tarkin!
Sorry to make you cough up your mod point, but "What's in a name? That which we call a Alderan by another name would explode as sweet"
I could be wrong, but I think the target was talk radio and/or conservative sites that are advertiser funded like LittleGreenFootballs, but not MoveOn.org, which is funded by contributors (George Soros)
It's as if a 100 million free-speech loving liberals cried out and were suddenly silenced.
(Actually, they were silenced when their heads exploded like Dantooine when they found out that it was Republicans who blocked the bill.)
Is it bulletproof?
Quick tip from the summary: One of the main purposes of invading Iraq was to reduce the supply of oil and make the price go up. Before the invasion, Iraq was selling 3.5 million barrels a day. Now the country sells 2 million. The Bush family and Cheney have investments in oil and weapons, and they act to make the value of their investments increase.
Wouldn't it be better to have invested in corn and really push ethanol. How about investing in batteries and push hybrids. Maybe buy soybean futures and mandate that all truckers use bio-diesel. These seem a lot less likely to piss anyone off and would actually make more money than what you proposed. You can make much bigger killing on future markets like corn or soybean (without actually killing anyone) than you can on the Bush and Cheney investments you mention. (Their investments are in blind trusts, btw. No one, including themselves have any idea as to what they are invested in.) Besides, oil slid below $50 today. If their goal was to raise the price of oil, don't you think they could have been more successful? Don't you think they would have bombed the shit out of the Iraqi oil fields instead of securing them?
No, starting a war for profit in the way you describe doesn't make much sense. Maybe you should step away from the bong, remove your tinfoil hat and rethink this. I'm sure you can come up with a better conspiracy theory than that joke you just proposed. Come on! I want something good. I love a good conspiracy!
Yes, and George bush believed him... right. There was plenty of evidence that the facts were misrepresented. Probably with knowledge of bush himself. And if he didnt know, he was incompetent, he is the president, he shouldnt just believe just anything. Going to war isnt a small decision either..
Well you have a point. I mean, why would the Prez believe the friggin director of the CIA. I mean, what the hell does he know about intelligence anyway. Once he gets promoted to "Executive Director", then maybe he deserves to be listened to. Besides, it's pretty obvious that Tenet was just a Republican hack appointed by the Clinton administration. The Prez shoulda ignored his advisors, department heads, and Generals and do the job of all these people himself. It's the only way to be sure!
Excellent, well educated post. I actually feel smarter by just skimming it.
To be fair, btw, the US is not in the list because the US signed, but didn't ratify. The same can be said of Australia. According to Wikipedia, anyway, where I got the rest of the data.
Excellent point, and you are right. (Something rarely, if ever heard on Slashdot!)
Yes, you are correct, things get banned little by little until the ban is complete. I'm sure that some of the people supporting this law have the intention of banning violent video games completely. I agree with the law, but for different reasons.
Tighter controls can actually lead to more liberty. A bar can hang a poster of a topless chick, use naked lady coasters on the counter and even have a cigarette vending machine! Why? Because no one under 21 is allowed inside a bar. Such things would be banned in a business that may be frequented by children. Same can be said for video games. If you can guarantee that a game with an R rating may not be sold to legally to anyone under 18, then we could have Hot Coffee all the time! So what if a game has a hooker blowing a hired killer, it's only adults playing the game! If that's the game that adults want to play, then why shouldn't they be able to play it? Parental groups have no case when they try to say what adults can and can't do. What would movies be like without a rating system? Do you think porn would be legal if there were absolutely no age restrictions on who could buy it?
Excellent point, and you are right. Hot Coffee all the time! So what if a game has a hooker blowing a hired killer, it's only adults playing the game! If that's the game that adults want to play, then why shouldn't they be able to play it? Parental groups have no case when they try to say what adults can and can't do. What would movies be like without a rating system? Do you think porn would be legal if there were absolutely no age restrictions on who could buy it?
Evil is as evil does, no matter how many times they are elected.
What an insightful, well thought out argument.
Unlike your group-think, coming straight from Fox News.
Let me make sure I understand: I bash group-think and try to encourage an open mind, so I must be spouting group-think from Fox News? Oh, you must be one of those people that want Fox News shut down because they put both sides of the story, including the view that is different than your own. Of course, free speech and freedom of the press does not include those that disagree with you. I think I get it now.
Never, ever before have I seen someone attack the Kyoto Treaty by pointing out the nonsignatory status of the Vatican, which is about a kilometer wide and largely consists of St. Peter's Basilica and the Apostolic Palace.
You write this as if you didn't see all the other countries listed there. I've seen some selective reading before, but that's pretty pathetic!
Please do any kind of fact-checking before presenting your facts.
I'm sorry, I didn't think a link was necessary. It was copied directly from that site. (sorry, all the countries are listed twice, copying and pasting had all countries listed as "Flag of X X". I removed the "Flag of" but missed the country name)
So please don't assume that because you don't understand or disagree with what a post says that there was no fact checking or research behind it. Although, I'm kinda honored that you thought I was able to memorize all those countries and threw in the Vatican for good measure. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not that smart!
If "violent" games can be purchased by anyone of any age, then these do-gooder politicians have an excuse to ban them completely. However, limit these games to 18+ only, and you can make the argument of, "I'm an adult and only adults can purchase these games. Stay the Hell out of my business."
(assuming that the law is 18+, not 30+ as the summary says.)
Don't bother, I dug a few up for you. A tad more recent event than your link I'm sorry to say. An incident that came to be known as "The Turkey Shoot" or also "The Highway of Death".t mlr ticle=14772&archive=true
/
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_index.h
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=126&a
In case you'd like to brush up on some of our other activities in the area before the recent wars, here's another good place to start.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral
Strange, I didn't see any civilians, much less women and children in those pictures. I was thinking more along the lines of these pictures.
Your comparing the deaths of fleeing uniformed Iraqi soldiers to mass graves filled with civilians is like comparing a German machine gunner on D-Day to Anne Frank!
Speaking of the ABM treaty:
The US being less of a dick would help things a lot, but you don't do that by locking yourself in your room, you do it by working together with other countries towards common goals and through diplomatic channels.
How has that worked out with respect to N. Korea? Last I heard, they tested a nuclear weapon and a missile that could hit the west coast of the US. Do you think that the Union of Concerned Scientist have a better way to knock down a N. Korean Nuke headed for LA? do you think they really care?
I'm sorry, but if taking action to protect your citizens is being a dick, then I hope that we are blue-veigned Ron Jeremy sized dicks!
Kyoto is just a means to cripple the US economy in the eyes of many. Other countries that did not sign onto Kyoto:
# Afghanistan
# Andorra Andorra
# Angola Angola
# Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina
# Brunei Brunei
# Central African Republic Central African Republic
# Chad Chad
# Comoros Comoros
# Republic of the Congo Republic of the Congo
# Côte d'Ivoire Côte d'Ivoire
# Iraq Iraq
# Montenegro Montenegro
# Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Kitts and Nevis
# San Marino San Marino
# São Tomé and Príncipe Sao Tome and Principe
# Serbia Serbia
# Somalia Somalia
# Tajikistan Tajikistan
# East Timor Timor-Leste
# Tonga Tonga
# Turkey Turkey
# Zimbabwe Zimbabwe
# Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Sahrawi Republic (Western Sahara)
# Palestinian National Authority Palestine
# Republic of China Republic of China (Taiwan)
# Holy See Holy See (Vatican City)
Are they all dicks too? Why are you not bashing Tonga Tonga's environmental policies? (OK China would be a better example)
Regardless of whether or not Bush could have done anything to prevent 9/11 I severely doubt his 9 months of foreign policy actually caused 9/11 (which was probably in the works long before).
Very true. I wasn't pinning the blame of 9-11 on Bush's foreign policy, but pointing out that 9-11 proved that the US is not immune from attack and can not simply "turtle" into our shell.
What you call "giving the populace the chance to vote", others call "giving the populace of another country the chance to die"
See Halabja poison gas attack" for an Iraqi example. I hope I don't need to give you one from Afghanistan.
and "underfunding the schools in our country to pay for a war somewhere else"
You mean our schools were adequately funded before the war?
and "causing children to die because their parents are part of the wrong religious sect". Or was the civil war in Iraq worse before we invaded?
Again, see Halabja poison gas attack" for an Iraqi example. I hope I don't need to give you one from Afghanistan.
If you need links to mass graves and the real torture that went on before both of these wars, I guess I could dig those up too.
if the US was telling MY country how to vote, who can go to school, and whether children are allowed to stay with their parents based on religious belief, I'd call it "behaving like a dick" too.
Not if you were one of the people who were not allowed to attend school, vote or leave the house unattended.
And as far as your examples, what? Do you actually think that women in Iraq weren't allowed to go to school?
See Afghanistan.
My advice, meet someone from Iraq.
I have. I spent 6 months over there.
As for the "religious sect" bullshit, that stuff for some reason was never a problem before we lead the insurrection into Iraq.
So you agree that it was a problem. Funny how that slavery stuff was never a problem before the civil war! Just because something wasn't considered a problem before X happened, doesn't mean that it wasn't a problem.
The voting thing, yes true, but it's a shame that now that they voted we've decided we don't like their choices and are still fucking with them.
We've overthrown their new government? When did this happen?
American is so scared shitless of the "terrorists" a "terrorist" could set off a fire cracker in a Greyhound bus station in the middle of nowhere and the country would be in panic for a month.
What's responsible for this fear? It isn't any "terrorist". It's our media and our leaders. Thanks to them most of America would completely cease to function if someone pulled anything now. There have been ample opportunities, and NOTHING has happened. It's all media hype at this point.
See Richard Colvin Reid.
Okay, here's another one; why aren't we equipping trains with these? Why are people still allowed on trains with significant amounts of liquid. Is it because trains are actually less at risk, or because everyone's running around panicking about planes?
Because no one takes trains in the US with the exception of the few subways on the east coast (and Chicago).