When the next terrorist attack comes you can almost predict the public's reaction.
1. Blame the press.
2. Demand bloodlust.
3. Ask for more government protection.
Well, Stalin, you're RTFO. Last time I checked, it's the government that takes most of the flack, while the media makes a killing questioning why certain departments have such big budgets, and why we're giving up our rights, if the government can't even stop a measly little terrorist plot.
I can just imagine this guy's response if the 9/11 hijackers had been captured BEFORE pulling off the attack:
"So, you want to convince intelligent people like those on slashdot that the FBI stopped people from around the world possibly funded by a CIA agent from hijacking airliners with box cutters?
I'm assuming he meant "they aren't neccesarily smarter". As you say, there's no universal rule regaurding intelligence. If aliens with UFO's existed, they could be at roughly the same intelligence level as us, or they could be way more intelligent, or even much less intelligent.
We need to redefine the words because the words are important. Attaching labels is a matter of the socialization process.
I see. In that case, why don't we just stop referring to homosexuals as homosexuals? By your line of logic, isn't it discriminatory to have one word to describe those who sleep with the opposite sex, while having a different word for those who sleep with the same sex? We'll just call everyone "whateversexual". While we're at it we'll drop the words "man" and "woman", and just refer to everyone as a person. Then we could redefine the meaning of marriage to be "a union between a person and a person". Maybe we could have the announcement made on TV by David Letterperson. While we're at it we'd also have to drop such silly words as "fiancé", "girlfriend", "boyfriend", "wife", and "husband". They're discriminatory because they're all different. We'll just call anyone involved in a romantic relationship a "partner".
Gee, once you get started on changing words, it's rather difficult to stop eh? Maybe we'll form a committee to rewrite the entire English language, making sure than no term anywhere could possibly be seen as discriminatory.
Prior to the end of segregation, there were colored folk, and then there were folk.
We still HAVE "colored folk", we just call them "African Americans" now, which is even worse since the majority of them aren't from Africa. Or we call 'em blacks. And then we do surveys all the time to see how they identify themselves, and how they think the white man is treating them. Plus we provide them with opportunities based on nothing other than their race. So we've gone from using a stupid term to describe them, and systemically discriminating against them, to using an even stupider term to describe them while individually discriminating against them and systemically discriminating FOR them. Yeah, we've made some progress, but a lot of mistakes too. And the change in wording had little to do with it.
It's become the same scenario with homosexuals. Excluding homosexuals from marriage is just that, a means of exclusion, and the word "marriage" has now become the term by which to connote special privileged status.
Alright, and? Calling you a "man" is a means of excluding you from the group associated with the word "woman". So what? Does that make you upset too?
It's this kind of thing that makes me think we're (as a society) going overboard with the "equality" thing. Equality doesn't mean making everyone the same! Otherwise I'd be able to use a women's washroom in a restaurant, and get hired as a newscaster for the Black Entertainment Television network. We ARE different, and sometimes those differences are important. Acknowledging our difference isn't discrimination. It's not discrimination until you start USING those differences as a basis to treat one group worse than another. Refusing to acknowledge the differences between us is pure foolishness; a self induced blindness rather like the proverbial ostrich with it's head in the sand.
If marriage should be restricted to certain groups of individuals, and denied to others, as a symbol of social status, then marriage should be removed from legal recognition.
Now THAT is something I can absolutely agree with. Marriage should be a cultural thing left up to the individuals and their faiths. The government should simply be in the business of contract enforcement. If 5 people all want to have a relationship together, no problem, they draw up a contract stating the terms and duration of the arrangement, as well as repercussions for violating the terms of the contract. They can call their relationship whatever they want. For the government it then becomes a simple matter of ratifying and enforcing the terms of the contract, and figuring out how the benefits would be shared.
The morality of such a system would be...interesting to debate. However, it gives people maximum freedom, and avoids excluding any group(s), so I'm all for it. But I still maintain there's absolutely no justification for changing the definition of the word "marriage".
Heh, we're going in circles now. I never said we shouldn't have equal rights, but why does that mean we need to change words? We have different words to describe the male and female gender, but both genders have the same rights. We have different words to distinguish between races, but all races have the same rights. And we also have different words to distinguish between different sexual orientations, while still having (at least in Canada) the same rights. So why can't we have different words to distinguish between types of relationships, but still have the same rights? Why can't one be a "marriage" and the other a "civil union", but still have equal standing in the eyes of the law and government?
Hell, many (heterosexual) people don't even bother with marriage these days and instead simply become "common law partners". I don't know if it's the same in the US, but a common law couple here has the same rights as a married couple. I certainly don't see any of my friends who are in that type of relationship complaining that they're not allowed to call their relationship a marriage. So why does a homosexual relationship HAVE to be called a "marriage"?
Don't you have anything more important to worry about? Who cares if gays get married? Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Get over it and find something more relevant to spend your time worrying about...
I'm going to play devils advocate for a second.
Who cares if brothers marry sisters? Or fathers marry daughters? Does it affect you any way whatsoever?
What do you care if some men like to lure 12 year old girls over the internet and have sex with them? Don't you have anything more important to worry about?
It's not about what "affects you". It's about morals and what we perceive as right and wrong. In roman times, having sex with 10 year old boys was perfectly acceptable. They didn't see any harm in it. Today you can spend 20 years in jail for doing the same thing. Muslims today still have arranged marriages, and 11 year old brides. They don't see any harm in that either. Our society seems to feel differently.
Morality may change from society to society and from time to time, but it's just as important to a society as any purely logical decisions based only on an assesment of benefit vs. harm.
You said it yourself: They wanted equal rights, and the government attempted to force a compromise. The US legal standard that seems apropos (though odds are not to Canadians, but given my grasp of Canadian case law is utterly pathetic, it's what I've got): Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, "Separate but equal is inherently unequal."
But does that really extend to changing the definitions of words? Marriage has always been the union between a man and a woman. So now we change it's definition to just "a union". What's next? Isn't it sexist to call a man a "man", and a woman a "woman"? Sure both are technicaly equal, but they're seperate! Hell, while we're at it, where do we get off classifying people as Caucasian or Middle Eastern, or African American? Might as well get rid of all those words too, or just change their meanings so they're all the same.
I really don't see how the Brown v. Board of Education case has anything to do with the gay marriage debate. One is a case based on (if I remember correctly) physicaly segregating individuals based on race. The other is a matter of using two different terms to describe two different types of relationships. There's really no similarity.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against reckognizing that homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us. But I DON'T see the need to go around changing the definitions of words. Especially when there's more important things to focus on. For instance, the age of consent here has always been 14, but for anal sex it's 18. Now that IS discriminatory. There's absolutely no reason why the age at which you can legaly engage in sexual activities should be varied based on sexual orientation. Things like that need to change. Why try to rewrite the dictionary when you can instead focus on changing discriminatory laws?
Speaking as a homosexual, it has more to do with spousal rights (right to visit your spouse in the hospital, getting on your spouses health insurance if you have none/job does not offer any/job has insurance that sucks and/or is more expensive than your spouses, right to say what happens upon death, etc)...
Just out of curiosity, if you realy only want equal rights, then why was there such an uproar about the terminology? I remember there being a debate about giving homosexuals the right to a "civil union" which would be the same as a marriage except without the religious implications or the name. Yet that seemed to be an unacceptable compromise.
I'm in Canada and I know that homosexuals here had Civil Union rights long before we legislated to allow same-sex marriage. Same sex partners in civil unions had the same rights as married couples. Yet when the same-sex marriage debate came up, and people pointed out that we already had civil unions, most homosexuals complained that using a different name was discriminatory in and of itself.
I'm not trying to suggest that you're a liar...but if you beleive what you wrote then it certainly seems like you're an exception to the rule.
I'm not American, but my understanding of the term "redneck" is that it refers to a certain underclass of uneducated, criminally inclined, trailer park dwelling white folks. Doesn't sound very racist to me.
Yeah, and "nigger" used to refer to a certain underclass of uneducated, criminaly inclined, barn dwelling black folks. I'm sure slave owners thought the term wasn't racist at all, if they even knew was "racist" meant.
Ofcourse, I understand what your real point was. What you meant to say is "it's not racist if you're talking about white people".
After resolution 1441 the inspectors were sent in again, which again Saddam agreed to November 13th 2002.
Feb 15th 2003 Hans Blix gives a report stating that no WMD have been found and that Powells case to the UN didn't add up with the facts.
Heh. So THAT's what you're talking about. Yep, in 3 months in a country the size of Iraq, a small team of UN inspectors couldn't find any wapons of mass destruction. In other news, it's been 20 years and I still can't find that needle you dropped in the hay-stack.
Doubtless you're now going to suggest more time should have been given to the UN to send more inspectors, have them stumble around for another 5 years, have them be blocked by Saddam at every turn the way he had in the past, and then have him throw them out of the country again. To that I have only one response:
"I suggest you get a better machine or rent the documentry."
I said the FIREWALL won't let me access it numbnuts. F-I-R-E-W-A-L-L. That's got nothing to do with my computer. Jeeze. Figure on a techie site you'd have people who actualy know something about computers.
and what you fail to point out that is that this was prior to weapons inspectors going in, who guess what didn't find anything.
The resolution was ratified in November of 2002. What the hell is wrong with you? Inspectors had been in and out of Iraq since the early 90's. So you lie about the order of events, and then accuse me of not seing the facts? Christ man, give your head a shake.
Also, the fact that the director of your "documentary" seems to make his living creating anti-US-government propaganda pieces doesn't speak well for the impartiality of your claim. Perhaps if the same video were made by, say, National Geographic, I'd be tempted to watch it. As it is, I get the feeling it would have about the same educational value as a film by Michael Moore or Dylan Avery.
Now, I've provided you with solid evidence which directly contradicts your statements. I've linked to original documents published by both the CIA and the UN. Also, I've given you a direct quote by the president of France. All you've done is make false (and unsupported) claims about UN resolution 1441, and link to a propaganda film. Unless your next post contains some ground breaking new evidence, don't expect another response from me.
Well, how could I ever hope to refute that argument. You've deffinitely convinced me!
I'm not going to watch your documentary because I can't access it through the firewall. And your comment on the UN resolution is both wrong and irrelevant to what we're discussing. Wrong in that it most certainly was not "written by USA and England", and irrelevant in that we weren't discussing the wording concerning going to war. The only important bit to the topic at hand is that resolution 1441 clearly shows that the UN was of the beleif that Iraq still had biological and chemical weapons.
Like I said, if you have any relevant info which backs up your statements, please feel free to link to it. Preferably not in video format. For instance if you're going to state that the CIA told Pres. Bush that Saddam had no WMD's, it might be nice to actually link to a CIA document which actualy confirms that claim. It helps to actualy show the source document instead of someones videotaped interpretation of that document.
"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security"
Sure sounds to me like they thought Iraq had WMD's.
As for the intelligence community most of them said that there no weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq, including the CIA who gave bush a report detailing it.
Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.
How about comments from foreign officials? France:
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
Yep, deffinitely, you're right, nobody thought Saddam had WMD's. How could I have been so silly.
If you have any evidence at all to back your assertions, please, feel free to post it.
There WAS damn good evidence of WMD's in Iraq. US intelligence sources weren't the only ones saying it - MANY other nations beleived the same thing. And justifiably so. We know for a fact that Saddam DID posses chemical and biological agents, and there was plenty of evidence indicating that he never destroyed them. Whereas there was absolutely zero evidence, other than his own word, that he HAD destroyed them.
In any case, the burden of proof is not on the critics of the CIA, it's on the CIA and the administration; they have to prove to the public that they spent public money wisely and justifiably.
They "have to" do no such thing. They've got much more important things to do than try and address every complaint or conspiracy out there. You remind me of the idiots who insist that it's not "our responsibility" to prove that 9/11 was a coverup, but that it's the government's job to prove otherwise. In other words, "prove that you're innocent", and not even just innocent of one accusation, but innocent of anything that CT'ers can think of. Prove you didn't fake the moon landing. Prove that Pearl Harbour really happened. Prove that there isn't a Zionist cabal controling the world. That sort of nonsense. It's truly mind-boggling.
You want your complaints to be taken seriously? Come up with a logical accusation backed up by witness statements and evidence. Prove that the government knew that their intelligence sources were fake. THEN we'll see about prosecuting those responsible. But as long as all you can come up with is "Bush lied, people died", nobody's going to take you seriously.
In other news, it's irresponsible to tell your neighbours wife about ways to get help and counceling. If she doesn't like being physicaly and emotionaly abused, then she has a moral obligation to overthrow him. It's clearly wrong to attempt to help her in any way whatsoever.
So, it never hurts to spend even more money on an even bigger stick? That sounds like something that a lobbyist for Northrop Grumman would say. Come, on; there have to be limits.
There are always limits, but the US hasn't come close. On the other hand North Korea for example has jumped way over their limit.
Besides, this particular kind of big stick is completely useless against today's home-grown terrorists.
That "one threat at a time" mindset is exactly how you destroy your own military and get your ass kicked. If the current trend is for criminals to commit assault with a pointed stick, am I only going to train to fight opponents with sharp sticks? Hell no. You have to be prepared for anything.
That sounds overly confident to me -- even delusional. Like you just got your 1st Dan. How old are you anyway?
Heh. I don't do formal training any more. I find most styles too limiting. And my age is none of your business, but I'll tell you I've got 9 years of military service, so that should give you a ballpark figure.
You've got a decent point. Ofcourse, neither total money nor percentage of GDP should ever be used as a "metric for military spending". Capability and efficiency are the only real metrics.
Still, I don't see Canada in danger of being occupied by some
ther county.
Only because we're lucky enough to share a border with a powerful and benevolent neighbour. Nobody can attack us because the US would stop them.
What I am saying is that it is a bad idea (long term) to be a world's policeman.
It just depends on how well you do it. It's a bad idea to be a cop in the ghetto because everyone hates you. But you have the opportunity to do some good. Ofcourse, it helps to have a good partner, and some support.
We outspend the next 20 countries combined---we don't need to spend that much.
The absolute numbers don't mean much. Compare spending as a percentage of GDP and picture's a bit diferent.
Or, if you want, compare total dolars spent on education in other countries to how much is spent in the US. I gaurantee that the US outspends all of them on that front too, and by a large margin.
"we don't need to spend that much" becomes mantra after a while, and then you end up gutting the military the way it happened here in Canada. Right now we can deploy something like 2,500 soldiers at a time, and even that's stretching the military thin. Once you get to that point it takes a decade or more to rebuild, and it's expensive as all hell.
If we're so desperate to get along with our neighbors (Europe, India, China), why do we have to keep our military so armed to the teeth with all these hyper-expensive mega-weapons -- as if the Cold War never ended?
Because it never hurts to carry a big stick.
I've got numerous years of martial arts experience and all sorts of weapons training. I don't do it ebcause I want bad relations with my neighbours, I do it because \
a) I enjoy the training
b) It keeps me in shape
c) I like to know that if someone ever attacks me I'l be able to wipe the floors with them.
Especialy now that swarmings are becoming an increasingly common phenomenon, it pays to not just be "adequately" prepared, but be prepared for anything. Ditto for the military situation.
Well said. If any of the Muslim countries cared about Palestine, they could have ended the conflict long ago. They certainly wouldn't be living in refugee camps. The act of the matter is, in it's current state Palestine is a handy tool for other ME countries. The only ones really intrested in resolving that situation in a reasonable fashion are the Israelis.
Yeah, ofcourse. I'm sure the american-indians benefitted greatly from being called mindless barbarians and savages.
In order for a society to benefit from "critical review", the review must be accurate and meaningful. Lies, distortions, and biases do not fall udner the category of "critical review".
And stop fucking implying that I'm an American! I'm starting to think my tagline should be "No, I'm NOT American".
Slashdot Mirror
When the next terrorist attack comes you can almost predict the public's reaction.
1. Blame the press.
2. Demand bloodlust.
3. Ask for more government protection.
Well, Stalin, you're RTFO. Last time I checked, it's the government that takes most of the flack, while the media makes a killing questioning why certain departments have such big budgets, and why we're giving up our rights, if the government can't even stop a measly little terrorist plot.
Insightfull? Are the mods smoking crack again?
I can just imagine this guy's response if the 9/11 hijackers had been captured BEFORE pulling off the attack:
"So, you want to convince intelligent people like those on slashdot that the FBI stopped people from around the world possibly funded by a CIA agent from hijacking airliners with box cutters?
FUD
I feel safer, don't you?"
I'm assuming he meant "they aren't neccesarily smarter". As you say, there's no universal rule regaurding intelligence. If aliens with UFO's existed, they could be at roughly the same intelligence level as us, or they could be way more intelligent, or even much less intelligent.
I'm just having fun picturing how absolutely smashed he must have gotten in order to ask such a question on Yahoo Answers.
We need to redefine the words because the words are important. Attaching labels is a matter of the socialization process.
I see. In that case, why don't we just stop referring to homosexuals as homosexuals? By your line of logic, isn't it discriminatory to have one word to describe those who sleep with the opposite sex, while having a different word for those who sleep with the same sex? We'll just call everyone "whateversexual". While we're at it we'll drop the words "man" and "woman", and just refer to everyone as a person. Then we could redefine the meaning of marriage to be "a union between a person and a person". Maybe we could have the announcement made on TV by David Letterperson. While we're at it we'd also have to drop such silly words as "fiancé", "girlfriend", "boyfriend", "wife", and "husband". They're discriminatory because they're all different. We'll just call anyone involved in a romantic relationship a "partner".
Gee, once you get started on changing words, it's rather difficult to stop eh? Maybe we'll form a committee to rewrite the entire English language, making sure than no term anywhere could possibly be seen as discriminatory.
Prior to the end of segregation, there were colored folk, and then there were folk.
We still HAVE "colored folk", we just call them "African Americans" now, which is even worse since the majority of them aren't from Africa. Or we call 'em blacks. And then we do surveys all the time to see how they identify themselves, and how they think the white man is treating them. Plus we provide them with opportunities based on nothing other than their race. So we've gone from using a stupid term to describe them, and systemically discriminating against them, to using an even stupider term to describe them while individually discriminating against them and systemically discriminating FOR them. Yeah, we've made some progress, but a lot of mistakes too. And the change in wording had little to do with it.
It's become the same scenario with homosexuals. Excluding homosexuals from marriage is just that, a means of exclusion, and the word "marriage" has now become the term by which to connote special privileged status.
Alright, and? Calling you a "man" is a means of excluding you from the group associated with the word "woman". So what? Does that make you upset too?
It's this kind of thing that makes me think we're (as a society) going overboard with the "equality" thing. Equality doesn't mean making everyone the same! Otherwise I'd be able to use a women's washroom in a restaurant, and get hired as a newscaster for the Black Entertainment Television network. We ARE different, and sometimes those differences are important. Acknowledging our difference isn't discrimination. It's not discrimination until you start USING those differences as a basis to treat one group worse than another. Refusing to acknowledge the differences between us is pure foolishness; a self induced blindness rather like the proverbial ostrich with it's head in the sand.
If marriage should be restricted to certain groups of individuals, and denied to others, as a symbol of social status, then marriage should be removed from legal recognition.
Now THAT is something I can absolutely agree with. Marriage should be a cultural thing left up to the individuals and their faiths. The government should simply be in the business of contract enforcement. If 5 people all want to have a relationship together, no problem, they draw up a contract stating the terms and duration of the arrangement, as well as repercussions for violating the terms of the contract. They can call their relationship whatever they want. For the government it then becomes a simple matter of ratifying and enforcing the terms of the contract, and figuring out how the benefits would be shared.
The morality of such a system would be...interesting to debate. However, it gives people maximum freedom, and avoids excluding any group(s), so I'm all for it. But I still maintain there's absolutely no justification for changing the definition of the word "marriage".
Heh, we're going in circles now. I never said we shouldn't have equal rights, but why does that mean we need to change words? We have different words to describe the male and female gender, but both genders have the same rights. We have different words to distinguish between races, but all races have the same rights. And we also have different words to distinguish between different sexual orientations, while still having (at least in Canada) the same rights. So why can't we have different words to distinguish between types of relationships, but still have the same rights? Why can't one be a "marriage" and the other a "civil union", but still have equal standing in the eyes of the law and government?
Hell, many (heterosexual) people don't even bother with marriage these days and instead simply become "common law partners". I don't know if it's the same in the US, but a common law couple here has the same rights as a married couple. I certainly don't see any of my friends who are in that type of relationship complaining that they're not allowed to call their relationship a marriage. So why does a homosexual relationship HAVE to be called a "marriage"?
Don't you have anything more important to worry about? Who cares if gays get married? Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Get over it and find something more relevant to spend your time worrying about...
I'm going to play devils advocate for a second.
Who cares if brothers marry sisters? Or fathers marry daughters? Does it affect you any way whatsoever?
What do you care if some men like to lure 12 year old girls over the internet and have sex with them? Don't you have anything more important to worry about?
It's not about what "affects you". It's about morals and what we perceive as right and wrong. In roman times, having sex with 10 year old boys was perfectly acceptable. They didn't see any harm in it. Today you can spend 20 years in jail for doing the same thing. Muslims today still have arranged marriages, and 11 year old brides. They don't see any harm in that either. Our society seems to feel differently.
Morality may change from society to society and from time to time, but it's just as important to a society as any purely logical decisions based only on an assesment of benefit vs. harm.
You said it yourself: They wanted equal rights, and the government attempted to force a compromise. The US legal standard that seems apropos (though odds are not to Canadians, but given my grasp of Canadian case law is utterly pathetic, it's what I've got): Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, "Separate but equal is inherently unequal."
But does that really extend to changing the definitions of words? Marriage has always been the union between a man and a woman. So now we change it's definition to just "a union". What's next? Isn't it sexist to call a man a "man", and a woman a "woman"? Sure both are technicaly equal, but they're seperate! Hell, while we're at it, where do we get off classifying people as Caucasian or Middle Eastern, or African American? Might as well get rid of all those words too, or just change their meanings so they're all the same.
I really don't see how the Brown v. Board of Education case has anything to do with the gay marriage debate. One is a case based on (if I remember correctly) physicaly segregating individuals based on race. The other is a matter of using two different terms to describe two different types of relationships. There's really no similarity.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against reckognizing that homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us. But I DON'T see the need to go around changing the definitions of words. Especially when there's more important things to focus on. For instance, the age of consent here has always been 14, but for anal sex it's 18. Now that IS discriminatory. There's absolutely no reason why the age at which you can legaly engage in sexual activities should be varied based on sexual orientation. Things like that need to change. Why try to rewrite the dictionary when you can instead focus on changing discriminatory laws?
Took me 5 months to learn to speak English fluently. Deffinitely a very simple language to learn.
Speaking as a homosexual, it has more to do with spousal rights (right to visit your spouse in the hospital, getting on your spouses health insurance if you have none/job does not offer any/job has insurance that sucks and/or is more expensive than your spouses, right to say what happens upon death, etc)...
Just out of curiosity, if you realy only want equal rights, then why was there such an uproar about the terminology? I remember there being a debate about giving homosexuals the right to a "civil union" which would be the same as a marriage except without the religious implications or the name. Yet that seemed to be an unacceptable compromise.
I'm in Canada and I know that homosexuals here had Civil Union rights long before we legislated to allow same-sex marriage. Same sex partners in civil unions had the same rights as married couples. Yet when the same-sex marriage debate came up, and people pointed out that we already had civil unions, most homosexuals complained that using a different name was discriminatory in and of itself.
I'm not trying to suggest that you're a liar...but if you beleive what you wrote then it certainly seems like you're an exception to the rule.
I'm not American, but my understanding of the term "redneck" is that it refers to a certain underclass of uneducated, criminally inclined, trailer park dwelling white folks. Doesn't sound very racist to me.
Yeah, and "nigger" used to refer to a certain underclass of uneducated, criminaly inclined, barn dwelling black folks. I'm sure slave owners thought the term wasn't racist at all, if they even knew was "racist" meant.
Ofcourse, I understand what your real point was. What you meant to say is "it's not racist if you're talking about white people".
After resolution 1441 the inspectors were sent in again, which again Saddam agreed to November 13th 2002. Feb 15th 2003 Hans Blix gives a report stating that no WMD have been found and that Powells case to the UN didn't add up with the facts.
Heh. So THAT's what you're talking about. Yep, in 3 months in a country the size of Iraq, a small team of UN inspectors couldn't find any wapons of mass destruction. In other news, it's been 20 years and I still can't find that needle you dropped in the hay-stack.
Doubtless you're now going to suggest more time should have been given to the UN to send more inspectors, have them stumble around for another 5 years, have them be blocked by Saddam at every turn the way he had in the past, and then have him throw them out of the country again. To that I have only one response:
Nuts.
We're done here
"I suggest you get a better machine or rent the documentry."
I said the FIREWALL won't let me access it numbnuts. F-I-R-E-W-A-L-L. That's got nothing to do with my computer. Jeeze. Figure on a techie site you'd have people who actualy know something about computers.
and what you fail to point out that is that this was prior to weapons inspectors going in, who guess what didn't find anything.
The resolution was ratified in November of 2002. What the hell is wrong with you? Inspectors had been in and out of Iraq since the early 90's. So you lie about the order of events, and then accuse me of not seing the facts? Christ man, give your head a shake.
Also, the fact that the director of your "documentary" seems to make his living creating anti-US-government propaganda pieces doesn't speak well for the impartiality of your claim. Perhaps if the same video were made by, say, National Geographic, I'd be tempted to watch it. As it is, I get the feeling it would have about the same educational value as a film by Michael Moore or Dylan Avery.
Now, I've provided you with solid evidence which directly contradicts your statements. I've linked to original documents published by both the CIA and the UN. Also, I've given you a direct quote by the president of France. All you've done is make false (and unsupported) claims about UN resolution 1441, and link to a propaganda film. Unless your next post contains some ground breaking new evidence, don't expect another response from me.
"k.thx.bye."
Well, how could I ever hope to refute that argument. You've deffinitely convinced me!
I'm not going to watch your documentary because I can't access it through the firewall. And your comment on the UN resolution is both wrong and irrelevant to what we're discussing. Wrong in that it most certainly was not "written by USA and England", and irrelevant in that we weren't discussing the wording concerning going to war. The only important bit to the topic at hand is that resolution 1441 clearly shows that the UN was of the beleif that Iraq still had biological and chemical weapons.
Like I said, if you have any relevant info which backs up your statements, please feel free to link to it. Preferably not in video format. For instance if you're going to state that the CIA told Pres. Bush that Saddam had no WMD's, it might be nice to actually link to a CIA document which actualy confirms that claim. It helps to actualy show the source document instead of someones videotaped interpretation of that document.
What version of history have YOU been reading? From UN resolution 1441:
Sure sounds to me like they thought Iraq had WMD's.
As for the intelligence community most of them said that there no weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq, including the CIA who gave bush a report detailing it.
Really.
CIA report, October 2002:
How about comments from foreign officials? France:
Yep, deffinitely, you're right, nobody thought Saddam had WMD's. How could I have been so silly.
If you have any evidence at all to back your assertions, please, feel free to post it.
There WAS damn good evidence of WMD's in Iraq. US intelligence sources weren't the only ones saying it - MANY other nations beleived the same thing. And justifiably so. We know for a fact that Saddam DID posses chemical and biological agents, and there was plenty of evidence indicating that he never destroyed them. Whereas there was absolutely zero evidence, other than his own word, that he HAD destroyed them.
In any case, the burden of proof is not on the critics of the CIA, it's on the CIA and the administration; they have to prove to the public that they spent public money wisely and justifiably.
They "have to" do no such thing. They've got much more important things to do than try and address every complaint or conspiracy out there. You remind me of the idiots who insist that it's not "our responsibility" to prove that 9/11 was a coverup, but that it's the government's job to prove otherwise. In other words, "prove that you're innocent", and not even just innocent of one accusation, but innocent of anything that CT'ers can think of. Prove you didn't fake the moon landing. Prove that Pearl Harbour really happened. Prove that there isn't a Zionist cabal controling the world. That sort of nonsense. It's truly mind-boggling.
You want your complaints to be taken seriously? Come up with a logical accusation backed up by witness statements and evidence. Prove that the government knew that their intelligence sources were fake. THEN we'll see about prosecuting those responsible. But as long as all you can come up with is "Bush lied, people died", nobody's going to take you seriously.
Does this apply to the CIA falsifying intelligence to secure a slice of the defence budget?
Sure, but first you have to prove it.
And no, linking to sites which claim that the moon landing was faked and that the US bombed Jupiter with anti-matter weapons doesn't count as "proof".
In other news, it's irresponsible to tell your neighbours wife about ways to get help and counceling. If she doesn't like being physicaly and emotionaly abused, then she has a moral obligation to overthrow him. It's clearly wrong to attempt to help her in any way whatsoever.
So, it never hurts to spend even more money on an even bigger stick? That sounds like something that a lobbyist for Northrop Grumman would say. Come, on; there have to be limits.
There are always limits, but the US hasn't come close. On the other hand North Korea for example has jumped way over their limit.
Besides, this particular kind of big stick is completely useless against today's home-grown terrorists.
That "one threat at a time" mindset is exactly how you destroy your own military and get your ass kicked. If the current trend is for criminals to commit assault with a pointed stick, am I only going to train to fight opponents with sharp sticks? Hell no. You have to be prepared for anything.
That sounds overly confident to me -- even delusional. Like you just got your 1st Dan. How old are you anyway?
Heh. I don't do formal training any more. I find most styles too limiting. And my age is none of your business, but I'll tell you I've got 9 years of military service, so that should give you a ballpark figure.
You've got a decent point. Ofcourse, neither total money nor percentage of GDP should ever be used as a "metric for military spending". Capability and efficiency are the only real metrics.
Still, I don't see Canada in danger of being occupied by some ther county.
Only because we're lucky enough to share a border with a powerful and benevolent neighbour. Nobody can attack us because the US would stop them.
What I am saying is that it is a bad idea (long term) to be a world's policeman.
It just depends on how well you do it. It's a bad idea to be a cop in the ghetto because everyone hates you. But you have the opportunity to do some good. Ofcourse, it helps to have a good partner, and some support.
We outspend the next 20 countries combined---we don't need to spend that much.
The absolute numbers don't mean much. Compare spending as a percentage of GDP and picture's a bit diferent.
Or, if you want, compare total dolars spent on education in other countries to how much is spent in the US. I gaurantee that the US outspends all of them on that front too, and by a large margin.
"we don't need to spend that much" becomes mantra after a while, and then you end up gutting the military the way it happened here in Canada. Right now we can deploy something like 2,500 soldiers at a time, and even that's stretching the military thin. Once you get to that point it takes a decade or more to rebuild, and it's expensive as all hell.
If we're so desperate to get along with our neighbors (Europe, India, China), why do we have to keep our military so armed to the teeth with all these hyper-expensive mega-weapons -- as if the Cold War never ended?
Because it never hurts to carry a big stick.
I've got numerous years of martial arts experience and all sorts of weapons training. I don't do it ebcause I want bad relations with my neighbours, I do it because \
a) I enjoy the training
b) It keeps me in shape
c) I like to know that if someone ever attacks me I'l be able to wipe the floors with them.
Especialy now that swarmings are becoming an increasingly common phenomenon, it pays to not just be "adequately" prepared, but be prepared for anything. Ditto for the military situation.
Well said. If any of the Muslim countries cared about Palestine, they could have ended the conflict long ago. They certainly wouldn't be living in refugee camps. The act of the matter is, in it's current state Palestine is a handy tool for other ME countries. The only ones really intrested in resolving that situation in a reasonable fashion are the Israelis.
Yeah, ofcourse. I'm sure the american-indians benefitted greatly from being called mindless barbarians and savages.
In order for a society to benefit from "critical review", the review must be accurate and meaningful. Lies, distortions, and biases do not fall udner the category of "critical review".
And stop fucking implying that I'm an American! I'm starting to think my tagline should be "No, I'm NOT American".