I would hope that there are very few Americans that dont think about all those lives lost in Iraq. The brother of my brother's wife was KIA over there and I'll never forget him. He was a great guy and a father of a 2 year old daughter. The only reason you dont hear more about the lives lost is because America has become numbed to it and the news dosen't broadcast it much anymore. Because the government controlls the media and we all know that cocksucker Bush cant stand any more negitive publicity.spacebandit72 wrote:
It saddens me that people forget the 3000+ people that died. They were Moms, Dads, Bros, and sisters.
Political gains is all they think about.
Well, as for 911... that's where the patiot act comes in ie... wiretapshspunkrockr wrote:
Are you talking about 9/11 or the war in Iraq/Afghanistan?spacebandit72 wrote:
You are correct. Nobody could impeach Bush even if they wanted to. They have no case.Rathji wrote:
I am not American so I may be way off, but I thought the Patriot act that was passed after 9/11 allows them to do this? If that is the case, then it hardly seems illegal, even if you don't agree with the law.
It saddens me that people forget the 3000+ people that died. They were Moms, Dads, Bros, and sisters.
Political gains is all they think about.
Iraq... That is argued that Bush went in unlawfully. He based his decision on flawed evedence of WMD from the CIA. To me, the CIA should be held responsible not Bush.
Also, EVERYONE Dems and Reps agreed that Sadam had WMD.
dude, turn off AirAmerica and just put the facts into perspective, the only people being monitored are people RECEIVING calls from a foreign land and the person here in the states has to already be on a terror watch list. Its not everyone. No go get a job you liberal.Marconius wrote:
So far, Bush has been caught red-handed breaking the law. He claims that he can basically illegally wiretap Americans and invade their privacy as it is a "time of war." Albeit he never had a formal Declaration of War approved from the Congress. 'Shock and Awe' lasted just long enough that he didn't have to present his Articles of War, and the resulting firefight in Iraq is still going on.
Hopefully the Impeachment process will start soon, but only if enough Republicans in the House will allow a call for it to pass.
My question to everyone is:
If the Republicans/Bush Administration think they can get away with anything now due to the US being at "war," what will happen if a Democrat gets elected in 2008? Will they all back down and say, "Oh, no no no, we were wrong, we weren't supposed to do all of that as it was illegal at the time...so it looks like you Democrats can't do the same!" Does anyone feel like there is something more sinister going on to ensure that Republicans can force another election to come out in favor of them?
That's bullshit, the government does not control the media. The media is the government's worst enemy at the current time. They twist the real story and only focus on the negatives coming out of the war, not the good things that came out of it and that are still coming out of it.Ziggy_79x wrote:
I would hope that there are very few Americans that dont think about all those lives lost in Iraq. The brother of my brother's wife was KIA over there and I'll never forget him. He was a great guy and a father of a 2 year old daughter. The only reason you dont hear more about the lives lost is because America has become numbed to it and the news dosen't broadcast it much anymore. Because the government controlls the media and we all know that cocksucker Bush cant stand any more negitive publicity.spacebandit72 wrote:
It saddens me that people forget the 3000+ people that died. They were Moms, Dads, Bros, and sisters.
Political gains is all they think about.
Sorry for your loss. Truley.Ziggy_79x wrote:
I would hope that there are very few Americans that dont think about all those lives lost in Iraq. The brother of my brother's wife was KIA over there and I'll never forget him. He was a great guy and a father of a 2 year old daughter. The only reason you dont hear more about the lives lost is because America has become numbed to it and the news dosen't broadcast it much anymore. Because the government controlls the media and we all know that cocksucker Bush cant stand any more negitive publicity.spacebandit72 wrote:
It saddens me that people forget the 3000+ people that died. They were Moms, Dads, Bros, and sisters.
Political gains is all they think about.
I agree we all need to think of those brave souls over there defending our way of life.
Ok, I don't agree with the media thing. The media reports all these scandals and so on. They paint a very bad picture of us Americans.
Other countries see this crap our reporters say and that can be a weakness. I'm sure the terrorist are laughing as they watch us fight amongs ourselves.
The media actually reports leaks that could cause a major security breach.
Israel Ran Air Strikes into Iraq in the 80s. Their Reasons were "they are trying to make a Nuke"
So either Israel had fualty Intell which I highly doubt. or Saddam just Forgot about weapons, started downloading porn and playing BF on line.
So either Israel had fualty Intell which I highly doubt. or Saddam just Forgot about weapons, started downloading porn and playing BF on line.
Iraq shot one of our planes down in 1993, in response, Britain took out all of their anti-aircraft assets. Iraq's republican guard made an assasination attempt on George Bush Senior in the mid- '90s, in response, we bombed the RG's headquarters in Baghdad.
LOL!Horseman 77 wrote:
Israel Ran Air Strikes into Iraq in the 80s. Their Reasons were "they are trying to make a Nuke"
So either Israel had fualty Intell which I highly doubt. or Saddam just Forgot about weapons, started downloading porn and playing BF on line.
Um yikes. Hes talking about 9/11. The US casualty is not over 3000. As for the wire tap people dont have a case. They only tap you when you are suspected of doing something. I have nothing to hide so i will gladly give up that right to save thousands of others. Why are you so adament in possibly being listened in on. You must be doing something fucked up if its to that point. Congress passed the act itself...thats right BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS PASSED IT. Holy shit you mean the democrats were for this too? I have been over there and seen things first hand and Saddam definately needed to go. The war with Iraq was just in my opinion even though i hated fighting it at times. There were WMD's in his arsenal...i can vouch for seeing some of the containers empty but were still used for WMD's at one point.shspunkrockr wrote:
Are you talking about 9/11 or the war in Iraq/Afghanistan?spacebandit72 wrote:
You are correct. Nobody could impeach Bush even if they wanted to. They have no case.Rathji wrote:
I am not American so I may be way off, but I thought the Patriot act that was passed after 9/11 allows them to do this? If that is the case, then it hardly seems illegal, even if you don't agree with the law.
It saddens me that people forget the 3000+ people that died. They were Moms, Dads, Bros, and sisters.
Political gains is all they think about.
Whoever ends up in office though we need to finish this war and leave. Rebuild our economy, let the terrorist regroup, then take out the next safe haven. Hopefully we will finish off their generals that time. Every party is corrupt democrat or republican.
For the guy who asked why we only have a 2 party system the awnser is simple. When you have multiple parties that gain power you see extremes of all ends. This cuases major changes in policies that can throw economies off, as well as foreign policies. The 2 party system tends to keep these sort of large scale extremes from occuring usually resulting in a transition thats not really felt. Look at Italy..i believe they have something like 11 national parties. There policies are constantly changing because of this.
Ok my bad... 2986 people including the 19 hijackers2ndLt.Tucker wrote:
Um yikes. Hes talking about 9/11. The US casualty is not over 3000.
sorry
Haha, nice.[Valhalla]iMac_Attack wrote:
dude, turn off AirAmerica and just put the facts into perspective, the only people being monitored are people RECEIVING calls from a foreign land and the person here in the states has to already be on a terror watch list. Its not everyone. No go get a job you liberal.
Well, I'm sorry but no matter who they are wiretapping, Bush still needed to go get a court order for it via the FISA laws. Which would've taken a few hours at the most.
Bush himself has said that it was alright because we are at war, yet we are not Officially (read: congressionally) at war. He blatantly went above the law, and now all of the apologists are trying to cover him up.
So, maybe you should stop reading Newsmax and listening to Fox News.
(And though it doesn't really matter in terms of the argument, I do have a job. Horseman actually started that thread a while back in another part of the BBS).
May I remind you two of this:spacebandit72 wrote:
Agreed.acurasquirrel wrote:
Im sorry but if you dont have anything to hide what do you have to worry about?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
It's funny, but I remember a large congregation of democrats standing in support of their president who committed perjury and trying to wipe it all away by diverting the ignorant by claiming "It's all about sex." All this sanctimonious talk of Bush being 'above' the law from the left is just another in a 6 year long hissy-fit. You people don't choose your issues very well. With all the rabid fervor of wild dogs you attack whatever policy Bush proposes and don't consider whether it may be right or wrong. This is exactly how Kerry got himself into the whole flip-flop mess. Are you aware for years during the Clinton administration, every leading democrat was saying on record that Saddam's weapons programs were a threat. The very same words you try to say that Bush lied about. You can't have it both ways.
As for the Abramoff scandal, be careful because that brush paints both ways.
As for the Abramoff scandal, be careful because that brush paints both ways.
Another forgotton fact: The Echelon program. An electronic eavesdropping program run under the Clinton Administration.Washington Post wrote:
Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.
Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff's activities and from the embattled lobbyist's former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Yet, many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff's political operation, a fact that could hinder the Democrats' efforts to turn the lobbyist's troubles into a winning partisan issue.
The Amercian Thinker wrote:
Under Clinton, NY Times called surveillance "a necessity"
January 12th, 2006
The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn’t show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990’s. At that time, the Times called the surveillance “a necessity.”
“If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency.” (Steve Kroft, CBS’ 60 Minutes)
Those words were aired on February 27, 2000 to describe the National Security Agency and an electronic surveillance program called Echelon whose mission, according to Kroft,
“is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon’s computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.”
Echelon was, or is (its existence has been under-reported in the American media), an electronic eavesdropping program conducted by the United States and a few select allies such as the United Kingdom
Hello?newsmax.com wrote:
Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls
During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.
On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."
But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.
Isn't that EXACTLY what you people are doing??? One word of wisdom to you, if a democrat is accusing you of something, you can rest assured that he is doing that very thing. The accusation is just to put you on the defensive. Are you aware that Bush in his victory in 2004 got more votes than any other president in history? If democrats can't start picking their issues better, they can look forward to many more sad days at the polls.Marconius wrote:
If the Republicans/Bush Administration think they can get away with anything now due to the US being at "war," what will happen if a Democrat gets elected in 2008? Will they all back down and say, "Oh, no no no, we were wrong, we weren't supposed to do all of that as it was illegal at the time...so it looks like you Democrats can't do the same!" Does anyone feel like there is something more sinister going on to ensure that Republicans can force another election to come out in favor of them?
Well at the end of the day who cares, Most YANKS are paranoid the US goverment know how to get the average us person worried about terror attacks ( stop being so fucking narrow minded). FFs us Brits have lived over a large number of years with the IRA, without trying to wipe out a whole race. The USA needs to change its politics so who gives a shit, who get the vote in 2008 FFS. Clinton needs to come back, who cares about the scandels he had, Atleast he could look further than his nose. The way the US are going on at the moment they are making them selves a great target for HATE and TERROR threats world wide.
But if they keep on building cars that need 30 Ltr. / gas / 100 Km and do fuck all about there lands polution. Then by 2008 they will all die in one big FLOOD, and not have the gas to drive away.
But if they keep on building cars that need 30 Ltr. / gas / 100 Km and do fuck all about there lands polution. Then by 2008 they will all die in one big FLOOD, and not have the gas to drive away.
The problem is it is a CRUCIAL part of the Bill of Rights (US): The right to PRIVACY.acurasquirrel wrote:
In my opinion if you are being wiretapped its for a reason, the government isnt going to wiretap so two bit drug dealer. They are going after the terrorists who have and will kill American citizens without remorse. Therefore the liberties given up by the wiretaps are necessary to protect the equal rights of the rest of the USA citizens. This also goes for racial profiling, which I am for. Im sorry but if you dont have anything to hide what do you have to worry about?
--
On the terror note. I have three questions
1.What is the chance of you dying on US soil in the last 5 years from terror attacks?
2. What is the chance of you dying on US soil in the last 5 years from car crashes?
3. Why the fuck are you so paranoid about terrorism?
Last edited by Spark (2006-01-19 01:22:10)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
coz ppl die from terrorism? y dont they just kill the source b4 its too late, fuck civilian casualties, they had 2 chances of killing bin laden, wait. wasnt bin laden working w/ the CIA to kick the soviets out of afganistan? moral: dont train foriegners too professionaly
Can you spell "Skull and Bones".
Republican get's elected and all stays the same.
Republican get's elected and all stays the same.
Well, we are a bit paranoid but... the people that died in 9/11 thought an attack on us soil would be no chance.Spark wrote:
The problem is it is a CRUCIAL part of the Bill of Rights (US): The right to PRIVACY.acurasquirrel wrote:
In my opinion if you are being wiretapped its for a reason, the government isnt going to wiretap so two bit drug dealer. They are going after the terrorists who have and will kill American citizens without remorse. Therefore the liberties given up by the wiretaps are necessary to protect the equal rights of the rest of the USA citizens. This also goes for racial profiling, which I am for. Im sorry but if you dont have anything to hide what do you have to worry about?
--
On the terror note. I have three questions
1.What is the chance of you dying on US soil in the last 5 years from terror attacks?
2. What is the chance of you dying on US soil in the last 5 years from car crashes?
3. Why the fuck are you so paranoid about terrorism?
To equate terror attacks to car wrecks is ignorant. an accident is just that... an accident. It was no accident that we were attacked.
except it was an accident that clinton did'nt take bin ladin when he could have... oops?
Didn't the US sell Iraq some chemical weapons in the 80s?spacebandit72 wrote:
Also, EVERYONE Dems and Reps agreed that Sadam had WMD.
If someone is suspected of terrorism, they deserve no privacy.Spark wrote:
The problem is it is a CRUCIAL part of the Bill of Rights (US): The right to PRIVACY.
I understand the bill of rights and know it may sound wrong but if you believe strongly against fist fighting, and a bully keeps picking on you... you change your belief slightly as to stop him. It's a necissary evil.
I don't think it's polution that will kill us. Being to politicaly correct will do the job just fine.
like being humane to iraqi pows. What? due process? you gotta be kidding me... that as far as I know is only a US citizen right.
Anyway, My vote for 2008... chuyskywalker !!!
Maby... prove it. The only weapons I heard of were not of the WMD type. I could be misstaken.Pubic wrote:
Didn't the US sell Iraq some chemical weapons in the 80s?spacebandit72 wrote:
Also, EVERYONE Dems and Reps agreed that Sadam had WMD.
Don't matter... did'nt clinton sell materials to create WMD to Korea?
It's all done to create relations with different countries. Did we make mistakes? Probably!!!
Hmm... Nice discussion here...
First of all, I'd like to say that I'm not american, even though my sister lives in the US and I have personally worked for the US-Army. So I have very mixed feelings about what I've read so far.
Of course, the whole world was shoked on 9/11. And I would say, that everyone understood when the US government said "Hey, we trained that guy and now he's turning against us... We've got to stop him! Who knows what he is planning next!". So, trying to capture the head of a terrorist-organisation was, in my opinion, right.
But on the other hand, there was no proof that Iraq had anything to do with it. The iraqi people didn't ask for beining invaded (sorry, liberated...). I personally doubt, that the invasion of Iraq was an act against terrorism. It was for oil! And the time was right, because Bush could be sure that most of the country would support his efforts if only he acted patriotic enough.
2900-something dead american soldiers? Not a high price for a monopol on the iraqi oilfields. But don't forget about the much higher number of wounded. If the war in iraq (ups, conflict) goes on like that, there will be a generation of cripples. And I don't think that they went to Iraq for being shot or wounded. They even didn't follow that little patriotic voice in their head (media). Most of them went there because they had to for economic reasons. It's no secret that most under-educated people join the army, because they find no better job. Not only in the US but in most countries. They don't even know what they are fighting for. For freedom? What kind of freedom? Whose freedom? Freedom of the US? You don't have to go to Iraq to fight for that. Start fighting for freedom in the US. Being arrested for reading the wrong book is not exactly my understanding of freedom...
So, what will happen in 2008? Bush can't be reelected. But I think he will find a way to put someone in charge who supports Bushs and his families economical interests.
First of all, I'd like to say that I'm not american, even though my sister lives in the US and I have personally worked for the US-Army. So I have very mixed feelings about what I've read so far.
Of course, the whole world was shoked on 9/11. And I would say, that everyone understood when the US government said "Hey, we trained that guy and now he's turning against us... We've got to stop him! Who knows what he is planning next!". So, trying to capture the head of a terrorist-organisation was, in my opinion, right.
But on the other hand, there was no proof that Iraq had anything to do with it. The iraqi people didn't ask for beining invaded (sorry, liberated...). I personally doubt, that the invasion of Iraq was an act against terrorism. It was for oil! And the time was right, because Bush could be sure that most of the country would support his efforts if only he acted patriotic enough.
2900-something dead american soldiers? Not a high price for a monopol on the iraqi oilfields. But don't forget about the much higher number of wounded. If the war in iraq (ups, conflict) goes on like that, there will be a generation of cripples. And I don't think that they went to Iraq for being shot or wounded. They even didn't follow that little patriotic voice in their head (media). Most of them went there because they had to for economic reasons. It's no secret that most under-educated people join the army, because they find no better job. Not only in the US but in most countries. They don't even know what they are fighting for. For freedom? What kind of freedom? Whose freedom? Freedom of the US? You don't have to go to Iraq to fight for that. Start fighting for freedom in the US. Being arrested for reading the wrong book is not exactly my understanding of freedom...
So, what will happen in 2008? Bush can't be reelected. But I think he will find a way to put someone in charge who supports Bushs and his families economical interests.
Up to now, I can't see any viable Candidate for either party. Bush cannot run for a third term. Clinton won't be coming back. Mrs Clinton won't be ready until then, and I highly doubt wether the US is prepared for a female Pres right now ( or in 2008 ). Mrs Rice has already said she doesn't consider running, although believe she'd be a good candidate. So who will it be ?
Will it be better or worse then ? With either party, lobbyism and everyday political work won't change, neither will the way Washington works.
Here, there seems to be a general consensus that Republicans are the hardliners, while the democrats are more liberal. I wouldn't know if that is true, as I don't know most of your political figures in-depth.
We will have to see what the agenda in 2007 and 2008 will be like. Obviously, the war on terror was a huge factor in 2004. Maybe internal issues will weigh in more heavily in 2008 ( health care reform, education, the economy, stuff like that ).
But I will agree that scandals are equally shared betweeen Democrats and Republicans.
Will it be better or worse then ? With either party, lobbyism and everyday political work won't change, neither will the way Washington works.
Here, there seems to be a general consensus that Republicans are the hardliners, while the democrats are more liberal. I wouldn't know if that is true, as I don't know most of your political figures in-depth.
We will have to see what the agenda in 2007 and 2008 will be like. Obviously, the war on terror was a huge factor in 2004. Maybe internal issues will weigh in more heavily in 2008 ( health care reform, education, the economy, stuff like that ).
But I will agree that scandals are equally shared betweeen Democrats and Republicans.
dude... why would he invade iraq for oil? thats just retarded... how much oils do u think that the tanks, hummvees, choppers and jet all put together take on a 3 year tour?ShreksEsel wrote:
Hmm... Nice discussion here...
First of all, I'd like to say that I'm not american, even though my sister lives in the US and I have personally worked for the US-Army. So I have very mixed feelings about what I've read so far.
Of course, the whole world was shoked on 9/11. And I would say, that everyone understood when the US government said "Hey, we trained that guy and now he's turning against us... We've got to stop him! Who knows what he is planning next!". So, trying to capture the head of a terrorist-organisation was, in my opinion, right.
But on the other hand, there was no proof that Iraq had anything to do with it. The iraqi people didn't ask for beining invaded (sorry, liberated...). I personally doubt, that the invasion of Iraq was an act against terrorism. It was for oil! And the time was right, because Bush could be sure that most of the country would support his efforts if only he acted patriotic enough.
2900-something dead american soldiers? Not a high price for a monopol on the iraqi oilfields. But don't forget about the much higher number of wounded. If the war in iraq (ups, conflict) goes on like that, there will be a generation of cripples. And I don't think that they went to Iraq for being shot or wounded. They even didn't follow that little patriotic voice in their head (media). Most of them went there because they had to for economic reasons. It's no secret that most under-educated people join the army, because they find no better job. Not only in the US but in most countries. They don't even know what they are fighting for. For freedom? What kind of freedom? Whose freedom? Freedom of the US? You don't have to go to Iraq to fight for that. Start fighting for freedom in the US. Being arrested for reading the wrong book is not exactly my understanding of freedom...
So, what will happen in 2008? Bush can't be reelected. But I think he will find a way to put someone in charge who supports Bushs and his families economical interests.
I remember one week ago, a famous daily paper in my country published an special edition entitled "the world in 2025". And there was an article speaking about a great lawsuit which will occur this year and guess who would be judged ? Bush and Putine, for "crime against humanity" ! I wonder if it would really happens someday.