UN speech by President Bush

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Debate or no debate the thing is we were only fighting the terrorists that we can prove are directly responsible for the 9-11 attack on USA property.[/b]

WRONG! We are fighting a global war on TERROR. Not a global war on al-qeada. al-qeada is a cog in the global terror machine.

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The Bush idea that we should make premptive strikes on any country that "might someday in the far future" attack us is totally beyond the goals of "bringing to justice" those who were involved in the planning or the activities of those men who hi-jacked airplanes and crashed them into our buildings, and also some limited war with those who might prevent us from that goal in some real way.[/b]

Again, wrong. Wouldn't it be neglegent to ONLY go after the ones that have already attacked us, leaving the ones that are aiding terrorists(such as Saddam) & planning future attacks, alone? That is short sided and wishful thinking...

Originally posted by Technosoul, Prevention should be limited to being aware via intelligence gathering and then protectng the boarders or with a defense system.

If you think that's what our prevention should be limited to, you're in for a rude awakening...

Originally posted by Technosoul, It was not our duty to take control over the UN and thier methodology for keeping Saddam's army from attacking a neighboring country. It is not our busness to protect the people of Iraq from their own leader if we think he was terrorizing them.

We're not taking control of the UN, we're not protecting the people of Iraq from their leader(we liberated them, but we're not protecting them from Saddam, that would be stupid)

Originally posted by Technosoul, It is not our duty to protect the fishing industry of Japan from aggressive actions taken by Green Peace to save the Dolphins, it is not our duty to protect local oil companies from those who protest them.

Huh??

Originally posted by Technosoul, It is not our duty to pick whom we want to classify as a terrorist nation globally or internally as an organization.

That's crap...is the UN going to decide who are terrorists and who aren't?? Who else is going to? If no one takes a stand, nothing will change and we're inviting more trouble.

Originally posted by Technosoul, Especally with a lot of educated guessing that is often the product of manipulated data.

Assuming you're talking about failures on our intelligence in Iraq..the intelligence analysis portion of our agencies does need to be examined and revamped - which is happening currently - but saying that we shouldn't take educated guesses is again asking for trouble.

Originally posted by Technosoul, What act of Congress gave President Bush the right to eliminate all non-democratic forms of government world wide?

Huh?? We're fighting terrorism and it's supporters.

Originally posted by Technosoul, We have the help of most all international banking to stop any funding that someone or nation might offer Ben Laden, we do not have to blow them off the face of the earth to prevent that.

We're doing what we can, but who's in charge of INTERNATIONAL banking?

Originally posted by Technosoul, We must concentrate on Bin Laden and A-Q and not try to fight every terrorist that might be creeping around with some objective or revolution directed at places in Russia, Isreal, Africa, South America, or whatever.

Look, if you want to limit our fight to the terrorists YOU see as a problem, then you're just opening up yourself to be attacked by someone else. Going after one particular group of terrorists may eliminate that particular group but others will step up to take their place and we'll have to deal with them later.<!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,@


We must re-learn how to coordinate non-violent methods for resolving some of those global problems with peace keeping agendas. We might be at a rare historical moment when we can rise up as the bully boss of the globe, but that certainly should not be our national forien policy. [/quote]Fine, but when did terrorists understand and comply with "non-violent methods"?
<!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,

If you do not like someone in Iran, pray for them but don't just shoot them, give faith a working chance, give peace a chance, for when bucks and bullets fly, anyone can die.

Technosoul.[/quote]
Pray for someone in Iran if you don't like them?? huh????? If we pray hard enough, maybe god will smite them down? Riiiiiiight..

[gr8fuldaniel]

So, who does Chalabi say we should attack next? Do you suppose it will be a country rich in oil reserves yet weakened by sanctions. I hope Chalabi picks one that our right wing religious fanatics can really get behind. Like black homos in Haiti, Africa or I dont know, who does God hate lately?

[Dieval]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, So, who does Chalabi say we should attack next? Do you suppose it will be a country rich in oil reserves yet weakened by sanctions. I hope Chalabi picks one that our right wing religious fanatics can really get behind. Like black homos in Haiti, Africa or I dont know, who does God hate lately?

No matter what you'd like to believe gr8, Chalabi doesn't pick our targets..

He's also being investigated, is he not? Why would we continue to listen to him after being exposed?

Maybe you could point GWB to some conspiracy theory website that has information for our next target?

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Dieval, So obviously Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism...

the question is: why was it prioritised above other nations with far greater involvement in terrorism, like syria, or even saudi arabia?

the simple "oh they had terror, invasion good" line is not going to fly.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by giuliano,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (giuliano,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Dieval, So obviously Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism...

the question is: why was it prioritised above other nations with far greater involvement in terrorism, like syria, or even saudi arabia?

the simple "oh they had terror, invasion good" line is not going to fly.[/b][/quote]
I agree that Syria would be a strategic target in the war on terror...it should be one of the next targets after Iraq.

I personally believe that part of the reason for Iraq was the history we have with Saddam. He's got what, 14 UN resolutions he wasn't completely complying with? We also have a presidential mandate(from Clinton) to work towards regime change in Iraq..

How many UN resolutions does Syria have against it?
We've imposed sanctions against Syria recently, so that may improve their cooperation...

As for SA, well, their starting to come around as they're learning that they are not above attacks...how many attacks have happened in SA this year alone? i think there's been quite a few....

Thinking that we should invade Syria or SA without exashasting other options, as we did with Iraq - 12+ years of sanctions and resolutions - is irresponsible.

[giuliano]

i don't get it. are UN resolutions binding or not? one minute they mandate a full-scale invasion, the next they are a useless bunch of bureaucrats who should be sent packing from their offices in NY.

syria are an open sponsor of vicious terrorist groups like hezbollah. no one seems to care. they also have WMD capability. we were previously told that was precipitous to the end of the world, yet no one bats an eyelid in this case.

i feel a bit betrayed over that.

[RickSp]

WRONG! We are fighting a global war on TERROR. Not a global war on al-qeada. al-qeada is a cog in the global terror machine.

Here is the "big lie", worthy of Herr Goebbels. It is used to justify endless war. Endless bloodshed. Sure Al Queda attacked us so let's attack Iraq. Why? Because it is a "global war on terror". But Iraq was no threat to us and had no significant ties to Al Queda. Doesn't matter, this the "global war on terror." The "global war on terror" is just an excuse for any imperial ambition the neo-cons dream up.

This big lie is also meaningless. Terror is not an ideology. Terror is not an organization. It is a tactic. A tactic used by the weak against the strong.

By invading Iraq Bush has given a priceless gift to AlQueda. Because of the war he gave up looking for Bin Laden and created a worldwide focus for jihadist recruiting. Bottom line Bush is Bin Laden's best friend.

The "war on terror" is just a catchphrase used by those who want to tear down our republic and replace it with an empire.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-gr8fuldaniel, So, who does Chalabi say we should attack next? Do you suppose it will be a country rich in oil reserves yet weakened by sanctions. I hope Chalabi picks one that our right wing religious fanatics can really get behind. Like black homos in Haiti, Africa or I dont know, who does God hate lately?

No matter what you'd like to believe gr8, Chalabi doesn't pick our targets..

He's also being investigated, is he not? Why would we continue to listen to him after being exposed?

Maybe you could point GWB to some conspiracy theory website that has information for our next target?[/b][/quote] If I could have GWB's ear for a minute, I would ask him to bring the talons of the great American eagle, home. Cut pentagon spending by 3/4. Invest that money in education and alternative fuels like solar and bio-diesel. Make healthcare affordable. Goddammit why do we pay triple what other countries pay for the exact same medicine. Put a lid on it already. We should the end the control of our country by corporations, they are who decides when/if we go to war. They are not interested in National Security, but in profit.
I would not suggest any new targets, I was being facetious. War should be an absolute last resort, not a vehicle for world domination. Survival, not Hegemony.

That whould be my 60 seconds with ol Dubya.......Whats yours?

[Technosoul]

If any of these terrorists really had WMDs and they did not mind suicidal missions for their cause, in words if a country was in total support of such activity and had powerful weapons then why don't they just attack Isreal and get it over with, clearly they all say that is what should be delt with above anything else. Instead all we see is tiny road bombs that might blow up a bus or a military vehicle, but that is a far cry from a WMD. It they got all them weapons and they are really as crazy as our some of you say they are, then how come they never ever use them in any of their attacks?
Concidering they would also be suicidal for their cause meaning they would not fear counter attacks (as the reward would be in heaven anyway and not on earth).

The whole idea of having WMDs is to scare off other nations that might attack you and so hiding them is pointless. And if you have them for secret attacks on Israel or towards American tagets (and we have tagets located all over the globe) then how come they do not use them towards that end?

Fact is they do not have them and are not able to obtain them.

Fact is they are not holding any ace up their sleave such as some secret WMD. We, with the aid of other UN nations know what is needed to build such a program and where they must buy restrictive materials from, and we can if fact keep a close eye out to prevent such shipments to locations of interest.

All the rest of that is just BS hype and gossip designed to make you paranoid and fearful so that special interest groups can use our military to invade and occupy nations for reason other then as stated in their "war addresses".

Get back on the right track to sanity - use your mind or loose it.

Technosoul.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by RickSp,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RickSp,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Here is the "big lie", worthy of Herr Goebbels.[/b]

Wait, are you implying that I'm a nazi? or is it a fascist? or both?

Originally posted by RickSp,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RickSp,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It is used to justify endless war. Endless bloodshed. Sure Al Queda attacked us so let's attack Iraq. Why? Because it is a "global war on terror". But Iraq was no threat to us and had no significant ties to Al Queda. Doesn't matter, this the "global war on terror." The "global war on terror" is just an excuse for any imperial ambition the neo-cons dream up. [/b]

I guess you missed the ties to terrorism I pointed out..I refer you to my previous posts.
As for the rest of your "excuse", sorry, but it's just laughable.
<!--QuoteBegin-RickSp,@

This big lie is also meaningless. Terror is not an ideology. Terror is not an organization. It is a tactic. A tactic used by the weak against the strong.

By invading Iraq Bush has given a priceless gift to AlQueda. Because of the war he gave up looking for Bin Laden and created a worldwide focus for jihadist recruiting. Bottom line Bush is Bin Laden's best friend.[/quote]"Bush is Bin Laden's best friend" again, laughable at best.
<!--QuoteBegin-RickSp,

The "war on terror" is just a catchphrase used by those who want to tear down our republic and replace it with an empire.[/quote] Still laughable, at best.

For anyone to deny that the war on terror is real and to claim that it is just an "excuse" to create bloodshed and expand our empire, I'm sorry, but they lose any credability they had.

No respectable person would make(or believe) such outragous claims.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If any of these terrorists really had WMDs and they did not mind suicidal missions for their cause, in words if a country was in total support of such activity and had powerful weapons then why don't they just attack Isreal and get it over with, clearly they all say that is what should be delt with above anything else. Instead all we see is tiny road bombs that might blow up a bus or a military vehicle, but that is a far cry from a WMD. It they got all them weapons and they are really as crazy as our some of you say they are, then how come they never ever use them in any of their attacks? Concidering they would also be suicidal for their cause meaning they would not fear counter attacks (as the reward would be in heaven anyway and not on earth). [/b]

You're jumping around alot. Are you talking about Iraq? al qeada? Israel? some other terrorist organizaion? We're trying to prevent terrorists from GETTING WMD's. Had Saddam HAD large stockpiles and the WMD's we believed where there, there was a real possiblity that he could arm terrorists and use them against us and other countries in the world.

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The whole idea of having WMDs is to scare off other nations that might attack you and so hiding them is pointless.[/b]

Not when it applies to Saddam and Iraq. He had WMD's and used them. Do you really think he wouldn't use them again, if the need arose?

Originally posted by Technosoul, And if you have them for secret attacks on Israel or towards American tagets (and we have tagets located all over the globe) then how come they do not use them towards that end?

What secret attacks on Israel? What does this have to do with the ties to terrorism? We already know that our intelligence on the amount of WMD's he had was wrong...

Originally posted by Technosoul, Fact is they do not have them and are not able to obtain them.

Who, terrorists? You can thank Bush in part for that, by removing Saddam's regime and removing any possiblity from him turning any weapons(or weapon technology) over to terrorists in the future..
<!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,@

Fact is they are not holding any ace up their sleave such as some secret WMD.
We, with the aid of other UN nations know what is needed to build such a program and where they must buy restrictive materials from, and we can if fact keep a close eye out to prevent such shipments to locations of interest. [/quote]Just as they were keeping an eye on NK so they couldn't build nukes....that worked out real well for them...how many Nukes does NK have now?
<!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,

All the rest of that is just BS hype and gossip designed to make you paranoid and fearful so that special interest groups can use our military to invade and occupy nations for reason other then as stated in their "war addresses".

Get back on the right track to sanity - use your mind or loose it.

Technosoul.[/quote]
So all the ties to terrorism I pointed out are "BS hype and gossip".....I hope your ingoring of the facts works out for you, in the end.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gr8fuldaniel,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If I could have GWB's ear for a minute, I would ask him to bring the talons of the great American eagle, home. Cut pentagon spending by 3/4.[/b]

Who needs defense? Not like we're at war or anything...good sound plan there gr8.

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gr8fuldaniel,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Invest that money in education and alternative fuels like solar and bio-diesel.[/b]

He's doing both...maybe not as much as you'd like, but changes are being made to both.

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Make healthcare affordable. Goddammit why do we pay triple what other countries pay for the exact same medicine.

I pay $10 for my medicine...how much do you pay?

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Put a lid on it already. We should the end the control of our country by corporations, they are who decides when/if we go to war.

Nice try....we the people(yes that includes people who own corporations) decide what is done in this country. Did our representatives in the house and senate not decide to give the power to go to war to the President?

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, They are not interested in National Security, but in profit.

Riiiiiiight....without national security, profit is meaningless. Life > money.
<!--QuoteBegin-gr8fuldaniel,@
I would not suggest any new targets, I was being facetious. War should be an absolute last resort, not a vehicle for world domination. Survival, not Hegemony.[/quote]"world domination"...Riiiiiiight....we have our flag flying over how many countries that we dominate?
<!--QuoteBegin-gr8fuldaniel,

That whould be my 60 seconds with ol Dubya.......Whats yours?[/quote]
I'd tell him to be more aggressive in the Global War on Terrorism.

Guess we have pretty different views of the world.

[Evil Baby]

You're jumping around alot. Are you talking about Iraq? al qeada? Israel? some other terrorist organizaion? We're trying to prevent terrorists from GETTING WMD's. Had Saddam HAD large stockpiles and the WMD's we believed where there, there was a real possiblity that he could arm terrorists and use them against us and other countries in the world.

How the U.S. still sends funds to Pakistan even after they have been caught selling Nuclear secrets on the black market(or at least I think it was Pakistan)

Not when it applies to Saddam and Iraq. He had WMD's and used them. Do you really think he wouldn't use them again, if the need arose?

I'm kind of with you on this one. It doesn't matter if Saddam would have used his WMD had he had them, he wasn't allowed to have them period. However Bush failed to prove to me both before and after the war that Saddam actually had WMD.

Who, terrorists? You can thank Bush in part for that, by removing Saddam's regime and removing any possiblity from him turning any weapons(or weapon technology) over to terrorists in the future..

Which is why the U.N. inspectors would have stayed in the country to ensure that woudln't happen. Iraq had far less terrorist under Saddam then they do under U.S. military control and there are far larger fish to fry when it comes to potention countries supplying and aiding terrorist.

Just as they were keeping an eye on NK so they couldn't build nukes....that worked out real well for them...how many Nukes does NK have now?

All that would justify is a change in how the U.N. works and how much of a force is present in U.N. inspections. That doesn't not justify a war to stop the possibility of the chance that in the future something could happen.

So all the ties to terrorism I pointed out are "BS hype and gossip".....I hope your ingoring of the facts works out for you, in the end.

I might have missed something, but the only ties to terrorism that I have heard of is those to suicide bombers against Israel. Now I don't really see the difference between that and what the U.S. did with Afghanistan against the U.S.S.R. This is a pretty weak link to terrorism if you ask me, and it is hardly a link to terrorism against the U.S. however if you are making that argument, so be it. However that would mean the U.S. has a shit load more countries to set "free"



edit to try and fix quotes

[Evil Baby]

And just to add to the post above mine. The U.S. spends more money per child on education then any other country, and by a fairly large margin if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps the U.S. should just research how to better spend that money but it consistantly fails to make the the top 5 in the world for education standards even thought it spends far more then most other countries.

[tusaki]

Saddam did have WMD, although not in a usable state and not a threat in itself. But he could have sold the components/ingredients (I am talking chemical weapons here) to terrorists. But the question I am pondering most on is: why would he sell his precious weapons to terrorists? He was incredibly paranoid, and he thought the US always knew where he was. He was also a calculating individual: he would gain nothing from attacking the US through terrorists, and he would risk everything. He would certainly fear, if he sold it to terrorists, that the origin of the weapons would become known. There was no reason for him to risk his position as dictator for something like attacking western nations through WMD.

Saddams Psychological Profile (Saint Johns University / Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics): http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Research/Saddam...%20profile.html

I am much more afraid of Iran than of Iraq or NK because Iraq and NK just have an 'ideological' difference with the west (dictator vs democracy). Iran's hatred is based partially on (a difference in) religion and religious conflicts are much harsher and "thorough" than ideological conflicts.

Originally posted by International Relations+ 5th edition, ISBN 0-321-19550-7--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (International Relations @ 5th edition, ISBN 0-321-19550-7)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Chapter 5: International Conflict ... Nothing inherent in religion mandates conflicts -- in many places members of different religious groups coexist peacefully. But religious differences hold the potential for conflict, and for making existing conflicts more intractable, because religions involve core values, which are held as absolute truth. This is increasingly true as fundamentalist movements have gained strength in recent decades. .... Among the secular practices threatened by fundamentalist movements are the rules of the international system, whereby states are treated as formally equal and sovereign whether they are "believers" or "infidels". As transnational belief systems, religions often are taken as a higher law than state laws and international treaties. Iranian "revolutionary guards" train and support Islamic fundamentalists in other states such as Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. ... [/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-International Relations@ 5th edition, ISBN 0-321-19550-7
Chapter 5: International Conflict
...
For realists, ideological differences among states do not matter much, because all members of the international system pursue their national interests in the context of relatively fluid alliances.
...
[/quote]

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Evil Baby,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Evil Baby,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> How the U.S. still sends funds to Pakistan even after they have been caught selling Nuclear secrets on the black market(or at least I think it was Pakistan) [/b]

Segway - Pakistan....how much do we send them?

Originally posted by Evil Baby,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Evil Baby,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm kind of with you on this one. It doesn't matter if Saddam would have used his WMD had he had them, he wasn't allowed to have them period. However Bush failed to prove to me both before and after the war that Saddam actually had WMD.[/b]

Bush doesn't answer to you personally. He provided his information, which was accepted, to the senate and the house, who are made up of represenatives of the people(that includes you) that Saddam was a threat and they GAVE HIM THE POWER to remove Saddam from power.

Originally posted by Evil Baby, Which is why the U.N. inspectors would have stayed in the country to ensure that woudln't happen.

The inspectors were not getting the access that he agreed to(who knows why, as he didn't have the stockpiles everyone thought)

Originally posted by Evil Baby, and Iraq had far less terrorist under Saddam then they do under U.S. military control

Ok, so we're battling terrorists in Iraq....maybe we should wait until they act and we can battle them on US soil?

Originally posted by Evil Baby, and there are far larger fish to fry when it comes to potention countries supplying and aiding terrorist.

Sure there are other countries supplying and aiding terrorists, but Saddam was thorn in everyone's side. Now he's not.

Originally posted by Evil Baby, All that would justify is a change in how the U.N. works and how much of a force is present in U.N. inspections. That doesn't not justify a war to stop the possibility of the chance that in the future something could happen.

Interesting idea...how are we going to change how the UN works, when the UN doesn't work in situations like this? Saddam did not comply with resolutions, so more resolutions were passed....when does the UN put it's collective foot down and take action?

Originally posted by Evil Baby, I might have missed something, but the only ties to terrorism that I have heard of is those to suicide bombers against Israel.

First page of this thread, my first post, pointed out a few links to terrorists, above suicide bombers against Israel.
<!--QuoteBegin-Evil Baby,@
Now I don't really see the difference between that and what the U.S. did with Afghanistan against the U.S.S.R.[/quote]You can't see the difference between Pal terrorists blowing up civilians and the Afghan's fighting against the Soviet military???
<!--QuoteBegin-Evil Baby,
This is a pretty weak link to terrorism if you ask me, and it is hardly a link to terrorism against the U.S. however if you are making that argument, so be it. However that would mean the U.S. has a shit load more countries to set "free"[/quote]
I couldn't agree more(well, not about the weak link), but that there are more countries that need help. The Global War on Terror is far from over.

[RickSp]

No respectable person would make(or believe) such outragous claims.

Something rather pleasant about being called not "respectable" by one who wraps himself in the flag, obviously mistakes assertion for argument and justifies a needless and immoral war as part of some great crusade. All the while ignoring the real fight against Al Queda. All it will lead to is more American deaths but you don't seem to mind that so much. 1,042 dead soldiers as of this afternoon. More cannon fodder for King George's war.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gr8fuldaniel,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If I could have GWB's ear for a minute, I would ask him to bring the talons of the great American eagle, home. Cut pentagon spending by 3/4.[/b] Who needs defense? Not like we're at war or anything...good sound plan there gr8. I pay $10 for my medicine...how much do you pay?[/b]

[color=blue]And if we werent so busy killing innocent bystanders, like some very bold serial killer in broad daylight, we wouldnt need to be so heavily armed. This is an abuse of power.
I am not currently taking any meds, I speak for those who have to decide between rent or food and meds every month. Some folks need hundreds of dollars worth just to survive, I am not just thinking of myself. [/color]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Put a lid on it already. We should the end the control of our country by corporations, they are who decides when/if we go to war.

Originally posted by Dieval, Nice try....we the people(yes that includes people who own corporations) decide what is done in this country. Did our representatives in the house and senate not decide to give the power to go to war to the President?

[color=blue]I believe our very existence depends on the seperation of Corporation and State, it is equally as important as church and state seperation. Wartime profiteering is treason.
[/color]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, They are not interested in National Security, but in profit.

Originally posted by Dieval Riiiiiiight....without national security, profit is meaningless. Life > money.

[color=blue]National Security starts at home. If Bush is overseas campaigning for Osama with our National Guard, and our borders are wide open how secure does that make us? Oh, thats right, we can all feel safe now that, that terrorist Cat Stevens was captured. And Martha Stewart is locked up.[/color]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, I would not suggest any new targets, I was being facetious. War should be an absolute last resort, not a vehicle for world domination. Survival, not Hegemony.

Originally posted by Dieval "world domination"...Riiiiiiight....we have our flag flying over how many countries that we dominate?

[color=blue]We dont dominate with our flag, our domination is in strategic placement of puppet regimes, friendly to our corporate/political interests [/color]
<!--QuoteBegin-gr8fuldaniel,@

That whould be my 60 seconds with ol Dubya.......Whats yours?[/quote]
<!--QuoteBegin-Dieval
I'd tell him to be more aggressive in the Global War on Terrorism.
Guess we have pretty different views of the world.[/quote][color=blue]I'll say. The main difference I think is your lack of compassion. Real life war is a horrible evil and largely preventable. Our current leaders are busy looking for excuses to start war, not prevention. War is good business but bad for the human condition. They dont need any cheerleaders for this shit. [/color]