This makes me think of something as I listened to one of Kerry’s speeches today. He claims that becuase the Bush administration hasn’t come out against the “Swiftboat Veterans” ad, that that means the group is doing the Republicans dirty work for them.
But wait….has Kerry come out and spoke out against Fahrenheit 9/11? Hmmm, I doubt it…
So, given the fact that we seem to be stretching ourselves thin in Iraq, do you feel that we should increase the size of the US military? More combat divisions maybe? Or perhaps you feel that we’d be better served by shifting our foreign policy so that we are not overextending ourselves in conflicts where we don’t belong. (The US military currently has forces deployed in 120 countries.)
Also, a second question. Do you think that the US military’s long-held strategy of being able to “wage two full-scale wars simultaneously” is still plausible at this time?
@Deviant:Scripter:
Well, I hate to break it to everyone, but the drug trade into this country takes a backseat to many other things. To prove this you need look no further than Afganhistan…where local warlords are being paid off, and the US military explicity allows the opium trade to flourish.
Is opium illegal in Afganistan? If it is not then the US should not try to stop it. US laws do not apply to non-US citizens living in a foreign country.
North Korea has deemed chemical/biological/nuclear weapons legitimate, and classified them as conventional tactics. Do we not try to stop this?
You’re wrong. It’s better to take the fight overseas rather than let it reach our homeland, regardless of the price we have to pay. This holds true for the war on terrorism as well. :-? Better to fight them over there, than over here…
I can understand what you’re trying to say, but unfortunately the world does not work in that pipedream. The reality exists that countries do what they have to do, in order to ensure the safety of their country. But I do agree with you on one important point…the fact that US laws do not apply to non-US citizens…
There’s no solid evidence to prove that oil will run out anytime soon. I just think it’s premature to expect that we can switch our entire infastructure over to technologies that have yet to be proven.
@cystic:
@221B:
IMHO, the big question is whether or not the gas prices are a real problem. I recently read an article in the paper which said that adjusted for inflation, gas prices in the early 80’s cost $2.50 to $3.00 a gallon which makes me question whether or not this is a really significant cost increase. Of course this was not too long after the OPEC embargos of the 70’s and the Iran hostage crisis.
I do think it would be great to wean ourselves off petroleum for many reasons (reliance on OPEC, greenhouse warming, etc.) however there is no easy way to do this. The current infrastructure of most western nations makes it impossible to go back to a pre-automotive transportation system and there really are big limitations that prevent widespread adoption of mass transportation from ever having a huge impact here. I think the solution will have to come from new technologies, but it won’t be the hydrogen car because there is no way to get the hydrogen without using large amounts of energy (which comes from ???).
What I think will have to happen is to go with alternative sources for electricity (wind power and nuclear are the only feasible possibilities today) and perhaps the use of biomass technologies (conversion of agricultural by-products) to create synthetic oil where it is needed.
a car with a diesel engine may be refitted to run on Canola oil . . .
Okay, but that doesn’t really help relieve ourselves of the real beneficial use for oil in this country, and that’s our economy. Without oil, how do you plan on transporting goods via truck, ship, or airplane? Can 747’s be refitted to run on Canola oil? How about a cargo ship?
I see the value in getting ourselves off of mideast oil dependence, but I don’t think it’s plausible to assume that we can do so and still maintain the status of economic powerhouse that we are. :-?
Here’s an idea…we drill our own oil. Alaska. 'Nuff said.
@F_alk:
… Also, why punish an addict? It is a waste of time. Just get rid of the dealers. Problem solved.
lol. Just two words why it won’t work:
supply - demand.
you keep the demand existing, and cut the supply, hoping that noone will ever come to the idea that drug pushing with higher risk is an incentive for higher prices. True, the demand for high priced drugs will drop, but not to zero.
Well, I hate to break it to everyone, but the drug trade into this country takes a backseat to many other things. To prove this you need look no further than Afganhistan…where local warlords are being paid off, and the US military explicity allows the opium trade to flourish.
@stuka:
I am not gay.
I have gay friends.
If they wish to marry eachother. Fine.
Would it worsen my life in any way? No
Would it lower gas prices? No
Would it stop the war? No
Will God punish this? Who knows? Maybe. Then again maybe he’ll punish people who are too fat. :-?
If you’re not gay. Don’t marry your same sex.
If you are gay. Marry your same sex.
IMO this has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with prejudice. As for the God factor, we will all answer for something
Will it take away from the seriousness and respect that comes with the historical tradition of marriage? Absolutely.
I’ll be voting. Proud of it too. 
Dean might have the nomination, but I don’t think he’ll unseat dubya. If you’ve listened to what he says, not only recently, but go way back…sometimes it’s unsettling some of the views he’s expressed. That’s not to say that Bush hasn’t made similar remarks, but I don’t think that Dean will be able to carry enough votes to beat an incumbent President. However, that’s just my two-cents, and as usual I could be wrong. 
ok, im pissed now. i finished typing my first post on “God?”, and it was REALLY long. apparently i took to long to finish typing, because when i submit it, it said Invalid Session, and erased everything i had typed. so i wont be retyping it for a little while while i calm down.
It’s okay Janus, I’d probably agree with your post anyways.
Those few exceptions are not justification enough to do away with the entire system. Look at abortion F_alk, many of the babies are executed when they’re actually innocent, I think we should make abortion illegal.
Married + No kids = Gay?
That’s logic?
Gimme a break. You’ve gotta lay something else down before I’ll believe this logic. Maybe he just doesn’t want kids.
It’s not just Presdential candidates that are ignorant and misinformed, Gary Coleman doesn’t even think he should HAVE to know who the VP is as governor of California!
Try asking an American who our Vice President is. 2 in 5 don’t know.
Yea, well, niether do some of the Democratic hopefulls. :roll:
I think the most appropriate thing to say to this article is: ummm…what the hell are they thinking?
Fifth straight year!? They making this a f*cking tradition or something?? Come on, a cost of living increase when you make $150,000 is the biggest load of crock.
@F_alk:
It is illegal.
Well, I have to disagree with this. I believe (as does the US) that Resolution 1441 gave us the authority we needed to conduct the war against Iraq. As per the following line of the resolution:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area.
Now, not only does the above part authorize us use all necessary means to enforce the resolutions, but it goes into further detail about the fact that Iraq is in actual violation:
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991)
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council
Note: We gave him the last chance to comply…
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
Note: Iraq ommitted information about it’s WMD programs…
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below.
Note: See above comment…
5. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
Well, I don’t expect to convince you F_alk, but at least you can see where I’m coming from. My point is, you can only give someone so many “warnings” before your threats become meaningless.
I think it would help a lot and a quick-precedent would be set if the man who loses this rediculous lawsuit is forced to pay all expenses whatsoever for both sides of litigation.
Well I have a friend who reciently, about 2 years ago, got out of the army, where he was in a special opps unit. He joined the national guard and got a regular job as a civilian. When the Iraq conflict started he was activated and sent there. Now they are reconstructing his face in an army hospital. I am sure he dosn’t think it is so great over there.
Just thought I would mention that since we’re talking about friends. :-?
No, but that’s a skewed viewpoint. He’s obviously going to have a negative attitude compared to more objective viewpoints. Objective viewpoints is what we’re missing from the media’s coverage of the Iraq war.
In an American Court conspiracy to commit X, typically carries the
same weight as committing X.Therefore, if there are miles of documents and witness testimony saying that we were working on WMD’s, you got WMD’s. This isn’t a very difficult
thing to believe. The report indicates there is still a bunch of documents to sift thru (and asked additional resources -read as $$$) to go through
it all.
This is a VERY legit point sherman, good job.
Also… that estimate that there are over 200 million firearms in the country acording to the FBI; thats about the only thing pro and anti gun advocates agree on.
Haha, that’s because pro-gun advocates are extremely proud of that number, and the anti-gun advocates feel like shitting a brick over it.
For some reason I am skeptical about it’s effectiveness. I mean, c’mon, a freakin’ cruise missile? How do we know it’s not just a shitload of metal wrapped around some dynatmite or C-4? In any event, this guys pretty nuts.
Well, unfortunately, there’s nothing to hunt here in Kuwait.
Hmmm… go West a country or two and I bet there’s some things to hunt.
DS, while i agree with you, please keep it civilized, this is a very fun topic to discuss and i do not want it to deteriorate into just blasting eachothers opinions.
Haha, sorry guys. :lol: I like to stoke it up every once in awhile.
@F_alk:
…However, this will be like the prohibition: people WILL find a way. As an American, i know from experience that we are a hard bunch to lick (i hate that expression). They’re trying to control drugs, arent they? not going to well, if i say so myself.
I think this argument is flawed.
Drugs harm yourself, weapons harm others. Still you propose to keep weapons free, and pull the “failed” “drug control” as a reason for that. Wouldn’t that imply that you support free drugs for everyone then as well?
For me, it does, even though you probably don’t want that.
You idiot. Drugs aren’t protected by the constitution, the right to bear arms is. :roll:
good call CC. But Janus, there are not civilians making logisitical decisions concerning military matters, that’s left to the military experts (appropriately named).
