Ron

Never....Even after we all have to use plastic "sporks" and can only eat soft foods there will still be people trying to ban the tools, not punish the criminals. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Please privide PROOF, not some cray theories, hearsay, or chain letters from a guy trying to sell a book. If you have such evidence then maybe you should provide it to the press. I don't....If he were saying unsubstaniated crap, I would ask him to provide proof as well. He had proof....It was bad. That does not make him a liar. You post some crap from the internet and claim it is proof.... Lets see a guy that most consider to be the most powerful man in the world with the CIA, FBI, NSA, and several other countries intel agencies providing him daily information....Or you, some guy that pulled some shit off of a forum....May thats a tough one to see who I would trust to have better intel. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

3500 jumps 1.7 ona Stiletto 107 (I have almost 2,000 jumps on this size/type of canopy) "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Well yeah. If they were not firing at us, we would not fire back...you could also say that if we were not there they could not fire at us.....Oh well we are there. If they *really* wanted us to leave, they should quit fighting us. The longer they shoot, the longer we stay. Some sources do not agree with that. Well it is perfectly fine to go to war to protect yourself. We thought that Saddam had WMD. We had proof of that (which it seems was crap, but we do know he HAD them, he used them). We knew he didn't like us (Trying to off Bush 1 is a pretty good clue). We knew he would use WMD's if he thought he could get away with it (Kurds). So we had a guy that didn't like us, with intel that said he had WMD, and we had other intel that said he supported terrorists (Notice I didn't say 'connected to 9/11'?), and he has USED them before. So he was seen as a threat to THE US. The UN does not give a rats ass about the US security in the long haul. So the US acted mostly alone on the intel it had to protect itself...Thats a countries right. The UN believed Saddam had WMD, that is clear, but they didn't want to invade....They were not at risk of having a Nuke used in a major city. In fact the French and some members of the UN were making money off of Iraq. The UN failed on so many levels....The fact that they failed to act does not mean that there was no issue...I mention Darfur here...There is a problem, but the UN does nothing about it. The US does not do anything about it since we get yelled at no matter what we do, and Darfur is not a physical threat to us. So, is it OK to go to war based on the UN even though the UN does not want to use force? Yes, if you feel you are threatend. If the US did something in Darfur....even with the UN doing nothing, would you agree of say, "Well the UN didn't want to do anything, you should have stayed out?" I agree an invasion is a big deal....The WMD would be a threat...Hey, who would have thought that jets could take down the WTC? Our borders are not protected enough, as evidenced by the drug trade and illegal immigration. Do you really think that we could keep a nuke the size of a VW bug out? Or a few barrels of poision gas if they really wanted to get them in here? I don't. So the idea is to limit the amount of bad things, in the hands of bad people, who would do bad things. They were also told it was good. Guess what? Michael Jackson....Is he quilty or innocent? There is evidence that points both ways. So which are you gonna choose? You can assume your intel that Saddam has WMDs to be good and try to get the UN to do its job...Eventually you have to do what they will not for threats without action is worthless...Or you can assume that he does not have them...And maybe one of your cities blows up in a mushroom cloud killing millions. What would you do? How many have UN resloutions against them? How many have actually USED a WMD before? We should not attempt to occupy each one....But how long do you wait for them to comply and prove they don't have them? 13 years seems long enough. NK is not a real threat. They are not suicidal. They want food. Does NK having nukes cause a problem? Yes, but with the tracking and controls nukes have....It would be very hard for one to become lost. And any country that lost one to a terrorist would have some serious problems. Here you have to prove someone is a criminal before you punish them. I have said time after time PROVE that Bush knew that Saddam had no WMD and that he lied..And I will join you asking for him to be punished. But some book written with the intent to make money, or some political opponant trying to get power is not PROOF. Our intel sucked. Well I hope people are held accountable. But the simple fact remains...If Saddam had complied, or the UN had done its job, none of this would have happend. If you want to claim that the US used the WMD's as ana excuse....OK, but it would have been easy to blow that to pieces since all Saddam had to do was actually let the inspectors do the job. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

A 'leat' is Tandem master who does bono work....Sheesh OK, Ya got me "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Sorta Do you have ANY *evidence* that they mislead? Do you have PROOF they knew there were no WMD? If they were wrong so was Clinton, Kerry and Berger...Oh and almost all of Congress and the UN. In case you forgot the UN thought Saddam had WMD as well. UN resolution 1441: So you could say Bush screwed up saying Saddam Still had WMD (There is no doubt he had them...He did gas the Kurds). But then Kerry, Clinton, Berger, the UN and Congress all were also wrong. Thats more of an issue of the UN being a waste than anything else....If the UN had done its job in the first place there would have been no problem...But to support the invasion after you failed to even TRY to do your job was to admit you are worthess. The UN fails to act, thats not Americas fault....But some want to blame the US for not acting in Darfur...Can't win or lose in the minds of some. Well we DID invade...You can't claim we would have anyway. If Saddam HAD complied, or the UN made him there would have been no need. Again show me proof. True, but see they were supposed to do it BEFORE we had to invade...The inspectors failed. Also, remember the Hundredes of Tons of explosives that were taken after the invasion....? What makes you think that HUNDREDS ofTONS of explosives could be stolen, but not a few tons of barrels of WMD? You thought it was gonna be easy? It would be easy if terrorists didn't move to Iraq to be a pain in the ass. You got two out of five right. Please bring some PROOF to the table to back your claims. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Well your "Artical" is wrong as well. I'll just pick a few things: If Saddam was not reported to have WMD's, why did the UN pass resolution 1441 on Nov 8th 2002? If we had "unfettered" inspections...Why did the UN resolution 1441 say: OR: That does not sound like "unfettered"....Is there another definition of that word I need to read? OK how about this: UN resolution 1441 again Or maybe the "new" news: How about some "old" news?: So while Saddam may not have been involved with 9/11...It sure seems he had contact with Al Qaeda, or at least members of his government did. Sure, while NK may have the bomb....He will not use it. Can you name the countries that have used the bomb? Notice there is only one, yet many have gotten them since then. The use of a Nuke is a sure way to sign your countries death warrent. Also the number of total nukes is pretty much known. A country missing one would have some serious explaining to do. Not so with BC materials. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Not that easy. to use my deals they have to be: 1. Parents 2. Kids 3. Spouse. So if the person you wnat to fly is a hot chick that would dig me...we can talk. Otherwise I have parents, and don't want kids. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Thats in a palce where explosives and people willing to do it are plentiful. Its much harder to get explosives in the US, and not many that are here are willing to die. Don't know, I would venture a guess that they can't get the tools needed. How do you know that the government is not stopping them? Yeah look at the facts. No attacks, well it was 8 years from WTC1 to WTC2. Not ALL are released Thats the UK not the US, try flowering Bush here. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Well I'll give you all the free tadem jumps ya want. For taNdem jumps I need at least slot, gear rental and pack job paid for. Your chances are not good unless you offer other "Services", have been around a long time...ect. I am sure at some point if you are here long enough someone will offer it. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I work for an airline. I get all kinds of mad deals, but just like you said, Its hard when you are the only one that can pick up and go for a weekend. I used to travel 3 weekends a mth. Bastard "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

We don't know how to tell what a woman is thinking now....How does that change anything? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Not HAS, HAD...Like BEFORE the invasion they were supporting and working with terrorists. So much for them not huh? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Where are they? Well considering the first WTC bombing was 1993 and the next attack on them was 2001....Lets see 2001-1993 = 8...So thats 8 years from one attack to the other on US soil. In the mean time they were kinda busy with other stuff: *1995: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - A car bomb explodes outside of a US Military HQ, killing 5. * 1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia - A truck bomb explodes outside of the Khobar Towers complex, killing 19 Americans and injuring hundreds of others. * 1998: Almost simultanious explosion outside of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Death toll: 254. So don' be in such a hurry to have them come back. They will. Right now AQ is getting the shit kicked out of it, and they don't have the time to really have a good sit and plan. Also the money they need to do these bad things is being messed with. Not much to be afraid of? You been paying attention? To shorten it. We must first become Islamic, then turn on the Jews. We must follow the Law of Islam, and ingnore the Constitution. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Ah since you pulled out a chain mail...I cannot see a possible defense Ah, if I have to dreg up all the reports of intel....You need to get out more. Yes, they were proven false, but only AFTER the invasion. If we could have proven they were false before, or if Saddam had complied, or the UN done its job nothing would have happened. But here are some cool quotes for you Incase you don't like those: Charles Duelfer: Saddam maneuvered UNSCOM out of his country in 1998. So you can say all you want. The intel did say he had them. It was wrong, but THAT was the reason for the war, not any crazy chain mail letter...I just got an offer for herbal Viagra....I guess that true as well So, Charles Duelfer, the deputy executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission. vs a chain mail letter? Gee, thats a tough one to say who I should listen too. Did I ever say it was? Nope. I said it was a nice BY PRODUCT. The reason was Saddam, his WMD programs and his failure to comply for over 12 years with the UN resolutions. And the failure of the UN to do what it was tasked to do. I don't think it was about freedom...It was about WMD programs. You are believing a chain mail letter....Ah...I see. You wish to believe anything that makes the US look bad.... I feel sorry for you that you buy into any Anti-US retoric. Anyone can see Saddam never complied, and that the UN did not do its job. Anyone can see the intel said he had WMD...The fact that he used some on the Kurds should be a big clue right there. But if you choose to believe the anti-US rhetoric chain mails as "Proof" Vs the UNSOCM reports from 6 years after the war that he was still making WMD's....Well, I have some great email letters I can send you about male enhancement, and how to get rich by helping some disposed King get his 23 Billion dollars (US) out of his country. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

We all know you bash America at every chance you get.. You fail to see the INTENT behind actions. If I accedentally run someone over in may car it is manslaughter. If I do it on with INTENT it is MURDER. There is a BIG difference between the two "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Did I say that? No. I said that if the insurgents didn't open fire then there would be no bloodshed. Simple fact really. The US is not going to go down the street just shooting civilians. You clearly don't know US ROE. No, try again. If the UN had done its job...No war. Simple really. If Saddam had complied, no war, again simple. Please don't claim to know what I think. I think Saddam and the UN fucked up. The US fucked up by using bad intel. I NEVER said the invasion was to "free" people. Its a nice by product, but was never the mission. So if you could, quit trying to assume you know what I think. Again you assume you know me...Show me ONCE where I said Saddam was tied to 9/11? Go on.... As for not finding WMD...Well we fucked up. Ya know who else fucked up? Saddam for never complying and playing stupid games. The UN for not making him comply. And if you can find that the US went to war for OIL, please by all means provide PROOF. So far all you have is retoric "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

But the point is that the US does not plant a bomb and try to kill innocent people while they are going to work or school. There is a military objective. Collateral damage is not considered good and the US tries to prevent it. The terrorist do not. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

In these cases if the "person" interacted in the real world...Maybe a job as a computer consultant...Would they have the right to vote? If they were "alive" and had opinions, then I would think that if you could PROVE they were seperate from someone else (not a copy) and they were deemed alive...They would get to vote. Now it they were nothing but a copy, or a program that *seemed* human...then no right to vote. The hard part would be proving they were alive. One side would say they should have the right, the other would say no...Tough call. What would most likely happen is the people who say no would be compared to the people who didn't want blacks or women to vote. Don't know. I am not sure society would be able to handle it. It would depend on the level of intelegence. If they were what we would consider "intelligent" they would have to be integrated in some way. I f not, then place them somewhere where they would be left alone. Away from forcing them to live like us, or with us. This is a question that could be linked to aliens....How would any other race with different intelligence fit into society? I will admit, I have no idea. It most likely would not go well. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

If the the insurgents did not open fire there would be no combat. No combat, no bullets flying, no deaths. Darfur also has no WMD programs or anti-US governments. Its a shame what is happening there. Last I checked the US was the first to admit it was genoicide....But why is the not UN doing anything about it? And for that matter, if the UN had done its job in Iraq nothing would have happend there either (Please spare the crap about how since no WMD's have been found they did their job...They had to PROVE it was clean and they did not till after the invasion). The reason for invasion was WMD programs and the threat of a Anti-US government having them. As soon as Darfur has that, expect them to get more attention from the US. Of course if the US did do something I expect some countries would tell us to back the fuck off and ask why we always stick our noses in others business....And if in the process of providing security in Darfur evey innocent death would be our fault as well. Can't win if you do something, or don't do anything. I think we should wait for the UN to grow some balls and do something.... "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Nonsense. Ah, but there is the difference. The US tries not to harm civilians, but does on accident. (Yes, there are cases of individual assholes that do look just to go kill or act stupid...The US also tries to punish those). A "terrorist" targets civilians. So there is a BIG difference between a group that targets armed fighters and a group that targets folks out shopping or working. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

OK but we are talking about "interface". We had paper and punches before we know haw to use them to interface with a computer. So maybe we already have the tools, but not the computer that we can do this with? OK Mr, Doom and Gloom I agree about the energy situation...Now play along with the *current* game. Could a computer become alive, and what would be the "test"? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Some have ethical problems killing rats and think all animals have rights. Most people just choose to place a higher value on human life, than a rodents life. Agreed, now is deleting that program now murder? If this "program" is able to think for itself, can it vote? (And you thought I was just joking about the voting huh?) Next question...Lets say we are able to program a conscious, independantly thinking computer, not a copy of a persons brains. And it can pass whatever test you have for intelegent life... Is it alive? What rights does it have? Thats funny. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I think we all can agree its not my fault....I'd have shot him Ya know I can KINDA go with the plea bargan...and I do mean KINDA. He was young and did something stupid. Its a shame a girl died becasue he was young and stupid. However once he showed no adjustment and continued to thumb his nose at the law....Well I'd have shot him. The problem is some pansy ass is gonna defend him and claim he is just "misunderstood". He killed a girl to act like a wrestler, basicly escaped from prison and was found with a knife, now pulled a gun. I have no doubt that WHEN this jackass is back on the street he will kill again. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Actually I am pro-choice: But that leads to this question: And that was a question I was gonna ask later. Even if we can transfer the contents of a persons brain to a computer, and it can think....Does then make it "alive"? If so can you ethically turn it off? Does it have rights? Kinda like "Data" from Star Trek....When or even CAN a machine become alive? And if so can it vote for democrats and then collect welfare? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334