Botellines

Anything that starts with: "I urge all of my readers to make copies of this report and send them to your friends and relatives" Should be given the same credibility that the poor indian girl with no limbs that will get her wheelchair if everybody sends the email 10 times.

True...true... Never underestimate the power of idiots in large numbers. That is why I wouldn´t bet for Kerry either.

What faults has Bush recognized?

You need to watch the movie in order to give your opinion about it. Unless you do, anything you say it is just hearsay Did you see the first one? at no point it sais that the NRA was happy with what happened in Columbine. You are just trying to mislead anyone who has not seen it yet (like what MM does accoriding to you) Aparently, it is true that you could get the rifle in 20 minutes in that bank. That your background gets checked afterwards (or in the moment for that matter) don´t change the fact that in 20 minutes you have a rifle.

don´t count the eggs before catching the chicken.

Not really, if it was so, F 9/11 would truly be a documentary. Who tells you that MM doesn´t believe what he is saying? Besides MM admits it is a biased documentary which purpose is to get Bush out of the white house. You cannot get more honest than that But he is not lieing. If you show up on TV and say a lie about someone you can be sued. And don´t tell me Bush is not suing him out of kindness of heart. Bush cannot sue because he cannot prove MM is lieing. Okay, i will concede that he doesn´t tell all the truth, but what he does tell is not a lie. Maybe he does use some dirty tricks at some point like the newspaper thing, but it doesn´t mean he is lieing, and certainly does not invalidate the rest of the movie. indeed it is.

Fair enough, it makes sense. However, i assume you are voting for bush. Wouln´t it make sense to question more the person you are voting to? Both candidates should be evaluated for honesty or lack off, but you should watch more closely whoever you are trusting.

I think it would also be important if he did the torute on his own free will, or he was commanded to. Anyway, that is not my point. My point is that it seems most republicans dig on Kerry´s past and the Democrats on Bush past (note that i am neither, although i don´t like Bush the slightest). If you are going to give your trust/vote to someone, i would think you would want to know wether he deserves it or not, not wether someone you are not voting to deserves it.

The only doubts are those by the liberal sheep who are in absolute desperation to bring up anything to hurt Bush since they are starting to snowball down the losing side of the electoral college mountain. I think many people take elections too personal, come on, this is not a football match where you will support your team no matter what. If you vote for Bush and Kerry lies, well, he is a fucker. But i would be much more upset if the person i vote, the one i trust lies to me. I think that Republicans should watch much more closely Bush, and Democrats Kerry, not the other way around. And there is nothing wrong if you find that the person you vote is a lier, you vote someone else and thats it.

There is no doubt Kerry served, although some people do not agree with his actions when he returned. However, there is doubts about wether Bush skipped or not. Alright, there is nothing proved, but there is suspicion. Since it is important to you before voting, wouldn´t you want to investigate further the issue before election time?

Would it matter to you when choosing your president wether he skipped his duty with the army?

LMAO... Dude, don´t give them ideas

What makes you think that whoever happened to write the Wikipedia entry knew more about ROE than folks who actually have to know and follow them? For once, whatever wikipedia sais is not biased toward any point in the present discussion unlike people actually are involved in the present discussion. Besides, what makes you think that wikipedia information is wrong?

You may want to edit your post about the paella then. please, read my post above. ROE does talk about how to treat captives. I think that those trials are a joke. After Dick Cheney admitted he agreed with the use of torure (he didn´t call it torture, of course) shouldn´t he be facing the same charges than the soldiers? I think it has been proved that orders came from above. It speaks volumes to me that only the low grade soldiers are getting some sort of punishment. Besides they may have change, but they seemed to me that the sentences where awfully forgiving at the time We are talking about a different incident (it is normal there has been so many). The U.S Air Force dropped a smart bomb (that did its task perfectly for it falled in the middle of the civilian suburb as it was intended) at a restaurant in Baghdad because they had (bad) intel that SH was there with his sons. In that particular incident, there were no weapons placed, no fliers where sent, and the smart bomb was programmed to fall in the middle of the suburb. You are talking about the second incident at a wedding. The first one was slightly diferent. However, if instead of dropping a bomb from 35000 feet they had sent the mighty marines, they would have realized it was a wedding, and if there was a terrorist (not proved among the pile of limbs), kill him without killing the bride. However it is much easier and safer for the marines to drop a bomb a kill every single terrorist if there was one. The rest: collateral damage. Some collateral damage may occur, we both agree on that. What we disagree is on the figures. Most people think that 10.000 victims in a war where only a handfull of terrorist should die, is more that enough. Besides it is very scary that some people like you and other war supporters don´t find that figure big enough to worry, because the war still goes on, and it is going to go on while Bush is in charge. How many more collateral damage are the war supporters willing to accept in the name of freeing Irak (or whatever reason this week is) you are right, my mistake. I considered your sarcasm quite untasteful and disrespective, i didn´t think it was necesary to acknowledge. Maybe diferent culture, but take your remark as if someone was saying that the people who jumped the twin towers under fire where doing a quick AFF. A tasteless remark that no considerate person would make. The funny thing is that with the kind of attacks that create all this collateral damage, you cannot know wether those guys are armed or not. I would be surprise if a pilot can see everybody having a ak47 from 35000 feet. And if it is the marines, they should have seen the 12 years old kids with no rifles and abort the air attack. I do not doubt that not all of those 10.000+ where civillians, but it seems most of them were. "The world as you know it" is a sentence written by Bush campaign consultant that enticed people to go to war so nothing will change. Most people prefer not to change (go ahead, take the piss of my studies) I am sure you have realized by know that they see this war as a religious thing (Most right wingers see it as crusade as well) so muslims in the world are attacking non muslims and viceversa regardless of countries. They feel threatend, and why shouldn´t they? the radical muslim bastion (afghanistam) has been invaded, Irak as well (although wasn´t radical at all), there are talks about Iran. U.S best allie, Israel, is after Palestina and ¿syria?. I think they have all the right to feel threaten. Not that i agree with how the are acting, but i don´t agree how the U.S is acting either. I am not laughing, and i don´t buy that they look for world anhilitation, first of all because they cannot, and second, because if that is what they wanted they would already have used nukes (Pakistan have them) I am a bit disapointed, i was expecting to see a master degree or a doctorate in psichology since you make so much fun of my studies. edited for clarification

I would be interested to know what is the percentage of terrorist vs innocent civilians out of the total number of deaths. Does anyone have those figures? i couldn´t find them on the net. Maybe that will put things in perspective.

From wikipedia: In addition to a typically large set of standing orders, military personnel will be given additional rules of engagement before performing any mission or military operation. These can cover circumstances such as how to retaliate after an attack, how to treat captured targets, which territories the soldier is bound to fight into, and how the force should be used during the operation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement As i asked Juanesky, when do you think it will be enough? since you guys are not pulling out and the area is not getting anymore peaceful, how many collateral damage will you find unacceptable for whateer purpose this week is of the war?

By the way, Juanesky, you still have not answer what sort of higher education you have to make fun of the college degree (the second) i am getting. I know that anyone can make up things on the net, but i will take your word.

First of all, thank you for your quick response. See, today has not been a good day and i needed the laugh. I am confused, i thought that Rules Of Engagement should not apply here for being an unconventional war. Do you really want to go there? Please, enlighten us and tell me what the ROE say about tortures. Dude, don´t change the subject, please, focus, we are not talking about kerry. There is live beyond Kerry. Please, don´t play victim, i NEVER said that "you are just a bunch of murderers of innocent victims around the world". I gave my opinion over a very specific issue explaining my reasons, you are yet to support your claims. fair enough, but i am still to see a post where you say why my opinion is stupid. HINT: your "logic" is not universal in Internet. dude, dont talk like if i wasn´t here, it is rude. Don´t talk about my personal vindictive hatred when you only show up when i am having a heated discussion with someone else to try to "finish me off". Really, I shouldn´t be that important to you. Actually as tasteless as it was, it made me smile. Just please, next time substitute pork with chicken in the paella, it will taste much better. actually, funny as it sounds, i said on purpose whoever cooks for you, instead of calling you directly a bad cook so you wouldn´t start whining "personal attack, personal attack". Just trying to save you some embarrasment. BWAHAHAHAHA. I only get flamed by you, peacefulljeffrey and a handful of other people. There is many more in this forum that do not feel offended by my words. You are such a sensitive soul. By the way, it is mostly you who claims personal attack all the time. (with little success by the way). really, don´t be so touchy. INDEED!!!!! Back to the subject, i would like to hear from you wether ROE apply or not, and if they do, why they are not being followed. Also, what is your opinion about the 10.000 innocent victims?. Do you think it is worth their deaths, when will it be enough? I only say that because it doesn´t seem that you guys are going to pull out any soon, and the area is not getting any more peacefull, quite the opposite. let´s both write the posts in a civil manner, okey?

I never said that it only happened in the U.S. It happens in all major cities as well. It happens where i live as well (Madrid). You may have a lot of diferent cultures very close to you but if you don´t do an effort to get to know them better, you will never do. That is why i dont buy the idea that a country is more cultural ONLY because it has many people from diferent cultures.

No, what i mean is that although they were targetting Saddam, they knew that they were in a residential suburb and by droping the bomb, they would kill many inocent civilians. Big diference. No, what i mean is that US was targetting someone who shot at the air (old tradition) and killed many innocent people. Big diference and bad intel. You don´t hear anyone saying shit happens when talking about the 9/11 attacks. The U.S has intentionally killed innocents by accepting collateral damage as normal. With Sadam, they could have send the delta force or whatever to minimize civilian casualties. Howevver the US chose to be safe and drop a bomb from above.

I agree with Wendy, and i assure you you will find no one who thinks that those fuckers do not deserve to die right away in this forum. About that I am with you. However you may find some resistance to nuke chechenya and killing 99% of people who has nothing to do with and 1% who has links to terrorism.

I don´t think there is anyone in this thread that makes apology of terrorism. Can you name a single one? I don´t understand quite well what thick as theives means, but sounds to me like a personal attack.

dude, do you have a higher education? sort of a bachellor degre or a master degree? You must have like 2 or 3 of each because you don´t miss a chance to make fun of my studies. Tasteless as usual... however this time you made me laugh. The terrorist attack was not in "Puerta de Atocha" , but in "estacion de atocha" diferent stations, dude. Who cooks paella for you? whoever it is must be a terrible cook. dude, paella has no pork on it. You must have gotten pork and chicken confused. You are improving yourself, you could not possible make more mistake per line.

Yes they do. Can you introduce any sort of evidence of this? Of course, One of the first hints of the whereabout of Saddam and his sons was in a restaurant. Bomb droped dozens of victims, saddam was not there. A little girllos 8 members of her family (and a limb) more... a wedding, someone shoots at the air (old tradition) bomb droped, most people including the bride dies. i will post the links when i have a bit of time, but trust me, that happened.

The U.S started. That is why your president called it pre-emptive war. We are not talking about afghanistan or alquaeda, but about Irak. At least when other people sais nuke them, i think they mean Irak and not afghanistan. My mistake... first afghanistan (somewhat justified, i will concede), now Irak, (face it, irakies want you out of their country), and there has been talks about who will be next. That is a conquering force in my book. And by the way, you could not invade much more without streching your forces too thin... so don´t talk about restrain. I have already posted about that distinction. but again when you see the figures that distintinction is not that big distinction anymore. what you could do to avoid them getting killed is stop droping bombs where you think there may be a terrorist, however the US air force prefers the collateral damage rather than let one bad guy escape.