Botellines

Yes, however if you look at the figures 100 US civilians (or whatever number that is) vs 10.000 Irakies civilians, then it stops making sense comparing them, don´t you think? Congratulations to the U.S army, they are way more proficient at killing innocent people than terrorists.

Yes they do. They know that by droping a bomb in the middle of a city there is going to be inoccent casualties. Still they do it because they (or their superiors) consider that it is more important the target they are aiming at than the sure casualties of bystanders. As i said, droping a bomb when you know there will be civilian casualties is not so unintentionally as you wrongly claim. Besides, if you read my post again you will see i did make a distinction i did make a distinction. It is usually convenient to read all the post before accusing some one of posting ignorant or stupid ideas. Thank you.

So now, the U.S helps Spain... Do you have any figures? As far as i know it is the EU who does most if not all the helping to its members... And now all this funding is part of your national strategy... But before it was because you were so good... And now it is strategy. FLIP-FLOP. Now it is to liberate Irak, now it is the WMD, now it is al Qaueda... Dude, thank you for proving my point, but i don´t need your help.

Thats a little extreme, so I'll just stand by with a fire extinguisher.

Fuck.

I wasn´t refering specifically about you, i was talking in general. By the way, wouldn´t it be funny if i told you now i was arabic and therefore i was more involved with that culture? I will trust you with that since i am not I agree with you there. Maybe americans are not the only who want to change middle east, but they sure stick up above the rest. I think that some sort of change os needed in the middle east (as well as in some other countries that are not in the middle east?. The issue is: who decides what needs to be changed? at what cost? It is not worth to go to war to change the lifestyle of other countries. Specially if they don´t want to change.

I never said it was a trivial distinction, I said, that if you look at the big picture it is a small distinction. Intentions are important, but only intentions is what makes a diference beetwen the U.S army and the terrorist. The result is inoccent deaths. as an example, if a guy shoots someone he is charged with murder. If someone in a crowded bar have to shoot someone in self defence, but he also kills ten innocent guys who happened to be there, he is also charged with murder. Maybe the punishment will be less severe for the intentions, but he will go to jail. Yes, there is a distinction, but i don´t think that distinction morally justifies 10.000 inocent casualties. Anyway, about the intentions... I have yet to see war supporters that honestly mourn the deaths of the innocent people from Irak. If you are being attacked, and you need to defend yourself, sometimes you have to put to the same level than the attacker. in WWII both sides bombed civilian targets. What i am against, is the moral rationalization of the subject to make war less repulsive to the average person. If you on the TV say something like that since they do not value American lives you are going to do the same with Irak ciilians, you will not get much support for the war, however, if you rationalize the issue and make distinctions beetwen you and them, it will be much easier to support this war and sleep at night. I see your point, but I think that the true horror of the war is being rationalize by those who want support for their war.

What do you mean?

five years ago If we don´t consider Denver a big city 7 years ago, if not 5 years. Why? are you telling me that anything has change lately? How so?

Unfortunately, i haven´t been in Toronto. However i have been in New york, lived for a short while in London, Edinburgh, and currently live in Madrid. I assure you that no matter how much inmigration you get from other countries if you don´t actually do something to mingle with them, you will not learn a bit from their culture. So that a country receives people from all sort of nacionalities doesn´t make automatically the natives culturally diverse. That is what i meant.

I doubt it. seeing a black guy on the street or meeting a spanish doesn´t count as caming into contact with other nationalities.

My guess is that the attack to the twin tower was a retaliation for the policies taken for years in the middle east. Specially the unconditional support to Israel. And you just said that retaliation is a valid reason to accept collateral damage, right? The twin towers was the simbol of capitalism, that is what they aimed at, the rest was collateral damage. If they really had wanted to kill many many more people, they could have striked a football stadium, a nuclear plant, etc. They weren´t, that is the reason why that terror attack was so despisable. How is the Innocent Iraky who only want to be left alone a threat to the U.S because he doesn´t give a shit about collateral damage. Unfortunately, the U.S is doing the same thing. I agree with you. However, if whoever prey on those unable to defend themselves is a coward? Aren´t you calling the U.S air force pilots cowards? The Irakies at ground level can hardly defend themselves from a 500lb bomb droped from above. Well, with that said, you are only proving my point. Is that the only distinction that you can make beetwen the U.S army and the terrorist? so the only diference is that the U.S army kill enemies knowing that will also kill civilians, and the terrorist kill enemies and civilians without making distinctions. (and they shouldn´t nowadays because there shouldn´t be U.S civilians in Irak at this time) If the diference beetwen the U.S army and a terrorist lies in the semantic definition of terrorist, maybe the U.S doesn´t have the moral high ground, don´t you think?

Yeah, it may be a bit extreme, but by the current definition of Terrorist (according to Bush) the U.S army could be considered as such. It seems that if Irak do it is the same, and if the U.S does it, it is always diferent. (it reminds me of a couple of relationships...) If we play, let´s all play with the same rules. At the moment too many war supporters are making petty distintions to give a moral justification for the massacre going on in the middle east. Okay, you can now start to spray that fire extinguisher in the air.

We wouldn´t invade over oil, only the U.S can do it. Oh, Irak did it too to Kuwait. Uhmm, i wonder if that is what upsets Bush so much, that he only have the prerogative to kill for oil. LMAO. 1.- you give Israel 2 Billion dollars at year. 2.- You give political support no matter what opossing most other countries. 3.- Israel spies on you, the spy gets catched red handed go back to number 1 another example. 1.- a group of terrorist kill 3000 citizens and make your homeland security laughable 2.- You discover that most of the terrorist are saudies. 3.- you attack afganistan 4.- you attack Irak 5.- You keep buying oil and doing bussiness with Arab Saudi. actions speak louder than words.

nuke them kill them all They are not so innocent I bet all of this was in Osama Bin Laden´s head when he decided to crash two planes in the twin towers. Amazing the things some people have in common with OBL. Just for the record, and i am sure i will get flamed for this, I do think that the U.S army in general is not better at all than the terrorists in general. A pilot who drops a 500lb bomb in a civilian suburb is a terrorist.

and furthermore the innocent irakies are as innocent as the inocent contractor who was beheaded.

You can be damned sure you would if we had oil. You would even let us screw your behind for the right price. Mate, no honor or pride in this world anymore, just money and power.

Is it public knowledge what system those voting machines use to avoid tampering?

well, sort of. In the U.S no one can be president for more than 8 years, right?, so if Bush wins the elections now, he can flip flop all he wants because after all someone else will be running for president. I was thinking more of punishing either the person or the political party, not the president as a figure. It is just a silly idea, after all if politicians don´t lie they would be something else, like doctors or air traffic controllers.

There should be a law that held accountable all the politicians for what they promise before elections and for what they stand for.

Saddam Hussein and Bush? Who have registered to vote one government among the options offered by the U.S. That is if you consider abu-grahib or guantanamo a luxury resort. Some people will never stop speaking about that so called freedom of speech. I remember reading on the net that some people has goptten in troble with the FBI for speaking ill in public about Bush. Is that any diferent that the previous situation in Irak? It's better than allowing Bush to run wild with his oil friends, killing and torturing at will. Dude, you can try to demonize Saddam and family all you want, but your president and all the war supporters are doing an excellent job at justifying Saddam actions by repeating them.

Dude, jokes are not facts. They don´t need to be backed up with evidence. That is why they are called jokes.

Well, of course if they had more info, or if the threat was real, only the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc, should be aware of the specific details to gather as much info as possible. However, what good does it make to announce the whole country the proximity in time of a terrorist attack without specifying anything? I am talking specificly of the population. Besides, the warning levels has been raised way too many times without any terrorist attack going (thanks god) or any detention made. Ísn´t it starting to look suspicious?

I would like to remid you when the U.S got this intel (bad intel BTW) that saddam and his son where in a restaurant downtown bagdag and the U.S droped a bomb in the middle efectively killing many, many civilians. What was the U.S destroying at that point?

True, now we would have to talk about wether that fear is justified or serve political purposes. A warning without specifing where, when or how doesn´t do any good to the population, just tell them to be afraid and increases the level of paranoia as well as the anger against terrorist. Good for Bush´s agenda.