Botellines

Sorry, i didn´t make myself clear. I mean the use of fear with his citizens. When was the last time you had a warning about a terorrist attack without knowing when, where, how, etc, etc. Not really, not many presidents started a war and put "friendly" governments in 2 countries and aiming for a third one in only 3 years. Do you remember how he use to called the war at the begining? and don´t you remember how Bush referred to the war as a crusade?

Well, i would think that everybody´s position is quite clear around here. Unless you have seen the light and you became a democrat in the last 30 minutes.

If the overall number of casualties drop, you can be damn sure it would make me happier. To me an American live is one point, and an Iraki live is one point. However, The public opinion would not tolerate that and would force Bush to live the irakies alone. If you do all you can to spare innocent lives, you have the moral high ground. If not, you are not any better than the terrorist. Ok, you say hi to scooby-doo, alright?

Of course Bush is not like Hitler, diferent people, diferent time, etc, etc. However, there is more similarities beetwen them that i would feel comfortable with. Example: - The use of fear when adressing to the population. - The expansionist foreign policies - One hatred a entire race, the other hates an entire religion. Everybody is aware that Bush is not Hitler, but there is some ground for comparison. Of course, and just for the record, i do think so far, Hitler was much much worse.

Those who 'liked' Saddam, are primarily those who were in power along with him. Would you propose that the tribunal be stacked in their favor? With regards to the composition of the tribunal, what would make you happy? - Jim Hague tribunal where he will be judge by the most impartial people you could find (given the circumstances)and where he will face a life term in prison. (and you comply with the international tribunal BTW). However if the U.S did that, SH would not be executed.

I guess same thing that those carboards at a shooting range. As a secondary effect, it usually draws attention. There is no need to take into custody 30.000 civilians. It is only a mean to discriminate beetwen inocent people and not so innocents who has a drawn gun. Besides, it is much harder to shoot if you are on the ground with no weapons drawn and hands visble. How many units BTW have someone who speak their language? Anyway, now they use this little plastic bands instead of handcuffs and a single officer can carry around 100, just in case it was necesary to take into custody that many people I never said it was easy, i didn´t even say it was feasible without taking heavy casualties, but what the U.S cannot do is to show a total disregard for civilians life´s and then put all sort of moral justifications to it. The U.S should not be there, period. But if it has to be, one civilian life is one too many. If not the U.S has not the moral high ground as many in this forum claim.

If people he order to kill and torture want to kill Bush for being a muderous asshole (or Cheney since he authorized the treatment at abu-grahib)... Great, are you saying he does not deserve it? He is the man who tried to kill my daddy Or he could put a tribunal with people who really hated SH in a country with death penalty. That would fool a few into thinking that it is democracy. That trial would be as legal as if you choose PhillyKev and myself to defend Bush against impeachment or peacefullJefrey, Juanesky and yourself to defend kerry for whatever. That tribunal is a joke.

I don´t think we are talking about the same thing. In the situation that you are picturing, i would expect the troops to first shoot in the air to warn the civilian population, and then say with a speaker in their language to lay face down with their hands visible. Then do the shooting. The problem with that is that the U.S is trying to conquer a country with the minimum casualties possible (American casualties, that is) with complete disregard for Irak´s citizens, and the way i would do it wouldn´t be as safe for american troops as kill anything that moves. That would be my opinion about your scenario, but mainly what i am talking about is the bombing. If you drop a 500 lb pounds bomb in a suburb full of people, civilians casualties are guaranteed. That is the bulk of casualties. I am sure that the scenario you were talking about have existed at some point. Probably several times, but the 10.000 casualties come for other reasons. In other order of things, i have heard several times in this forums about that U.S policy, you break it, you fix it, when justifing Irak ocupation. Is people aware that the U.S broke Irak, and now it is still breaking some more?

Would you mind to explain a bit what you meant with this.

You cannot just tell someone to leave his city because you are goping to bomb it. Those people have their pride, and besides, where are they going to go? The US is the one doing the attacking, so it is responsible for the death of the innocents. if the US cannot bomb from the air because too many civilians will die, then the US shouldn´t do it. Better to send more soldier that will be much better at discriminating good people than bad people than a "smart" bomb dropped from 35000 feet.

Well, actually i think he means that Bush is worse than Hitler Quote...I mean has he looked around his back yard yet? reply] Probably yes, and that is why he finds some similarities. We could call them "the 3 tenors"

It seems you are against gun free zones. What policy would you aply to a high school? I don´t know if you can legaly purchase a gun under 18, but some people in highschool are 18.

We can all see American compassion in Abu Grahib Look, if you want to make up all sort of moral justification for those murders and you believe them, more power to you. But the truth is that one innocent civilian is one too many. Don´t try to justify the massacre by claiming the U.S has the moral high ground because the U.S has not proved it yet. Evey single soldier who has killed an inoccent civilian while not beeing directly threatened, is a criminal, period.

Because there is a big difference between being over thrown and being killed. Yeah, but he is getting both. And everybody knew from the begining that in his personal vendetta Bush wouldn´t let him live. Now it is a matter of see who kills him, old enemies from Irak or US contractors.

You can certainly do that if you own the server where dropzone is hosted, however if his ISP is any big, chances are that you could be blocking a legitimate user.

No, it is not enough quantity and was not in an apropiate container to do any harm to any american who was outside Irak.

And don´t you think it could have backfired here too? Had Aznar admitted it was alquaeda instead of blaming ETA for political gain, he could have turned a pretty even election into a win for the right (people was upset here as well). What turned people against Aznar was beyond the terrorists control. It wasn´t the terrorist attack per se, but the subsequent lieing and media manipulation of the government. Fair enough. I do think that although Bush is doing things, they are not the right things. No offense taken. I do know that Spanish support was small, and to be honest I wish had been smaller. The problem with our withdrawal was not the withdrawal itself, but the timing, and the perception of the coalition of the willing it would give to the rest of the world. Based on the intel you have know, do you still think it was a wise idea to start a war back then? Yes, but as i said, here too it could have backfired. And the terrorist know that. Had Aznar not lied to us he may very well be in charge today. Had Aznar succesfully lied to us he may very well be in charge today. Hadn´t there been any terrorist attack, Zapatero may have won. They know that what actually happened was a possibility among others for they could not foresee the rest of the factors.

No, I don´t believe in the concept of a pre-emptive war, no matter who does it. However, in the link they are saying that they would attack if U.S or Israel attack their nuclear facilities. Shamkhani, who was asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's atomic power plant in Bushehr, added: "We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength. "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr warned.

As a matter of fact, it does makes me feel a bit better. My opinion was much diferent before the Irak war, but now i do think that it is necesary a bit of balance. If a nuke is a deterrent for you to invade Iran in the name of oil, bush, god, whatever, then i think it is not bad. I don´t trust Iran with a nuke but i don´t trust the US either. If i remember correctly Bush wanted to use small nukes to destroy underground bunkers. If the U.S does to Iran what it has done to Irak, you are going to see for first time in ¿history? all the muslim in the world united against the U.S and the western world, and Pakistan DOES have nukes. There is a saying: "You can only punch in the face a coward so many time before he strikes back". I think you are about to reach the limit with the middle east so it would be nice that you stop while on time. By the way, i am not saying that Arabs are cowards, it is only how the saying goes.

Ron, considering that Spain has only two main political parties (like the US), if we do what you suggest (a knee-jerk reaction to terrorist attacks) it would be very easy for the terrorist to influence elections. Example, Kerry win the next elections, and the terrorist want him to stay, they don´t want Bush Jr to be in command, so they only have to say that they want Kerry to go and put a bomb a week before the elections. Then you will have a knee-jerk reaction and say, hell no. You want Kerry to go, then Kerry is staying. Terrorist win. If you are honest with yourself (and you may very well be in private) you will admit that Aznar as president of Spain suits your agenda much better than Zapatero. Aznar is a republican (or the spanish equivalent) who supported the war and is ready to turn his back on Europe to bow down to the U.S. I can see why you prefer him rather than Zapatero. But the best thing for Spain (maybe not for the republican part of the U.S) is to be part of Europe (even a small part) rather than being a small puppet of the U.S. interests.

So you want your country to stay strong? what for? great empires come and go. The romans, the spanish, the URRS, etc, etc. And while they remain strong, the average citizen is not necesarily happier. if you want your country to stay strong, as billvon said do not be dependant on middle east oil. Do some research on alternative energy sources, etc. Regarding security, invest all the resources you have in homeland security wich is where the next attack will come from. Come on, unless you have some personal interest in the oil industry, the path that your leader is taking you all is not the best for the U.S. Understanding the U.S as the average american, not the fat cats who make indecent amounts of money at your expenses.

Why should he? The U.S has been sending two messages to the world 1.- You are with us or against us 2.- No matter what you choose, if we want to, we will bomb your country, rape your citizens and kill your leaders. I can see why Iran may be a bit uneasy. See, if Bush had used a bit more diplomacy in his business he wouldn´t be getting now this knee-jerk reaction. But, had he used a bit of diplomacy we wouldm´t be in this situation to begin with, right?

What would it take for bush to get impeached? I mean, if at work i fuck up big time, i will get fired. How much Bush needs to fuck up to get fired?

Yeap, I am glad that so far this mistake has costed Mr Jose Maria (The puppet) Aznar his elections. Hopefully it will happen the same with the rest.

Well, i think it is not the same level. As ron have stated the only diference beetwen Arab terrorists and U.S Heroes is the that terrorist aim for civilians and U.S Heroes aim for terrorist, although in the end both kill civilians... So back to the level issue, Good thing for U.S Heroes is that they don´t try to kill innocent civilians, but the bad thing is that they are much better at killing inoccent people than terrorist. So you tell us, what level the current U.S administration and war supporterrs are in regarding to terrorist?