Botellines

I hope i didn´t really offend anyone with the term WARMONGER, it was not my intention. If i did, i do apologize. However i have the feeling that the term warmonger is drifting the attention away from the point of the thread. I see that many people have voted for the first 3 options, but have not answered why Irak and not other country which has a worse scenario than Irak. In particular i am waiting for Juanesky´s answer who i am sure has voted but rather that justify his ideas prefer to make unfunny jokes spanish about a guy i don´t care in the slightest. BTW Juanesky the joke about shitting in the paella of Drunkmonkey was funny as hell. Don´t continue the joke, make your own.

Hey my friend!!!! I knew you wouldn´t let this ocasion slip without trying to take advantage and share with us your remarks. Why don´t you actually put aside our personal diferences about politics and try to answer as best as you can the questions i ask? Edited to delete what could be misunderstood as a personal attack

WTF are you talking about? Is this some sort of "clever" personal attack?

Although I agree with you that a decision as important as this that is going to affect the lives of literally thousands of people sound be put in simple terms as those in the poll, it is the only thing you have. First, your president said it was a matter of WMD, when they were not found, He said that we should free poor Irakies from Sadam rule. Irak didn´t welcome US troops with open arms, so Bush said that it was all about the war on terror. If he changes his mind again, i will create a new poll with one more option. The problem is that the idea of the war has been sold to you in those simplistic terms, so the legality and valisity of that war is so questionable. If i am wrong and Bush has given any other reason to go to war, please do tell me and i will include it right away.

Hey Tunaplanet, so far only Bush´s Ego got any votes. Did you also vote for that one? You are going to be kicked out of the republican files

By reading other threads i have come to realize that not even war supporters come to an agreement about why they went to war. Even Arbustito doesn´t make up his mind!!! I made this little poll to see if you conservatives, can find some common ground in this subject. While we are at this, I am very interested in seeing how the options you chose related to the next. To free Iraquies Citizens: I am sure you are aware what is going on in Sudan. Guerrillas are assaulting villages and killing many of the people who live there. One of the things they do is to rape every woman in the village (8 to 80 years old) in front of everybody. They know that after that, they will be outcast. There is many more deaths than what saddam has in his account, and the human rights are watched much, much less. http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR540762004 So i ask, why Irak and not Sudan who needs it much more? To get rid of WMD: Not only they have not been found yet (or at least not as many as we claimed there were) but also there is other countries that pose a much bigger threat than Irak. Korea Has WMD and is building more. When Korea has enough WMD, they will be able to blackmail and threat not only his neighbours but by extension all the world. Wouldn´t it has made more sense to start with Korea (just a hint, Diplomacy was not working either) To stop Terrorism: It was known from the begginig that Irak didn´t have terrorist. If we wanted to strike Terrorism, we could have gone after Pakistan (we know that have terrorists AND WMD) or the country where most of the Hijackers were Saudi Arab. so why Irak? The two left seem to me the correct ones, so i will let other people to rebate them.

I mostly agree with what you say. I realize that it is not an easy situation. However, i think that most palestinians are as sick of all the situation as most of Israelis. They probably want to be left alone. You have all that people to win to your cause. You will not make them jews (not that you may want to) but you can make them see that there is other options. At the moment, they are more afraid of hamas leaders than Israel soldiers (mainly because hamas leaders live among them) the solution is not make them fear more your army, but make them revolve against hamas. I know that BOTH sides should do something about it, but one must start, and Israel is the one claiming the moral high ground. Again, it is hard, but in my opinion the current path both sides are going is not going to help much. You may want to check about ETA and spain (and IRA in Ireland). Although our situation was not nearly as bad as yours, some of the measures taken could apply to Israel and Palestina,

I know it is not as easy as it sounds. It probably is much harder that what it look likes, but here are some suggestions. - Make a point to distinguish between terrorists and other palestinians. Establish beyond reasonable doubt wether a palestinian is a terrorist, a supporter who is involved in the act of terror or someone caught between a wall and a hard rock. - Collateral damage is not acceptable. Treat palestinian lifes (the inocent ones i mean) as valuable as Israel lifes. If that means that you don´t get to kill a terrorist, so be it. you will have to find a way to eliminate ONLY him. - Contribute to improve their quality of life, the more they have to loose the less they will want to lose it, and that includes getting rid of the wall (you are actually doing the opposite) - Do reasonable concessions to the palestinians and make sure that they can have their state ruled by them apart from Israel. (you may have to defend this idea in front of the ortodox jews) There is some other things but those listed here would be a good beggining. I will agree with you that it will be expensive, and there could be more terrorist attacks in the short term, but i assure you that in the long term it will be very beneficial for both and will save a lot of lives in both sides Most palestinian only want to live in peace and be left alone. Give them more than Hamas (which is not much) and you will have relatively peaceful neigbourghs all of this of course IMO

I'd love to hear the rationalization for this comment. Is there one -- aside from your vehement hatred of Bush? Actually there is no rationalization, it was just my vehemented hatred of Bush. As falxori sais the patriot act is one of those things that are much easily done than undone, so i guess you are stucked with it for longer than my beloved "arbusto" I just wanted to point out that those "temporary" supressions of liberties and freedom are more likely to happen with a president who is constantly striving for war than for one that is not. Now i am puzzle because "Arbustito" is supposed to be the peace president.

4 months.... OR 4 years and 4 months...

I never said that the terrorist were nice people. If that place is suitable to keep launching attacks from there i think it is fair that it is taken down. Of course after giving a fair compensation to the owners of that house. Sort of like giving them a better house someplace else, and giving them jobs if they have to relocate, etc. If Israel is not compensating somehow those innocent people, they are creating more terrorist. If they treat them fairly, eventually they will turn against hamas Because if they do, not only they will send their son to jail (to say the least) but also they will endanger themselves by upsetting extremist groups. It is a no win situation If i am so cold hearted to kill 3 Israel soldiers and 17 innocent people, i doubt fear from reprisal to my family would stop me from doing it. I would try to make it look like i have no family, or something like that though. I take then that there is a fair trial set up by an international independent tribunal who applies a law that both countries has compromised to obey. Becuase if there is not, it still looks to me that Israel is doing it only because they can.

Often is not always, besides as far as i know it is hamas and groups like them the ones that provide assistance. Usually is not always. Should we bomb Irak because they were dancing all happy after 9/11. Uppps sorry, we already did. Fair enough, I understand that option are limited, but there are optios. You will agree with me that taking down those houses is neither fair, nor legal. Basicly Isreal is doing it because they can. Let´s put an example. I am palestinian, and my brother decides to kill himself in a terrorist attack. Let´s say that my father was aware, although probably not my mother. Certainly grandma didn´t have a clue, and although i knew it, i couldn´t do much to stop him without turning him to Israel. Next thing i know, a bulldozer has taken down my house with grandma inside, or well, maybe she wasn´t inside but we have lost all we have. We have lost a family member for the terrorist attack, the house in the revenge and maybe a couple of more family members in the way due to Israel soldiers. Guess who will the next terrorist be.

The problem is when the extremists are the ones who decide what is right and what is not. To take down the home of the family of a terrorist is very extreme (his family may have nothing to do with it) however it is commanded from Israel´s Government. One government don´t stop terrorism (Arafat) and the other government encourage terrorism (Sharon). Take care!

I think you are way off the mark here. I am one of those that you consider that have nothing good to say about america. Just for the record, i am anti war, against Bush, against guns, pro choice, half capitalist half socialist, so my values are well defined. Too bad this is speakers corner and most if not all the threads are about this subjects and my opinion differ with the policies US is holding at the moment. It doesn´t mean i have nothing good to say about the US, I have, it is just that due to the nature of this forum i didn´t have the chance to say them. NacMcfeegle list is quite accurate yet, of course, incomplete. There is many things you guys do good. But don´t expect me to brown nose you with the things IMO you absolutely fuck up. Also, if i don´t blindly follow my government in what they say (lie) what makes you believe that i am going to follow yours? Just so you know saying how wonderful the US is or putting down other countries WITHOUT backing your opinions with factual data is a sure way to get non US posters rightfully defensive and star a hate posts war. (AKA TROLLING)

No it isn't -- Canada doesn't even have a culture of it's own. Dude, i see for your profile that you are from Colorado. I have been living there for well over a year (Pierce, AULT, Greeley, Fort Collins, Denver) so i know what i am talking about. Unless you have moved there recently from somwhere else, you don´t get to talk about culture. I haven´t been to Canada yet, but i cannot see how it could possible have less culture than Colorado (I don´t know about the rest of the US). Hey, maybe Colorado is an statistical glitch. No offense to anyone from colorado. I think culture comes down to the person, not where they are born, but if we are going to generalize...

Marriage? NO WAY!!!!! It is much more fun to live in sin.

Yeah, actually it is.

No, i am not saying we could have defeteat them. What i am saying is that the US could not have defeated Japan, Italy and Germany at the same time by themselves. So it took the strength of US army and European army to defeat the axis. I don´t see how Europeans should be thankful and Americans not. About the hand that each country played defeating Hitler... I think every side did as much as they could to defeat Hitler. The consecuences of not doing it so would have been to speak German forever.

Hey guys, please DO send Love Letters via PM instead.

Actually, any history book will do, but i will post a link anyway. http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Stadium/6712/warONamerica.htm From the link: FDR would do everything in his power to stop the advance of fascism, but the president faced some very basic problems. Immediately after the beginning of hostilities with Japan, he doubted that the American people would tolerate a simultaneous war with Germany. It was the Japanese who had killed American sailors and soldiers on US territory in Hawaii. It was the Japanese that American citizens most feared and wanted to punish. They had no equal grudge against the German dictator. Ultimately, it was Hitler and Mussolini’s declaration of war against the US on 11 December 1941, that overcame American opposition to a crusade against all the fascist powers. What i was referring to, is that the US didn´t go to war out of kind of heart to help your little French friends. A war was declared on the US, The japanese atacked you at pearl harbor, and Germany and Italy declared the war on the US. The US just took the war to where the enemy troops happened to be (Europe). That is quite diferent than saying that the US helped France because they couldn´t defeat the Nazis. Let´s turn it around, Europe helped you to defeat the enemy who declared the war on you. Why don´t we say there was an alliance beetwen the US and Europe to defeat a common enemy? The US does NOTHING against its own interests, so don´t try to sell the opposite

OLE OLE OLE!!!!!! Wouldn´t it be wonderful if Juanesky, PeacefullJeffrey, Pajarito and Chuteless actually opened their eyes and agree with me too? Well, PeacefulJeffrey is going to agree with me soon when he answers my question. Now seriously, if that letter really was from a father to his son (which i REALLY doubt). We better call the social services ASAP Edited for clarification

Please, DO read some history first before you make those claims.

Jeffrey, for your profile, it seems like you are a proofreader, right? Do you honestly (forget for a moment that you support the general message of the "letter") think that this is the letter of a father to their sons? Based on the format, the length, and other details like how unaffectionate it is, i think it is just right wing propaganda. It is not the first time we see it (not just this one) and probably will not be the last. I am speaking only about the source, i will not say anything about the validity of the content. But considering the lack of honesty in the presentation of the message, you should give him the same credibility that you would give me if i write some sort of document against war or bush (as you know i am antiwar and antibush) If you need to disguise your message so it will reach more people, i reckon your points are not very strong

There is so many things i would change... So many bad decision, untohught words... I am quite happy with who i am, but there is some lessons i didn´t want to learn. And i still think that i would be happier had i not learned those lessons.

So what? If they were traveling together, it makes sense they all went in the same plane. If those guys were terrorists, they could afford even round trips in first class if that would help them go unnoticed. Like they would tell you if they were up to no good I admit though, that it could have looked suspicious, but not for those reasons. Apparently they could not search more than 2 of them because it would be considered as profiling, right? if the airliner is concerned about a group of people, could they search thoroughly ALL the passangers so it could not be consider profiling?