freethefly

It seems that this is exactly why democracy will never actually take root in the M.E.. Depending who is winning at the time is the side the people support. Also, as you pointed out, hidden agenda. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

U.S. just as guilty U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds By Michael Dobbs Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, December 30, 2002 High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally. Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions. The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys." A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague. Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction. "It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department." "Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible." What makes present-day Hussein different from the Hussein of the 1980s, say Middle East experts, is the mellowing of the Iranian revolution and the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait that transformed the Iraqi dictator, almost overnight, from awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition, the United States itself has changed. As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers take a much more alarmist view of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. Shifts in Iran-Iraq War When the Iran-Iraq war began in September 1980, with an Iraqi attack across the Shatt al Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf, the United States was a bystander. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As long as the two countries fought their way to a stalemate, nobody in Washington was disposed to intervene. By the summer of 1982, however, the strategic picture had changed dramatically. After its initial gains, Iraq was on the defensive, and Iranian troops had advanced to within a few miles of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies. "You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different from where we are now," said Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan administration. "Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation from getting worse." To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory. Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld. Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level." In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq. Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year. As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979. Some former U.S. officials say that removing Iraq from the terrorism list provided an incentive to Hussein to expel the Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Nidal from Baghdad in 1983. On the other hand, Iraq continued to play host to alleged terrorists throughout the '80s. The most notable was Abu Abbas, leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, who found refuge in Baghdad after being expelled from Tunis for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, which resulted in the killing of an elderly American tourist. Iraq Lobbies for Arms While Rumsfeld was talking to Hussein and Aziz in Baghdad, Iraqi diplomats and weapons merchants were fanning out across Western capitals for a diplomatic charm offensive-cum-arms buying spree. In Washington, the key figure was the Iraqi chargé d'affaires, Nizar Hamdoon, a fluent English speaker who impressed Reagan administration officials as one of the most skillful lobbyists in town. "He arrived with a blue shirt and a white tie, straight out of the mafia," recalled Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East specialist in the Reagan White House. "Within six months, he was hosting suave dinner parties at his residence, which he parlayed into a formidable lobbying effort. He was particularly effective with the American Jewish community." One of Hamdoon's favorite props, says Kemp, was a green Islamic scarf allegedly found on the body of an Iranian soldier. The scarf was decorated with a map of the Middle East showing a series of arrows pointing toward Jerusalem. Hamdoon used to "parade the scarf" to conferences and congressional hearings as proof that an Iranian victory over Iraq would result in "Israel becoming a victim along with the Arabs." According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit. At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world. Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein. When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes. A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare. The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide." Chemicals Kill Kurds In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad. "The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis." Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons "against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States. The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the end of the Iran-Iraq war. A U.S. air force intelligence officer, Rick Francona, reported finding widespread use of Iraqi nerve gas when he toured the Al Faw peninsula in southern Iraq in the summer of 1988, after its recapture by the Iraqi army. The battlefield was littered with atropine injectors used by panicky Iranian troops as an antidote against Iraqi nerve gas attacks. Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad. Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation." The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq." "Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation." "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Uhmmm....Iraq didn't kill anyone on 9-11. Bin Laden (trained by the U.S.)and his gang of thugs did and they are safely planning more attacks most likely. Thanks to the wisdom of Bush and his gang of thugs thousands upon thousands of innocent people are now dead!!!! Thanks to the dumbest man ever to be elected several thousand millitary people are now dead (more will die) and tens of thousands are maimed. Many will end up with psycological and drug problems. Many will end up homeless and many will see prison time. All the while the true culprit is free and happy to watch the carnage caused by Bush and his merry band of thugs. To hell with Bush for what he has done to this country. He has done far more damage than Bin Laden could had ever done. Go ahead and support this carnage. I will never support any war that has no bearing on the safety of this country. Iraq is a mistake and you know it. People who would had otherwise been good people got shoved into an unjust war and into an impossiable situation. I wonder just how many American kids will see the inside of a prison before this over with because of what has been done to them psycologicaly? I only wish that more would say enough is enough. I hope that all can return safe and resume their life. Sadly that is but a pipe dream. Some will return and be able to get on with their life. Some will return and commit crimes and see prison. Some will return and turn to drugs and alcohol for relief. Some will return only to put a gun in their mouth to end the pain of what they went through. Too many have a hard road ahead of them due to the bad decision of George W. Bush and his little band of terrorist. I feel sorry for those whose lives this administration has ruined. Oh, by the way, just like many here I am veteran and an American and I do have the right to speak my mind when what I see is wrong with my country. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Duct tape. Press firmly then yank. Also works wonders for ridding yourself of those unsightly nipple hairs. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

This is very interesting. It updates once a week. Some are funny, most are sad. http://postsecret.blogspot.com And some from an archive http://www.geocities.com/postsecretarchive/ How in the hell do you do a clicky? "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

He never did actually answer Helen's question. But, Bush has lied so much he actually believes himself. Has he used this excuse before or is this a new one? Hell, he has used so many, not even president asshat knows. Exactly what world is he refering to? Certianly not the one we inhabit. Maybe, the one in his head where he has an approval rating of 100%? The world has become a far more dangerous place thanks to president asshat. And all the while Bin Laden and his group is laughing their asses off. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I have a similar problem. I have a nice home and several acres. A guy from California bought the land in back of me is starting to pack crappy looking trailer homes on it for rentals. In order to get to them he has to cross my property. I live in the country for the peace and quiet. I detest having rental trailers directly in back of my house and I certianly do not want people crossing my property. This guy never asked anyone what they thought of this. It is ruining my privacy and it has been loud. I have called the county commissioner and they said I should call the health dept. as there is a law that concerns the septic tank issue and number of people occupying a trailer and the number of trailers on an acre. This will be an eyesore and will bring the value of my property down. Who would want to buy my place when there is trailer trash all around it? According to some on this thread I should be within my right to just shoot this old asshat but I am doing what is right and have been checking on the legality if what he is doing. Personally, I hope to see him have a heart attack back there and drop to the ground at which point I will just sit back for a day or two while the buzzards, coyotes and bugs pick is body apart. There is a right way and a wrong way. What that guy did to that kid is just wrong. The guy showed is true colors when he pulled the trigger, not once but twice. He should spend his retirement years in prison and I hope that he is raped on a daily basis until his death. Hope he lives to be 100 years old. Oh, by the way, I am a liberal with a gun. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Raising children is more than just a job and with little appreciation. Housechores, errand running, shopping for what is needed to provide a comfortable home, cooking... just to name a few. The majority of women I know who do not "work" a wage paying job and stay at home do more in a day than most people do in a week. These women are NOT lazy. If a woman does have an spouse who can provide the financial end then more power to her for her decision to remain at the house and do what needs to be done. Unless you know, first hand, a persons particular situation, saying what you just did is unfounded. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

It really does appear that the US government wanted war. Dispite what Saddam may have done in the past, he was following the rules laid out. Documents Show Saddam's WMD Frustrations 03/21/2006 Associated Press/AP Online BAGHDAD, Iraq - Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they'd given up banned weapons. "We don't have anything hidden!" the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show. At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would "roam Iraq for 50 years" in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. "When is this going to end?" he asked. It ended in 2004, when U.S. experts, after an exhaustive investigation, confirmed what the men in those meetings were saying: that Iraq had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction long ago, a finding that discredited the Bush administration's stated rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 - to locate WMD. The newly released documents are among U.S. government translations of audiotapes or Arabic-language transcripts from top-level Iraqi meetings - dating from about 1996-97 back to the period soon after the 1991 Gulf War, when the U.N. Security Council sent inspectors to disarm Iraq. Even as the documents make clear Saddam's regime had given up banned weapons, they also attest to its continued secretiveness: A 1997 document from Iraqi intelligence instructed agencies to keep confidential files away from U.N. teams, and to remove "any forbidden equipment." Since it's now acknowledged the Iraqis had ended the arms programs by then, the directive may have been aimed at securing stray pieces of equipment, and preserving some secrets from Iraq's 1980s work on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Saddam's inner circle entertained notions of reviving the programs someday, the newly released documents show. "The factories will remain in our brains," one unidentified participant told Saddam at a meeting, apparently in the early 1990s. At the same meeting, however, Saddam, who was deposed by the U.S. invasion in 2003 and is now on trial for crimes against humanity, led a discussion about converting chemical weapons factories to beneficial uses. When a subordinate complained that U.N. inspectors had seized equipment at the plants useful for pharmaceutical and insecticide production, Saddam jumped in, saying they had "no right" to deny the Iraqis the equipment, since "they have ascertained that we have no intention to produce in this field (chemical weapons)." Saddam's regime extensively videotaped and audiotaped meetings and other events, both public and confidential. The dozen transcribed discussions about weapons inspections largely dealt with Iraq's diplomatic strategies for getting the Security Council to confirm it had disarmed. Scores of Iraqi documents, seized after the 2003 invasion, are being released at the request of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, who has suggested that evidence might turn up that the Iraqis hid their weapons or sent them to neighboring Syria. No such evidence has emerged. Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon. "We played by the rules of the game," Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said at a session in the mid-1990s. "In 1991, our weapons were destroyed." Amer Mohammed Rashid, a top weapons program official, told a 1996 presidential meeting he laid out the facts to the U.N. chief inspector. "We don't have anything to hide, so we're giving you all the details," he said he told Rolf Ekeus. In his final report in October 2004, Charles Duelfer, head of a post-invasion U.S. team of weapons hunters, concluded Iraq and the U.N. inspectors had, indeed, dismantled the nuclear program and destroyed the chemical and biological weapons stockpiles by 1992, and the Iraqis never resumed production. Saddam's goal in the 1990s was to have the Security Council lift the economic sanctions strangling the Iraqi economy, by convincing council members Iraq had eliminated its WMD. But he was thwarted at every turn by what he and aides viewed as U.S. hard-liners blocking council action. The inspectors "destroyed everything and said, `Iraq completed 95 percent of their commitment,'" Saddam said at one meeting. "We cooperated with the resolutions 100 percent and you all know that, and the 5 percent they claim we have not executed could take them 10 years to (verify). "Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD," he told his deputies. "We have nothing." "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

While thousands upon thousands are maimed or killed in Iraq, Bin Laden (the culprit behind 9-11, you do remember him, do you?) is alive and laughing at the US. How does the unwarrented killing of thousands of innocent people in Iraq defend the US? Pull your head out of the governments ass and face the fact that our country screwed up and now and in the future will pay for it. We are on the top of the list of the most hated people in the world. I for one am deeply ashamed of our government. The US would have got much more respect if it stayed the course and went after Bin Laden and brought him down. Instead Bush sent thousands to their death for no other reason than he is a weak and immoral person and on the same level as Bin Laden. He has only encourage more to consider striking the US. The next hit on our country? Blame Bush. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Listening to Bush right now...WOW...what a sad excuse for a president. Echoing the same lie he used from day one. He has done nothing to promote democracy. Too many dead. Too much money wasted. Nothing accomplished and more people hate America than ever before. He should add his administration to his list of evil doers. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

This is what, I believe, Steel is refering to in difference in brain structure. http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I agree with Strato. I doubt that many of the people who are not skydivers will watch the ff scenes and will only skip to the sex scene. Fact is that 99.9% of porn is lousy acting (if you can even call it that). 99.99999% of porn actors(?) could never make it in the legit entertianment industry. You seen one fuck film, you have seen them all. Waste of good jump money. I would hate to see skydiving being related to porn. Not a good image. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Do ya think that they give a damn? They hike their leg and piss on every leg that walks by. They do not seem to single out who they piss on. South Park rocks. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

It is highly possible that this child is 47xxy, a chromosonal variation more commonly known as Klinefelter Syndrome that shows up in every 1 out of 1000 males. KS is ofton overlooked in transgendered MtF persons. The extra x chromosone would account for this child identifying as female. This, however is not always the case for an 47xxy person, nor are all transgendered MtF 47xxy thus it has nothing to do with sexual orientation as most MtF tg individuals are highly attracted to women, making them translesbian. (in an odd(?) way that would make them gay) "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I read Dianetics back in the eighties and thought "WOW, the people who follow this must have been brain-scammed." Scientology is nothing but a cult IMO. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I did read the article and saw the show as well and have also read each post on this thread. But, I disagree that upping the hormone level might change how a person identifies as identity is soley in the mind and no amount of testo or esto will change this. It is bad science to try and change a persons identity before they even emerge from the womb and just as bad to do so after. I have met a few people who have done srs and they were just as normal as the next person. Did anyone here know Michelle Koorsen? She was one of the skydivers who died in a plane crash in 1999 in Indiana. From what I have read of her, it was no secret of her transition. I gather that she was very well respected. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Pumping up the testo or esto will not change the gender identity in a transgendered person as the idenity is in the mind not between the legs or the size of their muscles. You are either wired male or female. There is no "cure" for GID. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Debate on is he a "diabolical genius or increadible dufus?". ltdiver 4. He has proven that even an diabolical genius can become president, not only once but twice! There, fixed it. Thanks for pointing out my error! "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

NOPE!!! You need to do some research. He actually made it worst. http://www.globalaidsalliance.org/docs/pledge_briefing.pdf#search='President%20bush%20AIDS%20US' On top of this, his administration has refused money to groups that are not "faith based". They have done this abroad and here in the US. Non faith based group across the US has lost major funding and a large number of patients have been affected by this. I know this to be true, firsthand. On top of that, he goes and does this: Bush Abstains From Appointing HIV Experts by Lucile Scott March 15, 2006—An antigay pastor with no HIV-related experience is to be sworn in tomorrow in Washington to help advise President George W. Bush on how best to fight the epidemic. The president hasn’t been one to shy away from making openly political appointments to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA)—or from otherwise beefing up “abstinence-only” influence on government policy and funding. But some of his critics say he has gone too far in choosing the Reverend Herbert Lusk. “The appointment of a minister who is essentially homophobic is very disturbing,” says Ronald Johnson, a PACHA member under President Clinton who is now associate executive director of New York’s Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC). Adds Julie Davids, head of the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP), “[Lusk’s] positions will lead to more infections, more stigma and more marginalization.” The reverend, who presides over the Greater Exodus Baptist Church in Philadelphia, is on the board of the antigay group Alliance for Marriage and has worked alongside Focus on the Family, one of the nation’s most politically powerful right-wing Christian groups. What advocates like Johnson and Davids are asking is this: How will Lusk square his abstinence-till-marriage and anti-same-sex-marriage crusades with PACHA’s mission to develop programs for a disease in which the majority of infections are still among gay men? Carrie Gordon Earll, senior policy analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family, told POZ of Lusk, “It’s a free country, and he can oppose same-sex marriage if he wants to. It’s a stretch to assume he cannot help people in this community just because of that.” Lusk himself did not respond to an interview request. Four other new PACHA panelists will join Lusk at tomorrow’s swearing-in, including Alan Homer, former president and CEO of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)—the nation’s largest drug lobby, with a long record of battling efforts to distribute less expensive, generic HIV drugs. What makes PACHA members different from most other presidential appointees is that they are selected and continue to serve without any congressional input. That wasn’t always a problem. When the panel was founded under President Reagan in 1987 (at first, as the President’s Commission on the HIV Epidemic), it was considered a more balanced and science-driven body. Effectiveness often won out over political expediency—to the point where PACHA publicly lambasted Reagan’s HIV policy. Bush Sr. continued that tradition with the appointment of an outspoken Magic Johnson, and Clinton followed suit. “The [Council] was independent,” recalls Ronald Johnson of his time on PACHA. “We directly challenged President Clinton; and at one point, even gave his prevention policies a public F, because he wouldn’t legalize needle exchanges.” All that changed with George W.—starting with the day in 2001 that he threatened to disband the body completely. “It’s not even worth discussing what role this committee could serve,” says Davids of PACHA’s panelists now. “Because all they are is a rubber stamp for bad administration policies.” If you did in fact read this and, also, the pdf link, I hope that you have learned something and will tell others. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Try your local Headshop. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Only 5 1. He makes "words" fun! 2. Comes up with real neat nicknames! 3. Late night talk shows have more material than ever before! 4. He has proven that even an idiot can become president, not only once but twice! 5. He has brought the people here at SC closer together! ( Can you feel the LOVE!! ) "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

It has been floating around the net for sometime now. With all the new talk of "The Axis of Evil", I thought it to be fitting for SC, even though it has been posted at the Bonfire a few years back. Good for a laugh with all the dire talk these days. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

Axis of Evil Wannabees by John Cleese Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil", Libya, China and Syria today announced that they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil", which they said would be more evil than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address. Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new Axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are just as evil . . . in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils . . . best at being evil . . . we're the best." Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "An axis can't have more than three countries", explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So, you can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is wickedly cool." International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what has become a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan and Serbia announced that they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil", forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of Occasionally Evil", while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really as Just Generally Disagreeable". With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the "Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics". Canada, Mexico and Australia formed the "Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America", while Scotland, New Zealand and Spain established the "Axis of Countries That Want Sheep to Wear Lipstick". "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do", said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell. While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axis, although he rejected the establishment of the "Axis of Countries Whose Names End in 'Guay", accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young

I never said everyone should quit. Drink what you want. I have a beer every once in a great while. What I am talking about is the amount of money that is insanely spent one way and the very little that is spent the other way. On one side the government will spend BILLIONS to eradicate a plant that has never caused one death and on the other side spend but a few millions to deter alcohol abuse. What is the reason for this? Why is it that society in general just shrugs its shoulders to all the needless deaths each year due to alcohol abuse and then jump up and down screaming when they hear of someone smoking a joint? It is true that some states are taking a tougher stand on drunk driving. Here in Missouri a second DWI will now land you in prison for up to 5 years a third can get you 10 years. But this will do little to deter abuse. They have enacted these laws but still do not actively promote responsiable use. As with the billions spent on marijuana eradication there has not been any decline in its use. Why do you suppose that is? At what point will society say "enough is enough"? In no way am I saying that people should use any drug nor am I saying that people should not. You can shoot heroin for all I care, as long as you're not harming anyone. It's your body, do what you please with it. I do wish to hear what people think of the insanely amount of money spent on the "war on drugs" and the little amount spent to deter alcohol abuse. "...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young