tkhayes

Can't wait to see how more right-wing the replacement will be...

The 'beginnings' included the wanton destruction of a beautiful place (before we arrived), demolition of an race of native Indians, slavery, witch burning etc etc something to be proud of for sure. As long as we keep telling the 'great war stories' and the like, we will continue to believe that we did nothing wrong all those years ago in order to 'further our causes' and look after 'American Interests' there are far too many parallels in this day and age with gruesome mistakes of the past. This planet is only so big with a finite amount of space. I am more interested in trying to get along than I am with being the 'superpower' willing to dominate at any price.

The question is really is they are allowed to be used in the USA as part of the TSO required for the gear. A question probably for PD, I am not sure.

3 pages long now - wow OK here is what we have a problem with and I think the Constitution has not much to do with it except at a high level: If the President had sung praises to Allah in his speech, OR praises to Wiccan or praises to Judaism, OR praises to Satan... he DEFINITELY would have offended people and bothered people and it would not have been a 'correct' thing to do. So then why is it so difficult to understand why we have a problem with praises to God coming from the President at every public appearance? It BOTHERS us. I do not want my government run with a Christian oversight, and references to it at every turn. I do not want "Faith-Based" initiatives on the White House governments front page and I do not want to see my tax dollars funding ANYTHING of the sort. He either endorses ALL religions or no religions, and I prefer NO religions. And what he does on Sunday morning or before bedtime or at the dinner table on his own time, I could care less about, but leave it at home, between him, his congregation and family. I hope that it explains why it OFFENDS me (us). Quote the 'consitution' and the 'law' if you like, but it is a poor way to justify the 'New Crusade' era that this country sppears to be entering. TK

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/samoud.htm The Al Samoud missle had a range of less than 150 miles, hardly a threat to anyone. While we were trying to get the Iraqis to disarm, albeit to US standards, the US had backed UN plans to disarm SH over the years. Some of that INCLUDED letting them have certain weapons and continue to develop certain weapons as long as the range was within limits. To now come back and state that these were truly WMD's and that they were no allowed is simpyl bullshit and another stab at trying to justify the war. Those weapons were developed with the knowledge and approval of, the US government and the UN as well as dozens of other countries. We went to war because SH had WMD's in production supposedly and would not give them up. We already know that no weapons have been found that were any threat to anyone, and thus does not justify the war against them. once again: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/2004.10.html let's keep killin', afterall I feel safer every day..... and the price of gas is Soooooo low.....

who is the 'our' in 'our studies' 'Our' studies show that the whales tend to be in distress, beach themselves and die when such sonar testing is going on.

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/03/02/bushpoutine000302 still funny after all these years.....

also see www.nrdc.org for petitions to stop high-intensity sonar harming whales and dolphins alike.

I have had to do that a bunch of times. TIme to replace/resize that pilot chute

I saw/heard an interview yesterday with the guy (cannot remember his name) who ran the oil/food program for several years during that period. He says the US, France, the UK, pretty much EVERYONE knew what was going on, much of it 'approved' under wraps by the very administrations that are now trying to hang this all on the UN as corruption. He says no on e bothered to do anything about it for whatever reasons. Said that the UN should probably open the books on the whole deal, a few within the UN would look bad and probably be dealt with, but more people and certainly the UN as a whole would be exonerated and the fact that the countries that were involved would all likely back down due to their own involvement. Just what I heard TK

This is probably a very bad move for the kidnappers. I find it hard to believe that the majority of Iraqi's would support this in any way. The only good thing about it might be some support for our cause over there. Nice to see that both sides make grave mistakes.

I support the soldiers, just like I support the police, but they still need to be held responsible when they murder and torture - it simply is not right. If you sleep soundly, knowing that your government is OK with torture and murder, then there is something very disturbing with that. I sleep soundly knowing that a competent police department (at least in my town), takes the time to stop and see what we do, looks after my neighborhood, drives by often, and does a great job. I would not sleep soundly knowing that they use a taser on a six year old, or beat up people in their custody. or worse, is willing to gun down someone with a cell phone. I would be very concerned the next time I got pulled over for anything and what might happen. Same rules apply to our soldiers. Just because you cannot see it, does not make it right. At some point, all those people are coming home. Some will become the security guards, enforcement officers, police, and continue to be the military to 'watch over you' What standard do you want them to hold then? Do you think they can just turn that on and off at will?

That si the lamest arguement I have seen in this thread - you change the rules now that we are in there. So the government must be 'elected' in order for us to be an occupying force? We invaded a sovereign country that had NO WMD's and NO ties to terrorism or 9/11. Now we state that an 'elected government' must disapporve of our position? What about all the citizens of the country that are fighting us? Oh that's right! We stopped calling them insurgents and started callign them terrorists, even though they were no such thing PRIOR to us invading. We change the rules again, now that we are there. You forget that we should never have been there in the first place. You cannot do the WRONG thing, then justify everything else you do based on that p[remise. It is faulty logic from the start. We have VERY HIGH moral obligations. When you kill a civilian, I will guarantee you that the friends and families of those victims are no longer our friends. They do not care about democracy, they just hate you. So in fact we are buildign more enemies than we are creating - not just in Iraq, but all over the world. Want to do this right? Go back 13 years and we should have finished the job then, it would have been justified and supported by the rest of the world. Too late to go in there now on some set of lies presented to the world in 2003. Support our troops? You bet! By bringing them home and getting the hell out of the rat-hole we created.

sure - it's in the Bible, Christian Fundamentalism at it's finest - eye for an eye, etc...... "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" Sadly, another side of war that we have to face, then try to justify to the rest of the world, and I bet more terrorists probably just signed up all over the world against us. Bravo. TK

Fat chance Bush will do anything for the environment until it starts to affect 'business'. He has a war to fight and as long as he can keep the USA people living in mortal fear of something, he can do whatever he wants. This is NOT part of his agenda, I am sure, hence the reason for my original post. Groups like the NRDC seem to have some pull. They selectively pick their targets and fights - are not all-encompassing all-or-nothing like Greenpeace used to be and therefore I think a little more respectible. Donate today to help them and start writing letters thru their website

that might work, but saving humanity also should involve putting a decent effort into saving everything else as well. If we destroy half the species of the earth trying to save ourselves, that sounds like Christian fundamentalism to me. Yes, the Earth will be fine, but why should 5000 years of mankind be the cause of 100,000 years of recovery for the rest of the world?

And I would have more trouble with a beheading too, BUT I would probably add a little logical analysis to the whole thing rather than a kneejerk reaction to it. First I would look at the number of people killed by terrorism, which I came to about 4000 in the past 30 years, versus the 15 million or so victims of cancer alone. And given those odds of dying of cancer being 3750 times dying as a result of an act of terrorism, and about 1,000,000 times more likely than being beheaded. I would not actually even consider the thought of being beheaded in the strategy. And while being beheaded is gruesome, it is relatively quick, whereas cancer is mostly slow and painful. I would probably invest my $$ in preventing and curing the cancer rather than giving ANY thought to terrorism, other than improving the security at our borders, airports, sea ports, etc, which we have already done and continue to do. What would $150B do for cancer research? For education? For the environment? For the development fo safer fuels and better energy consumption? Priorities are all screwed up because people lay awake at night worrying about being beheaded. TK

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/default.asp Now that Bush has committed to "Spending his political capital", I expect we can see a further devstation of the environment and rebuttal of any measures that were previously in place, all in the name of energy and big business. Even if you voted for Bush, I am sure you can find an issue (or two) in which NRDC is involved - an issue that is is important to you. I encourage everyone to take the time to sign up and send letters thru NRDC to help prevent some of the environmental issues that are already becoming a reality in this country (and in other countries too) see the actions that you can do something about at: http://www.nrdc.org/action/default.asp TK

Take a look at the post that I replied to in the first place - that was the low end of the number THEY gave for their own work numbers. I was simply replying to that

Americans do the same. For that matter Christians as a whole. Christians moved to Africa, run programs all over the continent. How did South America and Mexico all become such staunch Catholic based? Christian imperialism spread over centuries is how. And there are many faith-based groups getting a foothold in Iraq. Bringing aid and such, but also as part of the agenda, with the blessing of the US government, they are trying to get a Christian foothold in that country as part of the reconstruction. It ain't just muslims that do that -

no more than "Crusade" is...

you make that sound like 7000 is somehow OK Let's review: -we went to war to disarm Saddam who has WMD's (false) -we told the world that he was not complying with the terms of the 1991 war, which apparently he was since there were no WMD's -we bomb to hell out of the country and kill civilians (if you want to argue the exact number, then go ahead) -whether they are killed by insurgents or us, they were killed because we started a war. -Now we can justify staying there and continuing the operation 'because that is war and we have to finish the job' sounds COMPLETELY sensible to me TK

When i was 5 years old, Fidel Castro had a ride on my toboggan

What if we are wrong about the leadership of this country? Thousands and thousands of people are going to die needlessly. Sounds like you and me have the same fears - just a different direction we point the finger.

Christianity has EVERYTHING to do with the vile things I said. It gave people the will and the power to do it. And I ABSOLUTELY am rejecting it based on what people do with it. What they do with it further defines what it really is. TK