America1

Hard to conclude anything about this event other than the facts in the story. They may have been Sadr militia, but it was the US and Iraqi forces who initiated the confrontation and many of the dead pictured are old men. I agree, this is bad. Without out any real facts, you feel its bad for the US. And this is a shock to who? You openly root for the insurgency to defeat the US.

Great work? They were better off under Saddam. Before the first gulf war Iraqi's enjoyed the highest standard of living in the middle east. That was because Saddam- who was insalled by the US and supported throughout much of his rain of terror without question- became an economic nationalist. Only when Saddam quit fallowing orders did the US see fit to fabricate information to provide pretext for military intervention. Like in the first gulf war when they said Iraqi troops were lined along Suadi Arabias boarder ready to invade. Or when they took a poll of the American people that asked whether or not they would support an invasion of Iraq if it was shown they had nuclear weapons- to which 90% said yes- then used that poll 12 years later to fabricate a pretext for war based on Saddams 'WMDs'. The US never installed saddam, Holy sh*8t do you kids need to learn some history. Saddam took power in a coup that had NOTHING to do with the US.

1st things 1st, “White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.” Genocide huh, then explain how we delayed our incursion until we gave a few days notice for all civilians to get out. If we wanted to commit genocide, we'd have just destroyed the city with NO warning; even then it wouldn't be genocide b/c its not like we are trying to all shias or sunnies. We are after terrorist and insurgents, neither is a race of people..

Bush knew. And the whole thing has most certainly been a financial windfall for his family and their contemporaries. And since you haven't given any proof what-so-ever for either of your claims, I suppose we'll just have to take your word for it?

In defense of Margrave, I took it as tongue in cheek. 9/11 certainly made Bush and his cronies very wealthy men, so it's natural for some people to feel that it was a little too convenient. This does need mean that we do not feel compassion for the victims. However, reports that came out after, clearly indicate that Bush knew in advance that an attack was imminent, but chose to let it play out. Enough said. "9/11 certainly made Bush and his cronies very wealthy men" - Please provide 1 piece of evidence to back up this retarded claim. "Clearly indicate that Bush knew in advance that an attack was imminent, but chose to let it play out" - again ridiculous statement, to say he KNEW is beyond dumb. There was no actionable intelligence, period. Get off the conspiracy crap that Bush knew of the attack and let it happen. You lose all credibility when you make asinine claims like this.

"Conveniently attacked"? - What was convenient about some of us knowing people who died on 9/11 Mother F'er? If you were in front of me right now, the cops wouldn’t be able to pull me off you. Somebody needs to teach you some f*cking respect. And yeah, to answer your question, if you did get attacked (God forbid) and your loved ones died, I think you'd see things completely different.

And how would creating another failed state in the region be in your national interest? Read a history book, kid. Since World War 2, the United States has poured untold billions of dollars into the region and supported some of the worst thugs and criminals around in order to ensure a relatively stable environment in the Middle East: now you're trying to tell me they want to actively destabalize the region? -"Create another failed state in the ME", I don't want to re-create Iran, I want to destroy their weapons program, end of story. I could care less about their state and its success/failure. - I'm not a "kid" and haven't been for a long time now. -1st time I think you've made a point I agree with, we have spent billions trying to make the world a more stable place. All so ungrateful little f*cks like you can shoot your mouth off without worrying about getting bombed/attacked for it, b/c guess what? The Islamic crazies don’t care about Canadian or American, they just see western infidels. It just happens that Canada is so insignificant that everybody forgets about them.

Then what? You guys are great at the whole "blowing stuiff up" phase. The "putting stuff back together" part? Not so much. If we go into Iran, don't expect any rebuilding. At least we can say were good at the "blowing stuff up" part, Canada can't do either worth a damn.

When in doubt, blame Clinton. FWIW, Clinton did not put up any walls among various intelligence agencies. Such walls existed for decades before Clinton became president. Clinton is about as much to blame for the walls as is Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford... The problem I have with the Patriot Act is that it was intended to be used to stop and apprehend terrorists but the Ashcroft Justice Department used it in all sorts of pernicious ways, going far beyond protecting us from terrorism. The wiretapping issue is entirely different in that Bush absolutely broke the law by putting wiretaps on US persons while circumventing the established protocol for doing so (getting a warrant from a FISA judge within 72 hours after tapping the phone). FISA warrants are handed out like candy, but Bush wanted to be able to operate the executive branch without ANY oversight by another branch of government. This is a terribly dangerous precedent to set and any so-called conservative or any so-called patriotic American who supports giving such unchecked power to the president is a traitor to America's ideals of balanced power and individual liberty. Aside from that, Bush lied to the public by claiming that all wiretaps were issued pursuant to a warrant. Big lie. WRONG. The Clintons absolulty installed the intelligence "Wall". "Ms. Gorelick built that wall," said Ashcroft, "through a March 1995 memo." The Gorelick memo stipulated, in part: "We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation." Ms. Gorelick is expected to be a leading candidate for attorney general should Mrs. Clinton win the 2008 presidential election."

Question: how many "known terrorist and terrorist sympathizers" have been arrested, charged and prosecuted as a result of evidenced gathered by this NSA program? Any? not sure, do you know? But if even is just 1, that's good enough for me.

How is intercepting calls from known terrorist and terrorist sympathizers going to "come back to bite us". It seems to me that it already bite us for not doing it during the Clinton Admin. The simple fact is that the Clinton admin's intelligence "wall" is a HUGE reason why our agencies were not able to track the 9-11 cell in the first place.

Translation: "Oh shit, my little rhetorical trap blew up in my face leaving me holding the bag: better pat myself on the back, declare victory and run like hell." "rhetorical trap blew up in my face leaving " - yea, something like that, I nailed you to the wall using your own words. Who's running?

And next time you've been drinking just go to bed. We're trying to raise the level of debate around here. what are you his mom? Let him defend himself. So, ok, next time I'll just let him dip and dodge his OWN WORD until he finds solid ground to support his beliefs instead of calling him on his logical F-up.

I might disagree with the language he uses, but the fundamental point is that capitalism is a ideology based on maximizing profit and promoting self-interest. Practicioners of capitalism, it has been argued, have no social responsibility. So, it logically follows that an economic system geared towards self-interest is at odds with the greater good (it can be argued that capitalism pronmotes the greater good because self-interest leads to social benefits, but the counter would be that those benefits are merely incidental and not integral to the system). Next time you get caught in a logical trap, as you did above, just shut up and don't try to parse your way out. You sound like a fool.

Nonsense. Capitalism is an ideology and economic system and thus posesses no inherent attributes such as compassion or humanity. Now, it just happens that western nations with quasi-capitalist economies also have better records on human rights etc. than others. However, it's arguiable whether that's a product of capitalism or the the liberal democratic values that underpin these societies. Basicaly, there's no single model of capitalism (but if you think capitalism is inherently compassionate, I'd suggest reading some Ayn Rand). The you MUST agree that when Bennish said (Capitialism) "Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights." He Must be INCORRECT in his assertions b/c as you said "Capitalism is an ideology and economic system and thus posesses no inherent attributes such as compassion or humanity. "

In high school it does - geography is a catch all course that covers material from a broad range of topics including politics and economics. On the tape the teacher made the same statement that capitalism has nothing to do with social values and the two should not be confused. In other words, you are agreeing with what the teacher said - does that mean you are a communist too? I'm not sure where you're from but, Geography had nothing to do with politics or economics in my High school, Political Science taught that. "On the tape the teacher made the same statement that capitalism has nothing to do with social values and the two should not be confused. In other words, you are agreeing with what the teacher said - does that mean you are a communist too? That's weird b/c here is a transcript of him confusing the economics and "social values". "Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights. Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc."

Geography in high school usually covers political and social science as well so the topic was perfectly appropriate. This is exactly what the teacher said. Does that make you a communist? Geography does not cover politics (Political Science and/or history cover Politics) and it certainly doesn't cover economics. I don't even understand you 2 phrase. How does me asking you a question about "economics have nothing to do with social values" make me a communist? Answer the questions: What do economic systems have to do with "social values"? Are you a communist?

Monty, you have no right to claim that someone 'hates America' because he has a different opinion about US foreign policy. What planet are you talking about? Pure capitalism is the most vicious, uncompassionate economic system available. However, most societies do not have true capitalist systems - they have hybrids that try to balance the need for economic freedom with the need to have some social values that are not subject to market forces. Spoken like a true communist/socialist. Since when did economic models need to provide "some social values"?

What he said is the objective of the capitalist system is to maximize profits and that social progress is not an objective of the system. This is a definition from Economics 101 and is hardly controversial. This is a world geography class, what is he even bringing up econ? Regardless of his out-of-bounds topic, he gave a ridiculous (and extremely 1 sided) rant about "evil" capitalism while boasting a communist/socialist ideology. Giving no mention to capitalism’s great successes and listing not even 1 communist/socialist failures (which there are many). What does George Bush and Hitler have to do with economics (or world geography for that matter). BTW, since when did economic models try to/need to consider "social progress" as a factor in a successful methodology?

What people seem to forget in this discussion is that Hitler was a master politician who used many tools and techniques to accomplish his objectives. Many of these tools are not evil in themselves but simply ways of influencing large numbers of people. There is nothing hateful about saying that the Bush regime uses similar methods to build support for its 'war on terror'. That said, the best way to ruin a good debate is to bring up the word 'Hitler' because people automatically jump to the all or nothing conclusion that if 'X does some things like Hitler then X must be exactly like Hitler'. That is not what the teacher said or implied. One last point to consider: why is expressing opposition to the Iraq war hateful? You are out-of-your-damn-mind if you think this teacher was trying to showcase political tactics. He was ranting about the supposed "evils" of America and capitalism. This is nothing more than a liberal (communist) wacko spouting out to an audience held hostage. It had nothing, I REPEAT NOTHING to do with his class at the moment. To try and make excuses for this jackass shows exactly how far out there some of you are. Did you actually listen to the tape???? And can you quote what he said that backs up what you are saying.? Yes, the whole tape. Yes I can. Can you?

Of course its not news worthy for a media that is almost completely against the war and the Bush admin.

What people seem to forget in this discussion is that Hitler was a master politician who used many tools and techniques to accomplish his objectives. Many of these tools are not evil in themselves but simply ways of influencing large numbers of people. There is nothing hateful about saying that the Bush regime uses similar methods to build support for its 'war on terror'. That said, the best way to ruin a good debate is to bring up the word 'Hitler' because people automatically jump to the all or nothing conclusion that if 'X does some things like Hitler then X must be exactly like Hitler'. That is not what the teacher said or implied. One last point to consider: why is expressing opposition to the Iraq war hateful? You are out-of-your-damn-mind if you think this teacher was trying to showcase political tactics. He was ranting about the supposed "evils" of America and capitalism. This is nothing more than a liberal (communist) wacko spouting out to an audience held hostage. It had nothing, I REPEAT NOTHING to do with his class at the moment. To try and make excuses for this jackass shows exactly how far out there some of you are.

Face it your country is in debt and your economy slowly declining Some of your posts are a barrel of laughs as well. Slowly declining economy? Last I checked we have had something like 10 consecutive quarters of economic growth. Add to that, that we are about to raise rates again. So what exactly is your evidence of our "declining economy"?

Are you joking with this crap? Try taking some responsibility for yourself and your country. The US isn't able to "give" you democracy and then make life great. Nobody said living in an open, capitalist, democratic society is easy and that it will solve all of life’s problems. Unfortunately your mindset of "The US is the problem we aren’t better off" is probably why things aren't working in the first place. You should instead be saying "What can “I” do to bring prosperity and democracy to my country".