KrustyKidd

I guess that I am nuetral on Jewish and pro Zionist as I find that Israeli Arab chicks and Israeli Jewish gals the hottest girls on the planet. For that reason only, the entire nation of Israel should be allowed to live. Furthermore, it makes all political arguments against Israel null and void (providing I get some). Then again, maybe it's the present mood I'm in and, if I get some from anywhere, my political opinion may change.

You can cry wolf only so many times before the people get desensitized. Then when the real thing comes, they respond not with thought but with pitchforks and fire. You say fascist overtones, many say common sense. I prefer a bit of the common sense to the overreactin that would occur if there is another 911. Then, facist overtones will seem calm and sensible compared to the mindless backlash that may occur. An enraged America under the control of hatred is something I do not wish to be in the same generation with. If that takes some temporary wire taps and strange alliances to guard against, then so be it.

Damm right! First thing that pussy should have done was to shut down the reporters and then simply carried out the war. Then, shut down Al Jazeera with a few well placed bombs. Instead, he fell into the peacnik saying 'you can't instill democracy at the end of a gun.' I concur with the above but you sure as hell can create the conditions for it at the end of a gun though.

Didn't mean that as a Bush accomplishment only that thngs are not going to hell in a handbasket. My opinion of Bush is that he is a average President in extraordinary circumstances. Who can tell who would have done this or that and what those repercussions would have been.

I have no idea but can tell you that Iran is on the verge of a revolution and screwing the whole sutuation up by going to war with a superpower will not gain the Revoltionary Coucil any brownie points. No matter what conversion opportunities they provide before they devastate Iran. Wake up for crying out loud. the message is the message. Designed to be non returnable and to be consumed by the two main guests at Rice's eve of vote dinner the day the message (the first in thirty years between Tehran and Washington) - China and Russia. One poster put it so correct that it was unbelievable 'see, I'm reaching out to him and he won't answer' This is the message to China and Russia, show them how bad the US is for wanting them not to have nuclear power that is under UN control. How do you pretend to be in control to a modern populatin when you have UN inspectors running al over the place? They're all on the internet and know their country if messed up, inspectors and sanctions don't make for a more stable home front.

I disagree. Things are working pretty good under the table. Iran having to compromise thirty years of non contact in order to eat ass so they can continue in a post non Saddam world. Iraq settled pretty much (albeit it cost them dearly) but the momentum is there now. China about to come to the west and the middle east as a trading partner rather than foe. However, I'm not leaving the table yet, there are still quite a few hands left to play but, main thing is, all is not what it seems.

The US has no conscription therefore, you would be aiding people who are breaking a contract. As for the War being illegal, sorry but you only have opinion on that as the USNC, the only body who have the power to rule it as such has not done so. They normally do though as in the case of the US invasion of Panama so at the very least, it is not illegal but, if they ever conveened to decide the matter (which appears as though they will not) they would probably find it a toss up leaving the action legal by default.

Oh, so Harper obviously is Chamberlain as Bush has to be Hitler so what is the problem for Canada? The Left seems to have found an extreme Left leader in our Right Governement. Wake up folks, it's only a politician trying to grandstand and draw attention to something using an extreme example - and a poor one at that. If he wanted to be dramatic, and slightly more accurate he should have said 'The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact'

That was a great and thanks. However, not really unbelievable. I can see where a public rationale to go to war which every country on earth agreed with would have been an almost certainty. Hence the lose explanation of 'here there everywhere around Baghdad' or whatever. The connection with Al Queda I always believed was a pure scaremongering thing designed for just that - 'well, Saddam hates us so they must be sleeping with Osama too.' I do agree that the connection is more than conincidental - nothing happens in Iraq without Saddam or his people knowing about it so Zarkowi wouldn't be in a Baghdad hospital unless it was ok with Saddam, hence, it seems that if no real connection (which I am certain there was not as Al Queda does not operate with states as they are a fluid sub movement rather than an organization with handles and weak points) there was at least, on Saddam's part, minimal cooperation. Governments lie, every one of them, and to tell the truth, this one, in my opinion assumed too much. The actual reasons for war were never WMDs yet, that was the easiest to explain to the general public. Here, WMDs were a virtual given with every government on earth believeing they were there so, to say what he did in such a general statement of 'north, south east of Baghdad and Tikrit' seemed a pretty safe thing to say. The alternative 'we have no frickin' idea' would tend to lose much in the translation. It's definitely too bad for the Bush admin in the herre and now but, history will hopefully redeem them if the rest of the war on terror goes better than the first part. There is still about twenty years to go Gerry. BTW, where have you been? I've missed our sparring, hope you've been well.

This I gotta see. Going to take some serious Holly Wood screne writing to make this read right. Go for it. Iranian Letter to Bush

Very good analogy. You forgot the 'you screw around too.'

Iran is a large country with a modern intelligence community. All of the resources there advise the council and the President and to think that the best approach to rectify the world's ills (and along with it iran's attempt for regional hedgemony) will be to make your first message to be a proposal to get an ididel nation of 300 million to suddenly convert to fundementalist Christianity/Judism/Islam is laughable. The message is the message and, what is more, it is designed not to get a return message but, it plays very well in Europe and the Middle East don't you think? Heck, there are even some here on this board that are now on Iran's side. This guy is impressing me more everyday. A very good chess player indeed.

Did you do the google on prison riots? Those guards all had guns too. Well, the ones on the outside anyhow as they don't allow them to have them on the inside. There, the guards are unarmed trusting that the inmates all have something to live for and wouldn't take advantage of the fact they outnumber the guards ten to one. Remove that and the number of guards has to go up (which I believe brings us back to square one).

Guess I was right - the message is the message. Meaningless claptrap, but all with a severe left wing slant designed so that there would be no response. Very strange comming from a far right individual.

I'm with Black Dog on this one. I think that there is some references to Iran's friendly dealings with Israel involved as well as some key demands for Iraq that the US does not wish to meet. The US cannot allow the Sunni world to know how deep they are in bed with the Shiite Iranians and nor can the Iranians let the Muslim world know they aided the US or, in the very least, worked alongside them in some capacity. On another point, the timing was pretty interesting as Rice was hosting a dinner with other members of the UNSC where the major issue being discussed was Iran. I do think there is nothing really of substance in it rather the message was the message itself. Meaning 'now you know that we know that we need to have relations in some way. And, if you don't start getting off your high horse and give us something, we are going to make public a few items that would make you uncomfortable. Oh, and those agreements we made about Iraq, don't even think about trying to back out of them.' As well, with this letter, it is official that they extended an olive branch and scored big time points with Russia and China on the USNC.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter to U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday -- marking the first public contact the heads of state of the two countries have had since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Rice dismisses Iranian letter to Bush Very strange. If this letter were simply ramblings of Persian philosophy then the White House should have absolutely no problem releaseing it in full. So, what's in the letter that they don't wish to show?

The list of brutal regimes is endless, now and throughout history. And they all managed to keep a clamp on their subjugated citizens with armies which were considerably smaller in number than "one to one". Were some of them overthrown? Sure. Democracies have also been overthrown. And, in fact, most of the time when regimes are overthrown it is because they haven't been brutal enough in putting down the revolution. Iran ad Russia could have blown the hell out of protestors and put things down quickly. As it is, both are still brutal dictatorships. Russia might be considered a "Partial democracy" this year, but it won't be within the next few years. Those regimes are subjgating citizens, you are trying to subjegate convicted criminals, murderers and the like. Most of them male, fit and in their twenties and thirties. Not women, children, old people and the odd fit male. Big difference.

Sorry, but I just don't understand where you're coming from. You work hard, you have a cell, access to books, exercise, social interaction, you eat decent food, you get out of jail in 5 years. That's your story. So you've got nothing to lose? Well, you can lose your decent food, your interaction, your exercise and books, and have your sentence continually extended because of your acting up. This is called negative reinforcement, and it works rather well on that particular mindset. Not sure what is going on. A few posts ago you were talking about taking all that away and making them break rocks up in Inuvik. I see nothing wrong with the above so I suppose that unless you are going to reverse yourself again, we are in agreement on this aspect. North Korea a Stalinist police state with lots of guards. China - not that bad but also with lots of guards. Iran - much better since they got rid of the Savak and allowed people to speak somewhat freely within the bourdaries of islam. Russia - also a partial democracy. Very bad examples. As a matter of fact, all of them had their own revolution against true oppression to get where they are today and, with the exception of North korea the people are better off. Best example i could give would be Iraq under Saddam but, he was a master of Stalanist terroirsm. In fact, so good and so set up in his earlier years with the secret police under his control that had he been Russian, he could have controlled the entire nation better than Stalin. But, this means guards Argus. One of ten people were somehow on the government take in a form or another. You neighbor was an informent or somthing so, see, my point proved. You wish to subjegate people, you need lots of guards. In our society, in order to set forth draconian policies within any segment, you need lots of guards - and ours don't work for rubles, pesos, bannanas or tea. Forty grand a year min. I can't afford a one on one guard/inmate ratio and neither can you so, since you agree that they should have the above unless they screw up then, we both agree right?

No. It makes it so you have little to lose by acting up. Necessitating aditional guards for the enhanced danger of a general uprising. If you can afford the guards such as they have in counjtries where they pay in bannanas and pesos, then fine. But at forty grand a year to have twice as many guards, it is a bit cheaper to give a reward along with punishment. BTW, you didn't get it when I said that people who have nothing but downside revolt? Russia, Iran, Al Queda, France. The list is almost endless. They are all results of when people have little or nothing to live for beyond changing the environment they exist in. Check out prison riots on google, the reasons are varied but mainly, they occur when people are fed up and have nowhere to go to adress the issues. Issues such as brutality, lack of treatment, visitng rights, food, bigotry and on and on. In fact, your vision of nirvanna is Alcatraz with which I agree however, it costs too dam much to put every inmate into such a facility. Really? I think the act of breaking rocks is manual labor and actually builds stamina, strength, confidence as well as makes a group more glued and loyal to each other. You know, like a team. A team of pissed off inmates with a lot of strength, group ideas to share and, as a ten year sentence begins to look like eternity after the first six months, you really wouldn't give a shit about much. Hope this rock quarry of yours has some very high paid guards as the normal ones wouldn't be able to put up with the stress of knowing that there is always something brewing within the group of stronger and cohesive men. Something that hates them as much as the system and, all of them don't care. Bread and water? Now they really don't care and, spent the entire time in isolation figureing out how they are going to screw you. Lack of visitation? Wow, that's a winner, now they have nothing outside the walls to live for. So, what do you have left to take away? Not much, but you have the lives of your guards who are getting crap wages for having to go ten on one with these guys for forty grand a year. Every one of them willing to stick a knife in their back for the hell of it. What do you think it would take for a group of guys who have testosterone comming out of their ears, are pissed off, have nothing to live for and who have formed themselves - a group of say five hundred, into one unit, to just well ...... blow? Oh. Sorry. So just for serious offenders. You didn't make a diferenciation, you just said anybody in prison. See above. I was speaking of a minor offender doing hard time and then just adopting a whole attitude of society hatred due to the processes you feel would work better. as for your more serious offenders, they will end up doing the time sooner or later when they reoffend. With increased prison time, they will be where they belong but, to take all positives away and only leave negative, you will need at least triple the guards you have now.

I certainly don't see how if Iran intended to use its nukes, why they would announce their intention to develop a nuclear program, thumb their nose at international inspectors, and spout forth all kinds of beliggerant rhetoric. All that behaviour is the hallmark of a country that wants to be noticed and wants to play ball, not a bunch of wild-eyed, suicidal fanatics. As for the idea hat they would slip them to terrorists to use, again, why would they spend billions on developing a nuke, only to hand it off to some third party in hopes they use it (also: any nuclear attack on Israel would be blamed on Iran anyway, so its not like the option you present would alow them to escape retaliation) is stuff straiht out of a Tom Clancy book. I'm sure there are fanatics who'd love to get their hands on a nuke. Exactly. If you wish to end monitoring, you just stop allowing it rather than holding press conferences that you are about to. Iran views Al Queda as an extension of Saudi Wahhabism and subsequently a threat to what they are hoping to achieve in being the leader or, patriarch of the Muslim world. Their relations with the US, Israel during the 80's and in Lebannon are making them look like an American and Israeli lapdog and they have to break that perception if they are to lead the Muslim world, otherwise, Saudi Arabia will continue to be the main stay. Here is where so much of their problems origionate. While attempting to influence events in Iraq, they did not anticipate the US's ability to press the Sunni/Shiite crack in Iraq and, accomadate both. This left them at a severe disadvantage and set them on the defensive as they then sought formal negotiations in the political makeup of Iraq. To go a step further, the US has also sucessfully pressed this split on both sides by trading and politiking with Iran while then playng their new cooperation as incentives for Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia to be more cooperative. This, while evening out the playing feild also minimized Iranian influence. In order to not be percieved as the above mentioned lapdog for having to be helped out by the US and Israel during the Iran Iraq war, Ahmadinejad was given the mandate to play nutbar to the world to show they still hated the US and Israel too by denying the holocost and threatening nuclear war with nothing but his dick in his hand. Judging by the squalking going on from the international henhouse, he is one hell of a great actor.

I find this pretty difficult to take at face value for one reason. Iran has no love for Al Queda and, they view them as upstarts and an entity trying to pick up their claim to fame, which is being leader and represntitive of islam. To allow AQ to operate or aid them is to help the competition so to speak. Easy? They have nonstop connecting flights to the cave? This is bull.

I only own that BBQ and the traps so not much to lose. Then I'd get some assistance myself. Course, I have a legless Rotwieler named 'Otis' whom I also keep tied to the BBQ. His bite is worse than his bark but, I'm afraid to take him out in public as the skateboard he rides on gets some wicked stares.

My BBQ is surrounded by my bear trap collection and I hope nobody hurts themselves when they come to 'borrow' it.

Yes indeed they are not. I view their actions and rhetoric as one of the best acts of politicking in ages. Iraq = central region with postioning capabillity for the US to influence the entire Middle East and protect it's allies and trading partners from. With particular attention to Syria, Saudi Arabia and with a strong Iraqi democratic market economy, counteract the Iranian influence which is a threat to Sadui Arabia and as a consequence, helps legitimize Al Queda. Afganistan = Taliban run and supporter of Al Queda and, Al Queda territory from which training, planning and headquartering of the organization took place. North Korea = place in middle of nowhere that if attacked is a dead end street with little or no tactical value. Much cheaper to negotiate, and, if failing that, adopt sanctions and as a last resort, drop a few bombs on them. Ok, you've lost it completely here. Nobody is going to let them have nukes. They know it and the world knows it, hence, they will never reach the stage where they will have them to guard against anything. However, this is all about just what you said = 'guard against a McDonalds on every corner.' Black Dog nailed this one right to the bedpost pretty good the other day. I call this mini essay 'Sleeping With the Fishes' Clerics want traditional values in an every increasingly modern and younger society that is trying to wrench it's way from the religious domination and ..... their influence. And, with Iraq going democratic that is scaring the shit out of them and they want some say in who and how the government in Iraq is formed and comprised of. They want to display their weight in the region and enhance trade and their economy. They are an economic power, not a military one. Invade? What the bloody hell are you talking about? Invade and do what? Sit there and bring democracy to a democratic country? Give me an example of an operation in which there is a rudementry objective for invasion and, what the loose planning for it might be against a military that is, while larger than Iraq's, less effective but, is virtually everywhere. And, with no pretext for invasion, what they possibly could invent to the World and what pretext to Congress would sway them as they continue to shift against Bush day by day. Worst case scenario is first, a few bunker busters to let them know the US is serious. Next is the use of small nukes on the suspect facilities. If that does not get the responses going positive, then more and larger. Iran knows that. Europe knows this and the US knows this. Hence, unless Iran has something to gain by not having a nuke and then watching all it's development facilities get wiped out then this is brinkmanship pure and simple. As for the Israeli actions, won't happen for various political but mainly strategic reasons. They can't get there without doing two refuelings to make the round trip. And, would require US help. Which would also require the Iraqis and or, Saudis to be in on it. Yes. However, only because the infastructure to develop, deliver and guard those weapons require a working economy. A working economy requires requires stability. Stability requires good leadership. A country that does not have all that then will not be permitted to have them.

It took them this long to figure it out? Here's the real kicker, though: if these guys didn't hate America before, what do you suppose they think now? From the link, an explanation of why they have not been charged but were, arrested. And why, although not a threat to the US, are in fact one to China. And, China would not put these guys into airconditioned cells, rather they would torture them beyond belief. Being trained by Al Queda to operate in China is not an American crime but at the time they were arrested, they were certainly a threat to the troops and, possibly held information that would be interesting or valuable to say the least. One other thing strikes me. It's not like everybody in Afganistan was thrown onto a Galaxy and flown to Guantonimo under heavy guard and then placed into a prison with limited space for inmates. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't place enverybody they wanted there. So, there had to have been some selectivity going on and, assesement of guilt and threat involved at every step of the way. Given the threat that radicals portray to troops in the field, and the unlikelyhood that innocents would be running around with guns in the middle of a Taliban group, why do some find it so strange that those in Guantonimo might be guilty of being involved but not provably involved?