Black Dog

What?? The Dems were robbed (and they know it), but the SC decision made the whole thing moot. Get it? As to your first point: yes, now you're starting to get it. I don't know where your getting this about the Dems being A-OK with the results, but, as I've already said, there's not much they can do at this point now is there?

I'd like to hear how undermining one of the fundamental principles of the UN and international law will, in the end, strengthen the organization. Typiocally, when right-wingers talk of "strengthening the UN", they mean "making it even more of a rubber stamp US puppet than it already is". Of what, exactly?

Of course, the Democrats did try, by launching the court challenge (which they ultimately lost on the partisan and uinprecedented decision by the SC). Kinda a moot point now, though. Besides there's plenty of other ammunition they can use against Bush since he became president rather than dredghing up the circumstances of his appointment to the post. As for prefering Bush to Gore, Gore would have been only slightly better. There's not really much difference between the Dems and the G.O.P: they both serve the same paymasters.

Maybe they should just stick Dubya in a giant bullet proof hamster ball. Not only would it ensure his safety, but it would keep the lil' fella entertained for hours on end. Becoming president means you are a target. Kennedy Lincoln, Garfield, Carter(?) and Regan are proof of that. However, I still think legitimate, unfettered protest is a perfectly healthy byproduct of democracy. Given this administrations record on such matters, it seems clear theis is more about sheilding the president from views that conflict with his own.

You'll never catch me apologizing for the actions of Saddam Hussein's regime. I do, however, obect to public officials using distortions, half truths, and outright lies to foist a war of very questionable intent onto the populace. As for the world being a better place without Saddam Hussein, that may be true at a fundamental level, but I fear the problems this war will cause and the precedent its conduct will set in global affairs will have serious negative repurcussions. And it still is.

So, word is that the Iraq Survey Group is set to publish an interim report stating that no WMD, or even evidence of WMD programs, in Iraq. Well, I'm shocked. Meanwhile, the Anglo-American invasion force is still backpeddling furiously away from there previous asssertions about WMD. UK: War justified despite no WMD Rwemember: Iraq was said to have presented a "clear and present" danger to the U.S. Not tomorrow, not 10 years down the way. That was the central reason for the war. It was a lie.

Oh, come now, it's not as though he didn't have help. Karl Rove (aka "Bush's Brain"), brother Jeb, Katherine Harris and the blatantly partisan Supreme Court justices all played an important role in pulling the scam of 2000. No one's saying Bush single-handedly pulled one over on us. Quite the contrary. The fix was in from the top down and it's there for anyone and everyone to see. You just choose not to is all. As for Bush's intellegence (or lack thereof), "Shrub" by Molly Ivins gives a good background into the man's consistent record of mediocrity, from school through his military "service" through his days as governor of Texas.

I agree 100 per cent. Despite the straw man approach that paints anyone with a progressive bent as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I think Clinton was a huge slimeball. It's merely a testament to the current regime that Bush II makes Clinton look like a genius and a saint. Nope. Saddam's fault but aided and abetted (directly or indirectly via the ridiculous sanctions) by the west. You'll find no argument for Saddam as a ruler here. But he was able to crush the largest popular uprising against his rule after the war (with the U.S. watching disinterestedly from the sidelines). That set back any resistance movement, and the sanctions put the nail in the coffin. You clearly missed the point, which is its not the U.S.'s job to "impose democracy" on anyone, let alone in nations that have not attacked them directly. "Pressing threat" or easy target? hey, maybe if teh Sates piad some of their back dues to the UN, they'd get a little more financial help. besides, the no-fly zones etc. were not under UN auspices. Still whacking that straw man, I see. Personally, I always said NK was a greater threat than Iraq, though "greater" in this case still amounts to a negligible threat. And I'd opose invading NK or any other soverign country as I'm solidly against the PNAC doctrine of pre-emptive war. There's another word for that: terrorism.

Interesting you would put things in terms of looting the country. A Freudian slip or finally some honesty? No it's not. it's a violation of the principles of international law set down a half century ago. Based on this principle, Iran, North Korea, etc, would be perfectly entitled to launch nuclear strikes against the U.S, a country that has openly entertained notions of hostile military action against those nations. I'll have to get back to this another time...

Ryan, my advice to you: don't bother. All parties are equally useless.

Basically the point I was trying to make. Hell, that should be U.S.'s new motto.

The right of peaceful assembly (sans caveat) is one of the fundamental pillars of a democracy. Unless the Secret Service can demonstrate that protesters somehow pose a legitimate threat to the president's person (and not just because they might hurt his widdle feelings) this lawsuit should triumph. Of course, given thet the U.S. is inching towards the status of the Police States of America, the measure staken by the S.S. don't really surprise.

Aw. that's cute. If you actually think the U.S. is interested in making better and cheaper weapons, you haven't been paying attention. Fact is, the U.S. defense industry is a huge corporate welfare program with national security, financial viability and simple practicality falling by the way side. Take the F-22/JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) business as a prime example. The F-22 is a new interceptor representing the next stage of air-to-air combat. Problem is, the current aircraft, the F-15, first deployed in 1972, is still a generation ahead of any other fighter in its class. In other words: they don't need it. Then there's the issue of quality: due to its complexity and general finikiness, the F-22 has so far passed only 5 percent of its flight tests, while the whole program is running up a $172 million tab (almost $50 million more than was originally planned). Then there's the JSF. Planned as a cheap ($35 million) alternative to more costly aircraft (such as the F-22) the JSF is now looking to cost about $73 million a piece. The program itself is looking at $150 million in cost overruns. And that's before the DoD even selected the design! Add the fact that upgrades to existing designs (such as the F/A/-18 Super Hornet and new F-16 models) are on the way, ask yourself if the above muddling sounds like the work of an organization interested in getting the best bang for the taxpayer buck. (And don't even get me started on the Missle Defense Shield). So while your idea has a certain whimiscal appeal, I doubt the boys in DC whose pockets are lined with Lockheed lucre would ever see it your way.

No UN resolutions specifically mentioned the use of force. The pertinent one that Bushco cited as the reason for the recent Anglo-American aggression (1441) specified "serious consequenses"-wording that was far less severe than the resolution calling on Iraq's withdrawl from kuwait in '91. That said, the fact is that the invasion violated the UN Charter. So to use flouting of international law as a reason to flout international law is a bit much. "Put to death" or "died"? Now who's spreading misinformation? After 12 years of sanctions and bombings caused by skyrocketing rates of malnutrition and disease, what would you expect? As for anything pre-1991, keep in mind that all atrocities commited by Saddam were done so with a wink and a nod from Washington. So excuse me if I think the humanitarian concern emanating from the DC hawks reeks of hypocrisy. Becuase the sanctions allowed him to firm up his regime. People aren't going to rise up against you when they don't have any food or are too sick to walk. Besides, whatever Saddam's reasons, his non-compliance proves one thing only: he didn't comply. Infering the existence of WMD from that is a pretty flimsy justification for war. Continued inspections, monitoring and intellegence field work would have been able to better track his WMD asperations (all withour violatining international law). You kniow, there's plenty of other countries that flout UN resolutions, hav eatrocious human rights records, and are pursuing WMD, yet there's never a big rush to attack all of them. Why Iraq? And why now (er...then)? Why not North Korea? Why not East Timor under Suharto (oh, right: he was a client)? Why not Pakistan?

Wooo! You sure showed me, there Einstein. My goodness, but what do any of these things have to dow with terror? You're just a foaming-at-the-mouth idealogue without an original thought or, indeed, a coherent bone in your body. I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't such an obvious asshole. Anyway.... The Taliban said they would offer up Osama assoon as the U.S gave them proof of his involvement. The U.S refused. Powell promised a detailed report that would demonstrated OBL and Al Q'aeda's involvement. The report never happened. I guess Gee Dub is of the school of thought that if you say something enough times ("Afghanistan's fine...") it'll become true. What WMD? Show me. The SC is also right to be alarmed by the spirit of reckless unilateralism that spurred the invasion and the tacet precedent it sets for other nations to engage in preemptive warfare. As for Iraq's ruling council being "representetives of a liberated country", well, I guess if you consider a group of hand-picked quislings to be representative.... M,ass graves, it can't be stressed enough, that were filled while Rummy was pressing the flesh with Saddam, or while George I was abandoning Iraqis who rose up in '91 to the tender mercies of the regime. Graves that were filled even higher during a period of sanctions that crippled a people while allowing the regime to close it's grip on the throats of Iraqis even tighter. Is this the same George W. Bush that allowed members of teh House of saud and bin Laden families flee for their homeland in the immidiate aftermath of 9-11? The same bush whose father, through his holdings in the Carlyle group, has massive financial ties with the ruling family? If you think the Shrub will shit in his own nest (not to mention that of his dad and many wealthy campaign contributers) by going after the Number One terrorist state in the region you are living in a dream world.

No he was a U.S. General who served as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, from 1997-2000. NATO doesn't have its own officers.

I have an e-mail you should send those to: [email protected] Because, apparently, your Boy George isn't privy to the same information as you. Most of you allegations are loosey-goosey (the presence of AQ operatives in Iiraq is not evidence of any official connection between Sadam and AQ) to downright false (the Prague meeting between AQ and Iraqi officials has been roundly debunked, even by the CIA). You're hilarious. Most days, you'd eat shit if Bush told you it was chocolate, except when it conflicts with your own religious dogma. (ohya: "anti-American racisits"? That's a good one Americans are a "race" now?)

No, but it does interfere with my ability to live a life uncluttered with primitive superstisious claptrap. No. keep it in your church on in your home and outta my face. Deal with it. Fine. But you certainly don't have the right to make anyone else pray with you. Isn't that kinda the whole point of organized religion?

Incidentally, are any of the opponents of A.A. here of the non-caucasian persuasion?

Zoinks! Sure he seized power illegally, committed genocide and launched the most destructive conflict in human history...but dammnit if he didn't make the trains run on time... You obviously know butkis about Buddhism, then. It's not a religion so much as a philosophy. There's no god or any other deity, just the belief that living in harmony awith all of the earth and seeking knowledge is the path to enlightenment. That said, I know a couple of real a$$hole Buddhists....

Judge rules pot laws don't exist. Time to put this country's draconian pot laws to rest for good. Pot law enforcement is a tremendous waste of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere. In the meantime, we can turn Canada into the Amsterdam of the north. Imagine the tourism!

If that's all you base your opinion on, you are an idiot. Do you have the slightest concept of what the Palestinan people have gone through or of the day to day struggle for survival that is life in the Occupied Territories? Maybe you should do some reading or some actual thinking before basing opinions on an entire people on the actions of one man on the Tee Vee. Moron. By "millenia", I assume you mean "since 1948".

I think marriage should only be recognized as a civil institution. People could still get married in church or synagoge or what have you, but would not enjoy the full benefits of the institution unless they also register under the civil institution. Church's would then be free to disallow whoever they please from getting married, while the civil institution would be open to all. It's time we cut the tumour of religion out of the body politic for good. Let's evolve already.

Not always, certainly. But one would have to be blind to ignore the role money (especially in the form of campaign contributions) plays in the erosion of democracy and the tiumph of special interests over collective rights. Sadly, I think example such as the one Reed cites are the exception rather than the rule.

The vote was meaningless anyway. It was a non-binding motion by the Alliance and the result doesn't make gay marriage legal (they need new legislation for that). That said: HA! This will smooth the way for the inevitable establishment of gay marriage and in 20 years, its opponents will look a lot like Governor George Wallace vainly standing in the way of progress.