Can the administration be this naive?...Or think we are?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 15, 2004, 11:18 pm

Xzion wrote:
Xzion wrote:I'll give you a fun fact.

The MAJORITY of the population IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY on earth other then the US and Israel are against the war in Iraq.
Sirton and Midnyte, your list of countrys supporting Bush hold no water.
Do you for a second in hell think Blair is gonna get re-elected? Same thing will happen there as in spain, and hopefully the same thing here.
A nice clean wave of rationalism and a progressive step foward in society is comming!

If you're right then after this 4-8 years of Socialists in office, the U.S. will be primed and ready for another attack on our soil by the time a Republican takes office again. Then you can blame it on him again. Then he will have to step it up, run our country into a deficit to put the country back to where it should have been the entire time. And he will do it, because he is willing to take the hit and do what is right and necessary for the good of the country, while you liberal scum bags thumb your nose at the very people that hand you your safe little lives.

Alfan · Post by **Alfan** » March 16, 2004, 12:12 am

I normally don’t chime in because it’s not worth arguing with these types.

But Midnyte . . . are you for real?

Animale · Post by **Animale** » March 16, 2004, 12:23 am

Midnyte... you honestly can't believe the shit your spewing.

Run a country into a deficit for "security?!?" Bush's budget contains a large increase in pork and pork related projects, far beyond what any President has done in recent memory. He isn't spending to "get our country back to where it should be" security-wise, he's spending to reinforce his base in an election year (see drug testing in schools, see faith-based charity funding - but only if your faith is agreeable, etc. etc.). Even Republicans are calling him fiscally irresponsible, his own damn party! And the costs for Iraq (a disaster in the making) and other military security costs aren't even included in the largest deficit budget ever.

In short, Bush is not spending to beef up security. He is instead increasing spending on nearly all areas of the federal budget, while lowering tax revenues by cutting taxes (largely on the upper tax brackets in yet another attempt at a "trickle down" economy). You can do one, you can do the other... but you can't fucking do both and expect to be even at the end of the day.

Animale

p.s. One of the best bumper stickers I've ever seen was on a 1980ish beat up Ford... it said "I didn't know Trickle Down meant I got pissed on."

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 16, 2004, 12:25 am

Sirton will vote for Bush so his super-secret l33t insider info will keep flowing!

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » March 16, 2004, 2:38 am

Sirton wrote:Of coarse theres some foreign leaders that want Kerry to win, but I dont think hell tell who they are, I sure as hell wouldn't advise it....Ok lets look at only the obvious!!

Lets see there is Osama Bin Laden and Al'Qooky.

umm then Saddam Hussein and the bathing party, but he no longer is a leader..He must really hate Bush, so Im sure hed like Kerry..I remember how he had a mass celebration when Bush I lost to Clinton.

The new Socialist Gov't of Spain Id have to say is a easy one..

France and Chirac, since they lost out on illegal oil contracts from Saddam.

Libya..no brainer.

Koffi Annan, since his poor son will no longer get illegal oil contracts from Saddam Husseins food for oil program.

ohh who else put a hold on the whole Iraq situation because theyd loose money on oil..they war was about oil less than not going to war was...Russia and China..who both had illegal contracts setup with Saddam, but I think Putin would truely rather have Bush though since they have a really good personal relationship.

Arafat would be a safe bet too.

Another thing on that list you could argue:
Australia
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Hungary
Italy
Japan
Netherlands
Poland
Romania
Singapore
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States

Bring more than Brazil or Mexico as major countries from your claim...Germany and Canada maybe France are the only countries anyone should bring up as a failure to get in the coalition. Russia China?? Um look at history...amazing the Ukraine was involved being it was a major part(oil) of the old Soviet Union.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 16, 2004, 7:02 am

Dregor Thule wrote:
...blind monkeys can tell that the world climate does not like Bush.

... or any US President, or the United States in general. Yeah... we're used to it.

Yes indeed. That the US had an uprecedented level of approval and prestige around the world during Clinton's administration was just a lie by the liberal media to make all Bush's past, present and future look bad.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 16, 2004, 7:06 am

Do you for a second in hell think Blair is gonna get re-elected?

Yes.
The majority of the country may have disagreed with us going to war in Iraq but I don't believe enough of us have forgotten what the alternative was like to hand them power again yet.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 16, 2004, 12:21 pm

our deficit is not to secure our country substantially at all.

jack shit is being done at our ports, which are wide open. Our rail systems are as insecure as Spain's, and there is nothing budgeted to change that.

it will take a lot more than flag waving and propaganda about the patriot act to truly secure points of entry into the US and offer real protection from incidents like what was seen in Madrid. It will take a lot more than the stripping of Constitutional rights of US citizens to make meaningful progress in this arena.

The reason we are generating lots of debt is because we have cut revenue from corporate taxation as well as upper income income taxation. This may prove to stimulate the economy, but so far it hasn't. So far in 2004 we have a net gain of about zero in all major markets, and job growth is still stagnant.

However, if you are the kind of person who likes to hitch your wagon to what Warren Buffett says i think his recent quote says it all. "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning."

Buffett is the second richest person in the world, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. His company paid 2.5% of the corporate income taxes to the US govt in fiscal year 2003. in his opinion, most major corporations do not pay their fair share., which is the context of the quote above. (http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2003ltr.pdf page 6)

that is the nature of our debt, very little has to do with securing this country. Why do you think families of soldiers are having to buy the body armor to mail over to Iraq for their sons and daughters to wear? They are paying upwards of $1000 for these because the flak jackets their children have been issued are deemed to be ineffective against Kalishnikov rounds. http://msnbc.com/news/1000971.asp

Cause of Bill Clinton i'm sure, right?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 16, 2004, 12:35 pm

Voro,

The security in our country is better than pre-9/11.

Our military has seen gigantic increases and will continue to see huge funding increases under the Bush administration should he get another 4 years.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 16, 2004, 12:36 pm

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. This will put things in perspective:

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in US history.

Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims:
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. >From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent . Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

You guys blindly hate Bush just as much as we used to blindly hate Clinton.

The real question is how can Kerry make things any better? I sure haven't heard anything encouraging from him.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 16, 2004, 12:38 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Voro,

The security in our country is better than pre-9/11.

Our military has seen gigantic increases and will continue to see huge funding increases under the Bush administration should he get another 4 years.

yes its better. but the job isnt done, and i disagree with the assertion completely that only Republicans have the mettle to take care of business. If this is as much of a priority for our country as people speaking on behalf fo the president say it is, then where is the money for what is needed?

Money for other things seems to be readily available.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 16, 2004, 12:45 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
You guys blindly hate Bush...

I don't blindly hate him..I have on various threads explicitly listed the things he has done which I hate...

I frankly didn't hate him prior to his presidency.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » March 16, 2004, 12:52 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:The security in our country is better than pre-9/11.

Yes, at the expense of personal freedom, do you not see whats wrong with that?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 16, 2004, 1:09 pm

Sionistic wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:The security in our country is better than pre-9/11.
Yes, at the expense of personal freedom, do you not see whats wrong with that?

And your solution is?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » March 16, 2004, 1:12 pm

I never said I had one. How about finding out why these guys hate us so much and then start some peace talks, but I guess its too late for that huh?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 16, 2004, 1:18 pm

Sionistic wrote:I never said I had one. How about finding out why these guys hate us so much and then start some peace talks, but I guess its too late for that huh?

Negotiate with terrorists eh? Sounds like a great idea. I think I'll go blow up my office building and then negotiate a raise.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 16, 2004, 1:21 pm

peace talks won't accomplish anything.

for starters "Terrorism" does not have a distinct command and control structure. THere is no governing body.

What we are fighting against is an international Jihadist movement. There are various people who control various interconnecting factions of people, but that is about it.

I also think it would be difficult to find compromise at the bargaining table when what one side wants is you dead

A big part of the fuel for this Jihadist fire is our perceived disproportionate support for ISrael in the Palestinian situation. Israel is a valuable ally, but they also are a pretty unruly country in their own right. i'm not saying we hang Israel out to dry to save our skins, but until we change the way that we are perceived in the Palestinian situation, we will continue to draw the ire of Jihadists.

People in Egypt and other countries (not even Israel/Palestine) will often sight the Palestinian situation as their number one *domestic* problem. it may not seem to be a big deal to us, but it is a very, very, very big deal in that part of the world. it is kind of a gauge by which Arabs view how the West values them as a people. That may not be an accurate gauge, but it is the one that is used often.

but the answer to secure the US is not to deny citizens the right to see a lawyer, the right to a trial, etc....the 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th amendments.

fear! fear! fear!

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 16, 2004, 1:35 pm

Negotiate with terrorists eh? Sounds like a great idea.

Yes well "refusing to negotiate" makes a great soundbite but EVERY SINGLE TIME anyone has made any real progress in reducing a terrorist problem it has been by negotiating with them.
At the end of the day pragmatism wins out over sloganeering. How the fuck are you supposed to make peace with anyone if you don't listen to what they have to say?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 16, 2004, 1:35 pm

Sionistic wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:The security in our country is better than pre-9/11.
Yes, at the expense of personal freedom, do you not see whats wrong with that?

That's the rhetoric, yes. But, what personals freedoms have you lost? I haven't lost any.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 16, 2004, 1:46 pm

Its also a good idea to stop carte blanche supplying military training, aid and selling weapons to everyone...Everyone seems to forget that Al Quaeda's tactics are CIA tactics...Sadam rose to power with US weapons...

Have we even begun to address this sort of issue? Nope we continue to get our asses bit by our thoughtless foreign policy...

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » March 16, 2004, 1:52 pm

Thats why I said it was too late for talks anyway.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » March 16, 2004, 1:52 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Sionistic wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:The security in our country is better than pre-9/11.
Yes, at the expense of personal freedom, do you not see whats wrong with that?
That's the rhetoric, yes. But, what personals freedoms have you lost? I haven't lost any.

Your assertion that you have lost no personal liberties is based upon your perception of this limited set of liberties that you excercise in your everyday life.

You have many liberties and rights that you probably will not ever excercise, but would be incredibly gratefull for if you ever found the need to excercise them.

The the 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th amendments are not something that you would come into contact under normal circumstances.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 16, 2004, 1:53 pm

Arborealus wrote:Its also a good idea to stop carte blanche supplying military training, aid and selling weapons to everyone...Everyone seems to forget that Al Quaeda's tactics are CIA tactics...Sadam rose to power with US weapons...

Have we even begun to address this sort of issue? Nope we continue to get our asses bit by our thoughtless foreign policy...

Not really on topic, but, yes we do need to continue to improve on who we equip. However, at the time we supplied them, they were aiding us on something we wanted to accomplish. Unfortunately, there are no crystal balls to tell us when we help a miltant faction, which one may come back and end up hating us. Hind sight is 20/20 man. Let's continue to move forward, nstead of picking apart the past.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 16, 2004, 1:54 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:That's the rhetoric, yes. But, what personals freedoms have you lost? I haven't lost any.

4th, 5th, 8th and 9th amendments at a minimum...If they don't apply to all of us equally then they don't apply to any of us.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 16, 2004, 1:58 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Unfortunately, there are no crystal balls to tell us when we help a miltant faction, which one may come back and end up hating us. Hind sight is 20/20 man. Let's continue to move forward, nstead of picking apart the past.

you are right there is no way to be 100% correct. I dont think he was suggesting we could be going forward. I think the point is that we need to learn from what we have done, and use it to help us make strategic decisions moving forward.

that being said, you still won't be able to anticipate what social conditions will influence events in what nations that will turn people towards or away from the interests of the US.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 16, 2004, 2:06 pm

Voronwë wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Unfortunately, there are no crystal balls to tell us when we help a miltant faction, which one may come back and end up hating us. Hind sight is 20/20 man. Let's continue to move forward, nstead of picking apart the past.
you are right there is no way to be 100% correct. I dont think he was suggesting we could be going forward. I think the point is that we need to learn from what we have done, and use it to help us make strategic decisions moving forward.

that being said, you still won't be able to anticipate what social conditions will influence events in what nations that will turn people towards or away from the interests of the US.

Nope but it's pretty safe to infer that providing weapons to people is not a good way to bring about world peace...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 16, 2004, 2:21 pm

Arborealus wrote:
Voronwë wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Unfortunately, there are no crystal balls to tell us when we help a miltant faction, which one may come back and end up hating us. Hind sight is 20/20 man. Let's continue to move forward, nstead of picking apart the past.
you are right there is no way to be 100% correct. I dont think he was suggesting we could be going forward. I think the point is that we need to learn from what we have done, and use it to help us make strategic decisions moving forward.

that being said, you still won't be able to anticipate what social conditions will influence events in what nations that will turn people towards or away from the interests of the US.
Nope but it's pretty safe to infer that providing weapons to people is not a good way to bring about world peace...

There is no such thing though man. There is a big problem right there. We need to realize that it is an impossibility. That comes with being realistic though

Whether there be religion or not, there will always exist good and evil. Life is all about balance. Realizing this and putting aside the naive notions of world peace and love and flowers every where, will help us progress with less strife and angst and division. It's a nice thing to strive for, but important to realize it's impossibility.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 16, 2004, 2:25 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Voronwë wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Unfortunately, there are no crystal balls to tell us when we help a miltant faction, which one may come back and end up hating us. Hind sight is 20/20 man. Let's continue to move forward, nstead of picking apart the past.
you are right there is no way to be 100% correct. I dont think he was suggesting we could be going forward. I think the point is that we need to learn from what we have done, and use it to help us make strategic decisions moving forward.

that being said, you still won't be able to anticipate what social conditions will influence events in what nations that will turn people towards or away from the interests of the US.
Nope but it's pretty safe to infer that providing weapons to people is not a good way to bring about world peace...
There is no such thing though man. There is a big problem right there. We need to realize that it is an impossibility. That comes with being realistic though

Whether there be religion or not, there will always exist good and evil. Life is all about balance. Realizing this and putting aside the naive notions of world peace and love and flowers every where, will help us progress with less strife and angst and division. It's a nice thing to strive for, but important to realize it's impossibility.

Heh thanks info god...I'll keep trying though if it's just the same with you...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 16, 2004, 2:28 pm

I feel sorry for you then, but at he same time envious of your blindness to the reality. You live in a more comfy world than I do.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 16, 2004, 2:31 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:
...blind monkeys can tell that the world climate does not like Bush.

... or any US President, or the United States in general. Yeah... we're used to it.
Yes indeed. That the US had an uprecedented level of approval and prestige around the world during Clinton's administration was just a lie by the liberal media to make all Bush's past, present and future look bad.

Yes, they loved us enough to plan and prepare coordinated strikes against our financial and political centers.

The Patriot Act is, IMO, complete garbage. It focuses on visible measures, while not doing anything to really protect us. The Dept. of Homeland Security should never have been created, and that funding should have gone to the NSA, CIA, and INS.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 16, 2004, 2:40 pm

for starters "Terrorism" does not have a distinct command and control structure. THere is no governing body.

Not necesarily true, it depends on the terrorist groups. IRA and ETA both have central governing bodies, and the talks with IRA have actually led to something.

Unfortunately, there are no crystal balls to tell us when we help a miltant faction, which one may come back and end up hating us.

Don't need no crystal ball when it happens every single time.

I feel sorry for you then, but at he same time envious of your blindness to the reality.

Oh boy Midnyte how that sentence could be turned right back at you...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 16, 2004, 2:48 pm

How will Kerry make things better?

I have honest curiosity about his plans.

How will having him make Iraq better?
How will having him make the Osama hunt better?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 16, 2004, 2:51 pm

And before someone goe on the world respect angle, let me ask:

What is world respect good for?

Lets say that the UN is 100% behind our efforts in Iraq. What does that mean? America will still be footing a majority of the troops. America will still be the ones paying the major costs.

What difference does it make other than some feel-good buddy buddy nonsense that does little to improve anything.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 16, 2004, 2:56 pm

those are all very valid questions about what would Kerry do better.

as to the importance of building and maintaining relationships, i think it was a couple months ago that the US was at th G7 (or a similar meeting) practically begging people to help us pay for the war in Iraq.

In business there are very few skills that will serve you better than the ability to build and maintain relationships.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 16, 2004, 2:56 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:That's the rhetoric, yes. But, what personals freedoms have you lost? I haven't lost any.

totally. I don't mind the government getting unprecedented avenues to spy on me, tap my phone calls and monitor my purchases and what I check out of the library because I haven't done anything wrong. It's totally not an issue that they can declare me an enemy combatant whenever they feel like it and detain me indefinitely without access to an attorney or a trial because I'm not a terrorist.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 16, 2004, 3:06 pm

Don't worry Kyoukan, you're not living in the states, it was just a bad dream!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 16, 2004, 5:17 pm

I think my cat has dingleberries that are more intelligent than Midnyte.

Carry on.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 16, 2004, 5:30 pm

Mid, you and I haven't seemingly lost any freedoms but there are many Americans who have due to exactly what Kyoukan is stating - and who knows who or what is next (my guess is drugs).

It's happening right now in America, there are people being held without a trial and without even being charged with a crime because they are "suspected" of being terrorists. That is unconstutional and the opposite of what this country was founded on... and sounds a lot like similar policies to make another country safe about 75 years ago. They didn't fair so well 15 years later. Not that I really expect anyone to actually LEARN anything from history but some things are just blatent...

Marb

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 16, 2004, 5:39 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I feel sorry for you then, but at he same time envious of your blindness to the reality. You live in a more comfy world than I do.

Pot, kettle, really fucking stupid.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 16, 2004, 5:49 pm

Marb, your comments have been noted, and will be considered when applications for block commander and other similarly beneficial positions are collected.

We are happy to roll-out a streamlined application process that is simply a hair sample. We know the rest already.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 16, 2004, 6:03 pm

Marb,

Besides the one or two people that were exposed on all the networks, who are the many people being held w/o being charged? How many people have been "found out" as a result of the new patriot act? Where are the numbers to justify this outrage? People on these boards constantly mention the tons of people being held w/o representatiion and w/o being charged, but how do you know? And more importantly, how many terrorists were found out by doing this? Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

My America was founded on sacrifice, not unabashed, unwatched, unrelenting freedom to do as we please. Anarchy isn't what got us here today in the short 238 years since we started America. Sweat, blood, tears, and sacrifice.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 16, 2004, 6:08 pm

How about every single person in Gauntanamo Bay? They've been there 2 and a half years without being charged and without talking to lawyers.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 16, 2004, 6:12 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Voro,

The security in our country is better than pre-9/11.

Our military has seen gigantic increases and will continue to see huge funding increases under the Bush administration should he get another 4 years.

Responding as a person who was running from a falling Twin Tower on 9-11 while Bush was in office, you're as stupid as they come.

Maybe you feel a whole lot safer living in a town that's ranking 4999 out of 5000 on the "Terrorist Hitlist", but the rest of us that actually deal with the situation realize the only things that have been compromised are our personal freedoms. Ohh, and our children's future having to pay off an unwieldly debt. But then, you don't have children, why should you give a simpleton shit about that, right?

My America was founded on sacrifice, not unabashed, unwatched, unrelenting freedom to do as we please. Anarchy isn't what got us here today in the short 238 years since we started America. Sweat, blood, tears, and sacrifice.

Your America was also founded using blacks as slaves and women as non-citizens. It's funny, but your statement about America is EXACTLY what Bush is doing, he's unabashed, unwatched, and unrelenting and he's certainly doing what he pleases.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 16, 2004, 6:16 pm

Actually he's a self-appointed excellent father.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 16, 2004, 6:19 pm

Vetiria wrote:How about every single person in Gauntanamo Bay? They've been there 2 and a half years without being charged and without talking to lawyers.

They are prisoners of war retard. They are not American citizens.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 16, 2004, 6:26 pm

Because they're prisoners of war, they should be held for however long Bush feels like keeping them there without charging them? The Bill of Rights is there to protect human rights.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 16, 2004, 6:29 pm

Vetiria wrote:Because they're prisoners of war, they should be held for however long Bush feels like keeping them there without charging them? The Bill of Rights is there to protect human rights.

The Bill of Rights is there to protect AMERICAN citizens.

You have this bleeding heart for the fucking guys who were shooting at our American soldiers but not for the millions of Iraqi's who were killed by Saddam, tortured, and held down for decades.

Typical liberal bullshit with your SELECTIVE care. Your SELECTIVE concern for people. You make me sick.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 16, 2004, 6:30 pm

you idiot. only americans deserve basic human rights. also, it's perfectly acceptable to declare war on a concept and then take prisoners and call them POWs.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 16, 2004, 6:32 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Vetiria wrote:Because they're prisoners of war, they should be held for however long Bush feels like keeping them there without charging them? The Bill of Rights is there to protect human rights.
The Bill of Rights is there to protect AMERICAN citizens.

You have this bleeding heart for the fucking guys who were shooting at our American soldiers but not for the millions of Iraqi's who were killed by Saddam, tortured, and held down for decades.

Typical liberal bullshit with your SELECTIVE care. Your SELECTIVE concern for people. You make me sick.

Yes, because every single person in Guantanamo was arrested for shooting at troops. Guess what.... WRONG

The Bill of Rights is there to protect human rights, not only citizens. That's just about the most Un-American thing I've ever heard. Go away terrorist.

So your opinion is that if a person isn't an American citizen, it's perfectly okay to treat them like dogs and keep them locked up for their entire life without being given the right to prove their innocence?

Edit: Calling someone liberal is not an insult. It's actually quite a compliment, recognizing that the person can accept change.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 16, 2004, 6:38 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

That is so antithetical to every principle this country was founded on...You are amazingly ignorant of the thoughts behind, rationale for, and actual meaning of the constitution...