What would your decision be....

Justin: Note the word "if" to begin the statement about driving.<br><br>But, no. I'm a bad driver, filled with rage, because I post with specifics and logic? And she is free to assume (OMG!) that I was frothing because I usedspecifics and examples and she just made a comment that I "assumed" without evidence yet made no mention why my evil assumption was, in deed,incorrect.<br><br>Whatever.<br><br>Anywho.<br><br>I always thought it funny that their 5 year mission on ST was to observe alien cultures without interfering with them?<br><br>I think in every episode, the crew of the ST influenced the alien culture to behave more like them.<br><br>Odd.<br><br>Joel.

Joel- Note the sarcasm in my last reply. Wasnt meant to be taken to heart. And yes Star Trek was a show about one group of people going to other worlds andshowing how people should behave. Hummm. Holy crap this is relative to Bush. Damn now if i could just connect the Star Trek mentality to how the hell itapplies to not executing scumbags we'd have it all figured out.

<blockquote> <strong class="quote-title">lostnspc86 wrote:</strong> <hr> TK: What? The part that "Clinton went soft and they kept bombing and bombing and bombing?" That part? <br><br> IF SO: You tell Andy to read, I suggest you do the same. Clinton's military record was far from stellar. I was in the military during Clinton's terms and they were doing everything to get people out. Early retirement, early IRR, <em>anything</em> and <em>everything</em>. I was in the reserves for 4 years. I only went to two "summer camps." After 4 years, I took a teaching job. <br><br> "Oh, it's over 50 miles to the nearest unit that needs an 88M? Okay. You can go into Inactive Ready Reserves. No problem. Just find a unit to go with for your two weeks a year and all is good." <br><br> Um. Yeah. Never bothered. Shortly after April 20, 1998 (end of my 8-year stint) I receive my military records file in the mail. <br><br> "Honorary Discharge." <br><br> Good by me. Meanwhile, there were military bases in Africa being bombed, the <em>USS Cole</em>, the first attempt at the WTC...all forewarnings that bad people were trying to do bad things. <br><br> Clinton did nothing. <br><br> Except give "Most Favored Nation" status to China and doink an intern. <br><br> Woot. It's all good...look at the economy! An economy that was booming on the "baseball card and bubble gum" stock market propped by the tech boom of Silicone Valley. Oh, yes, I forgot. Al Gore invented the Internet! So the Clinton administration <em>was</em> responsible for the economic boom after all. <br><br> Oh...um...what happened to all those tech stocks? <br><br> Right. <br><br> Can we blame Gore for that, then, since he takes credit for the Internet? <br><br> Clinton rode a wave that had nothing to do with anything he did. Allan Greenspan had more to do with the economy than did Clinton. And Greenspan wasn't even a Clinton appointee. He was there when Clinton took office. <br><br> If you ever watch(ed) South Park, there's an episode where Johnny Cochoran uses the "Chewbacca Defense." ["Now Chewbacca is a Wookee. But he lives with Ewoks. Why would a Wookee live with Ewoks? It doesn't make sense. If it doesn't make sense, you must acquit. Look at the monkey."] <br><br> All those who idolize Clinton and the "wonderful economy" are, in essence, "looking at the monkey" and ignoring everything else <em>of substance</em> that was going on around the world that the US was doinking with as if the world was its intern. <br><br> I will also reiterate that <em><strong>THE US HAD EVERY LEGAL REASON TO GO BACK INTO IRAQ.</strong></em> The cease-fire was contingent on Iraq letting UN investigators oversee the dismantling of the WMD program. Saddam blocked that. (Clinton did nothing.) Saddam kept boasting about how he had WMD, etc. Yes, we know now that this was probably to keep Iran from walking in and taking over the country. But Saddam also refused "civil mediation" to prevent the current invasion. As much as France hated to admit it, under the conditions of the cease-fire, the US had the right to resume hostilities. <br><br> Going back to my policeman allegory, a policeman can stop you for "probable cause" and arrest you for something totally different. Let's say you were speeding. You get pulled over and there's a smoking gun lying on your passenger seat. He can arrest you for gun possession and ignore the speeding violation altogether. The US had "international probable cause" based on Saddam's refusal to cooperate with UN oversight on WMD. 9/11 exacerbated the situation (the gun on the seat, so-to-speak). <br><br> There's a reason the terrorist factions there are called "Al Quaida in Iraq." It's because they are members of Al Quaida operating in Iraq. And Saddam's regime funded them. Smoking gun lying on the passenger seat. The initial <em>premise</em> was valid and the UN had to accept it. The premise turned out to be wrong, but another clear and present danger loomed. And that's why we are still there. <br><br> Any candidate who says we'll be out of Iraq in X days is lying just as Nixon lied about having a secret plan to get out of Vietnam. I would rather have a candidate be honest and say "I see no quick and easy way to get our troops out of Iraq." It's a bloody, violent culture. The tribes have warred for years. It would be as if America were run by the various mafia families. We are in the middle east. We will be in the middle east. And it's not anyone's fault we're there except a bunch of nutball terrorists who *want us there!* <br><br> Now, IF NOT what you were getting at, please elaborate so we can clarify this in a non-foaming mouth manner. <img src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif" alt="image"><br><br> Let see if I can get somehow back on topic now.... <br><br> Erm... My dad is dead, so your dad could probably beat him up.... That was mentioned. <br><br> Uh, let's see.... Oh, yeah I think the killer cop should be executed. It's a moot issue now, though. <br><br> Just like WMD----&gt;Terrorists. This thread has moved from it's initial premise to something much deeper and more introspective. <br><br> Finally, give Andy a break. I hear playing hockey without a helmet has bad side effects. <br><br> Just kiddin ya, bud. Keep treadin' water. Keeps the ice from refreezing around you. <br><br> Joel.</blockquote><p> Joel! With all due respect, Al-Quaida never ever was in Iraq until the US re-invaded (Big W left tid-bits for Little W) Saddam hated and had no connectionto Al-Quaida. The US presence in Iraq is what drew them into that picture. This was the plan, to create a battlefield on someone else's turf and not thatof the US. We also know that the #1 reason is to secure a foothold in the Middle East for economic/security reasons based around oil. Someone mentioned otherreasons! One more thing, if in the minds of the American people the US is over there fighting the good fight, I think that's not totally true. If youdefend Kuwait's right to exist (and not just so you guys can have access to that light sweet crude that blows itself outta the ground under pressure) thenyou must ALSO fight for an independant Kurdistan nation. If you don't know, the Kurds are an identifiable ethnic peoples who want their own land andcountry and not be subservient to and oppressed by someone else. They want to be independant. Fight for them too instead of against them. You also mustremember all the evil little dictatorships the US supported in order to get resources from like Chile, or several Central American countries, and without adamn for the peoples of those countries. A political scientist friend of mine used to tell me from first hand knowledge what the effects of attacks by the USsupported Contra Rebels on innocent civilians and 'Subsistence Farmers'. She and some of her colleagues from, CUSO I believe it was she is affiliatedwith, saw first hand . Hideous! And for nothing more than the US's desire to have cheap coffee and bananas on their cereal in the morning, courtesy of theDOLE company, and all in the name of keeping out Communism. I understand the Monroe Doctrine/Hemispheric Domination, and don't really disagree anymorethan a homeowner in a decent neighbourhood who looks out to make sure the neighbourhood stays decent, but what was goin' on there in the '80s underReagan again was nothing short of war crimes by proxy. The Contras for example would let the cotton farmers grow their cotton and harvest it. Onceconcentrated, the Contras would swoop in and burn their entire crops and kill anyone who got in the way, children included. These people only wanted to farm,subside on their crops and live in peace. The US is like England or Japan in the way that, neither of these countries can or are willing to sustain theiroversized populations from the resources to be found internally. They've gotten too fat and demanding, and now find themselves in a panic, like obesepersons run out of food and now find themselves bullying the other kiddies for their Twinkies! Japan need not study whales in the name of science when wereally know all they're lookin' for is to satiate their appetites for a tasty delicacy. If they can't feed themselves without causing whale speciesto go extinct, I'd say they are TOO FAT!!!. Same with England, and the US not to mention other countries. TOO MANY PEOPLE with TOO MUCH GREED! And believeyou me, Canada is not immune from this either. It's just not to the point where it's the imperative to clobber the next guy and take his stuff, and ifI get my way, it won't!!! Andy<img src="http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif" alt="image"></p>

Oh and to get this thing even further off topic i would like to add that the notion that the war in Iraq is about "fightning terrorists""freedom" and "finding WMD's" is a total load of bull. Even Bush has publicly admitted thats not why we went there after he convincedus all the war was about bringing Al Quida to justice. The truth is we were going to invade Iraq either way. 9/11 was just a unexpected kickstart to things anda quick route to getting all of us to jump on the *censored* Iraq bandwagon. And whats the deal with blaming Clinton exclusively for 9/11? Ok blame him butwhile your on the track to playing the blame game go ahead and condemn Bush as well. I mean if it was so damn obvious 9/11 was going to happen the why the helldidnt the all knowing Dubya do something? Theyre both dumbasses and thats a fact. I always love how people say "ooooo he's evil he caused the wholeproblem! So and so is sooo much better cause he started an invasion and confronted the realities." WTF? If so and so was so much better why the hell didhe let things escalate any further until we had the damn wackos flying planes into buildings? Yeah thats confronting reality alright. Confronting it all theway until they smashed jets into buildings killing thousands before unleashing the mega revelation that it was known but it was the other guys fault. I dontgive a damn who's fault it was. The balme game is for children and not our nations leaders. Point is it was known about and he did nothing so therefore Mr.Bush is equally as worthless as the man who had office before him. Im tired of these dicks playing their little games for their own benifit while realAmericans pour their effort and lives into keeping peace in an area thats just never going to be peaceful.<br><br>I have no problems with war (im joining the military after all). War is a necessity to keeping order and balance. If it wasnt for war there would have neverbeen a US Revolution and we'd still be sitting under a tyrannical leader (we kind of are anyway but thats another topic) What i have a problem with is whenfolks get lied to and we wind up fighting for the interests of a few. In 2003 we were told it was about "eliminating an immanent terrorist threat"and "bringing the tali ban to justice" it became clear there was no "immanent threat" in Iraq. Then we get told its about "bringingDemocracy to the Iraqi people". You know what i dont give a rats ass if they have Democracy! Call me un American or whatever the hell you want to but icare about whats happening in our own country and the real threats it faces (like when we get attacked) and bringing those to justice that orchestrated theattacks (Osama Bin laden). Not some half cooked up idea that Saddam had WMD's and Iraq is some sort of Nazi-esque juggernaut thats going to sneak into ourhomes and kidnap our families. No thats a damn waste of time.<br><br>We know the real man that caused 9/11 and yet he's free to run around in his crap ass caves like a coward. Because somebody else felt it was more importantto "give Iraq Democracy" (make money). Yeah thats important! Oh and now were told our mission "is to secure Iraq from insurgents" What?Great were being told in a nutshell our mission has gone from one of hunting down the responsible parties in 9/11 to simply not letting things escalate anyfurther than they have in a war that has nothing to do with the original objective. WTF? Great were in the middle of a damn civil war now! Yay! We havefighting all around and our guys in the damn middle of it with nobody other than us giving a rats ass about them. This is the thanks they get for bringingDemocracy to that cesspool? Yeah that was worthwhile. Give em Democracy and then run for cover while they fight it out with you in the middle. Screw Iraq! Letthem blow themselves off the face of the earth. Just get our people out first.<br><br>You know its 100% correct that we cant withdrawal now. Bush has cooked up a big enough $hit storm in Iraq that theres just no damn way we can leave withouthaving further festering of terrorist cells. Which BTW were heavily concentrated in Afghanistan pre-operation Iraqi freedom. But someone thought sending aground invasion to Iraq and capturing Saddam was more important. So hooray they all scattered like the cockroaches they are and have split into so many groupsits damn near impossible to eliminate the threat. Yeah it is true prior to invading Iraq we surrounded Afghanistan and sent in Afghani rebels and some specialforces units but thats about it. We treated the real source of the problem like it was no big deal meanwhile we got suckered into pouring all our resourcesinto capturing Saddam that had not a damn thing to do with why we were told the reasons for the war. Point is we should have laid siege to Afghanistan like a madman after cocaine. But we didnt because of other peoples interest. And now people that i know, thousands of young men and women, me, and maybe even mychildren will someday be going over there for years to come trying to clean up the sea of crap that has resulted from other peoples personal agenda. Theres noeasy end to whats going on over there. The worst thing is its the fault of a few that will never be held accountable while the rest of us try to fix theireffin mess. But thats life.<br><br>Now hows that for getting off topic?<br>

<p> Star Trek, science fiction? Yes that too, but it was a very political show. The Federation and the ideal, which is not unlike that of the Constitution ofThe US, was embodied in that show and in Kirk, and in context to a multi-cultural society, and in spirit of what the US once was, and was seen to be, andmostly still is! Yes! Take WWII for example and America's valiant effort at stopping a tyrant, typical Star Trek scenario! I've not anything againstkilling someone if you really absolutely have to, but I don't believe in killing someone once you have them contained in a cage. That speaks to thebarbarism in the self. I realize this ideal was being instilled in us, it wasn't just any ol' TV show. Sure they had tasers and killed people withtheir mammoth weaponry, but only in defence of the good against overwhelming odds and as a last resort. They never executed anyone, nor handed anyone over whomight realize such a fate. I really always thought as a kid growing up that that's the way society was programming us to be, through shows like that. Itwas the way I'd want my society to be, and in reality, conducted myself accordingly. I always saw theUS that way or most able to be! Us too, Canadians thatis, and we are! Their society was advanced not only scientifically, but psychologically too! It's the diff between the animals and man! Not Off Topic!It's about the death penalty. I put the topic into the bigger context, there was a big discussion, there were toes stepped on, the overwhelming vocalresponse was for the death penalty, so I guess the RLOL concensus is that the DP for this particular person Rob asked about is unfortunately death. Now mybeing part of a democratic society calls on me to abide by the rules and reluctantly go along, vocally. Lucky for him in reality, he was spared.Andy<img height="15" src="http://redlinesonlinemessageboard.yuku.com/domain/bypass/images/pacman.gif" width="15" alt="image"></p>

Wow. If anyone else needs coordinates to aim fire, I'll grab my GPS and give 'em to youl.<br><br>Yes, the US is trying to bring democracy to the middle east. I'm against it. Leave 'em be. The sooner we get away from foreign dependency on oil, thesooner they can get back to their 7th Century tribal squabbling and nobody else giving a crap what's going on in the sand. They were nothing before oilbecame valuable. They will be nothing after the value of oil fades.<br><br>Think about this: Al-Quaida is a faction of factions. The cells each have their own leader and each one wants to be top dog of the pyramid scheme. If we killbin-Laden, then all those factions go in a zillion different directions and all hell breaks loose around the globe as each cell leader tries to impose hisdominance. Leaving bin-Laden alive as a central figurehead leader keeps the terrorists in an MO that the opposing forces can defend against.<br><br>Kuwait was a nation. Kurdistan is a province. If Kurdistan establishes full independence (beyond the KRG), then the US can recognize that independence andmaybe even send in troops to maintain it (if it so wishes). Otherwise, not the same thing. Close, but not quite. Since oil is the only reason the US is overthere, it would stand to reason that the US would fight to make Kurdistan an independent nation, force them to be a democracy, send in our military, andprotect it from the likes of Syria, Turkey, and Iraq.<br><br>Uh oh. Hope Bush doesn't read this board.<br><br>Now, I'm not saying that either Clinton or Bush is responsible for the Taliban/Al-Quaida actions. That's possibly the worst argument anyone could make.But I am saying that the way each one handled the agression is important to the current state of affairs. Yes, we have soldiers dying in Iraq. And yes,innocent Iraqis are caught in a maelstrom. But from my perspective, the violence is contained in the region that fosters the violence. It isn't beingspread world-wide. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. But I prefer to have bin-Laden cowering in a cave than orchestrating global terrorism.<br><br>We can argue about what was right and wrong until we're blue in the face, but unless someone whips a time machine out of their pocket, it doesn't servea whole lot of good. (And if someone does whip out a time machine, take me back to 1971 and don't ask how I got all those MOMC 442s.)<br><br>What the next course of action will be is an important discussion. I don't want the US to be in the middle east any more than anyone else, but I also canaccept reality. I know that there is no easy answer to the issue. There's no X-days to get out as the Democratic congress has tried to impose. I also knowthat Obama has even suggested invading Pakistan. Do we really want that on our plate as well? I think not. I'm not especially up for the Bill-ary dynamicduo again (sorry TexKitty). And I'm not especially pleased with McCain after the Illegal Immigrant Amnesty crap he supported last year.<br><br>I give no free pass to Clinton because "the economy was good."<br><br>I give no free pass to Bush because there's no reason to.<br><br>Joel.

Ya Know, all this new found wealth and resouces in Africa, which is quickly drawing in all the resource hungry superpowers, just might make Africa the wildnew frontier where the superpowers will war by proxy! Could even be the place of the next big showdown...............'Battlefield Afrika'! <img height="35" src="http://sshare1.familylobby.com/icons/icon_popcorn.gif" width="35" alt="image"><p><br></p>

Yay! I succeded in running this thread even further off course. I think i might just trump Bush for most irrelevant actions ever for my contribution to thistopic.<br><br>Nobody can ever give me a legitimate reason why it was acceptable to leave a concentrated known threat alone. But perfectly acceptable to go after Iraq. Youhad the bulk of those maggots in Afghanistan but we were lax because we were told that the real threat was Saddam. Why? How does that make sense? Thats aboutas stupid as killing a single child molester when theres a whole NAMBLA convention going on down the road. Then you shrug your shoulders when you cant figureout why they fled the convention center and scattered into smaller factions and children start vanishing. Same scenario with Iraq. We pissed in the puddle whenwe coulda just taken a big ol leak in the ocean.<br><br>Leave Osama alive? Why? To keep terrorists from taking further terrorists actions out of retaliation? That makes sense. We let him mow us down on 9/11 and thenwe become his biatch out of fear? Im sorry but taking that sicko off the earth is the best thing we can do. Saddom was captured tried and executed. What aboutthat? All the scary capabilities/connections he supposedly had that were going to backfire on us as a result of executing his sorry butt never came to be. Nothats just a lame excuse to protect the image of people that screwed up and dont want to look like dumbasses.<br><br>And finally there will always be folks that hate the U.S. You will never and i mean never rid the world 100% that hate us. Its impossible. All we can do iscapture and execute those that harm our nation directly through terrorists actions. Let me be 100% clear on what im saying. You cannot defeat terrorism! Itsimpossible. Terrorists are not like the Nazi army. They are a vast group that fights through random attacks on civilians and avoid military confrontation atall costs. You fight a losing battle when you try to wipe them off the earth. So kill the ones that wronged us and call it a day. We cannot have our right topurge a scumbag be held hostage by our fear of retaliation. Thats the real victory terrorists have right now. Thats why they haven't hit us since 9/11.They have us living in fear and THEY LOVE IT! Im not gonna live in fear. Id rather be a target and go down fighting then a biatch that cowers in fear. Thats noway to live.<br>

Ya know! Talkin' death penalty,........no matter what kind of savage Saddam may have been, I still would have spared his neck. I think that's more ofa strength than a weakness! And about the US jail population. I heard on CBC radio last night an interview with some official from Tejas where she was talkngabout reform down there. She said that amazingly enough, the US not only has more in number of prisoners, but also a higher per capita imprisonment rate thanChina! That is incredible considering their population is 5 times that of the US. I wonder what it is. Is it fear of death penalties and your organs being soldor made into stir<img height="25" src="http://mmb.maverick.to/images/smilies/stirthepot.gif" width="25" alt="image"><img height="15" src="http://redlinesonlinemessageboard.yuku.com/domain/bypass/images/pacman.gif" width="15" alt="image">fry, or is it that they have a society that's morerespectfull of each other like in Japan, or really a lot of Asian countries. I don't know, but somethings goin' on there. Andy<img height="15" src="http://redlinesonlinemessageboard.yuku.com/domain/bypass/images/pacman.gif" width="15" alt="image"><p>Prison Population per capita in US roughly 1/100. In China 1/500<br></p>

hey, i bought groceries today...let's talk about that!!!