Saryctos

I can see the logic behind the US being seen as an unstable world affectign entity. With so much as a shift in the gongress from majority republican to majority democrat can have a massive wave effect through policy changes towards the rest of the world. Mostly i link this to the fickle voter base, and partisan hatred resulting in rhetoric made to undo any changes the other party makes during their majority leadership roles. Being the nation in position to make the large effects globally it would be better for a more stable government. This is a poll on stability not prosperity, however I'm not truely sure if that is what the wording infurs* to others.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686 WMD are not the only reason for the war, but it is the most popularized due to the ability to argue against it.

That is a key example of the harm caused by socialist influences on the american economy. Why give up free money?not many people can do it, so everyone stays poor, hey they get to blame the rich for their problems, and gov't officials are trying to get them more free money and don't have to work for a penny of their government aid. Why do the reservation still exist? well obviously someone is beneffitting and like Silkworm said, they are their own nations, so its not like you could force an integration without an invasion, and that just isn't happening anytime soon.

Like the "fact" that we went to war under false pretenses? assuming for a moment that it was indeed a "fact", how would that be a good thing? The concept of a plan that isn't publicized, yet you want to know it exists? How can you possibly rationalize that.

The armed forces can leave at the drop of a hat. I wish this terminology was never introduced into the mainstream as it is a worthless excuse for a 'point' that people like to make and point at Iraq as though we cannot just leave and require a strategy for doing so. Instead of making an exit strategy, focussing on what it takes for the success of the operations should be the main focus. The war in Iraq for the most part is over. What we have now is symptomatic of a peace keeping/humanitarian mission. Rebuilding Iraq while attempting to maintain stability is the key. The armed forces are done looking for fights, the fights come to them while they attempt to aide the establishment of Iraqi infrastructure. A viable alternative to a timetable? Something useful...Time means nothing in this situation. What we need are some guidlines for measuring progress. Rather than set an arbitrary date, it would seem that the situation warrents an assessment of what elements of the Iraqi police force are required before they can maintain stability unto themselves. Once we have an idea of what it takes for those elements to be errected we will have an opening for withdrawl. However, the advantages of keeping the american forces there to assist the Iraqis makes the turn-around time for the transfer of power all the easier. The longer the troops are there, the faster the Iraqi forces can maintain stability on their own. Leaving would stand to stunt the growth of the newborn Iraqi police forces and would make for a much longer time before a peaceful Iraq can exist.

Anything that effects time is a laughable excuse for lack of information.

The better question would be, what was the justification of those who killed 1% of the armed forces for doing so? As being a soldier does not necesitate* being killed. Just like in fluid dynamics it is not flow that creates pressure but the resistance to it.

I really don't think that congress should be involved in the strategy of military actions.

The solution I see is to take the sexual nature of state marriage out of the equation. Make it something of a contract between people living together. Generally this will be married people, but it offers the oppertunity for all people who live with shared income to have the same beneffits.

Illegal immigration, means no record of you moving. Noone knows your real name, noone knows where you are going, noone knows if you're a criminal from where you originated, noone knows if you have explosives or guns, noone knows anything about you. The idea that people want to close the country off, is foolish, very little to noone wants to stop immigration into the US. They simply want to stop unchartable, non documented immigration, as it should not exist in the first place. The rallying to defend an illegal process is rather mind boggling(/boggle). EDIT: I never really thought the BBC to be that US friendly anyways, I mean we did revolt against them =P

/boggle @ Sisyphus

I can see little to no gain from actually attacking America again. If anything it would be counter productive to what the original effect has created over the years. An attack on the US gives us another reason for the ficle voter base to feel as though there is still something more to be done. Where as an attack on a different country for "helping the US" serves to only create seperaiton between the two nations if not politically, then morally. The agenda I'm seeing is to drive the US into isolationism all over again. Taking away the ability of the US to act alone due to distrust fro mthe world community could indeed be an extreme goal of these terrorist entities. By making it seem as though the US wants nothing more than to eliminate the Muslim countries coupled with the distruct of the world community for anything it does, would put the US in no position to even glance at the middle east the wrong way. Orchastrating a rise to power for the middle east in such a round about, yet direct way seems like something that could be taking place. Yet, politics is the most enigmatic game of all, so this is all but a poke in the dark. for those who hate long winded posts, abridged*! 1) the US is in a position that terrorists like, so no bombings 2) by threatening other countries instead of US they stand to hurt the US without direct reprecussions* 3) orchastrastion of the middle east to power in the world community is their goal through the isolation of the US in the global community

If nuclear waste is radio-active, why is it considered waste, and not just less efficient nuclear fuel? It seems like a good way to reduce waste would be to combine it(smelting?) into more potent material and recycle it into a nuclear plant untill you've used it all up(or it becomes so inefficient that it's not worth doing). Also, I feel I should point out that nuclear, and carbon based fuels are the ONLY usable source of energy in this solar system, everything else is just a diluted form. This statement mainly points at Solar,Wind, and Geo-thermal. While people are scrambling over "the end of oil", why not look to the future and ask where we'll get our fuel from once we've devoured all the matter within this solar system? The problem here is just fundamental, we use fuels to generate usable energy, but then don't bother to harness that usable energy again. Conservation of energy should be our friend, not our enemy.

It's just another example of people from another country taking advantage of liberal friendliness and "tolerance", and I'm sure if ever a problem arises from the situation, they'll be the first ones to point fingers.

If you get somewhere faster than a light wave that left the same spot, you will only run into the light again. Time is not a thing to be manipulated, as it does not exist.

Not so much the response, but more the defensive policy that allowed for such a last minute dicision debacle*. When dealing with nuclear arms, you cannot wait until the moment where there is a problem, you have to position yourself so that problems do not arise.

It's that kind of policy that allowed the Cuban missle crisis to occur.

Time travel is impossible because it implies that time exists as an entity.

I don't really see how there can be a diplomatic solution to this issue other than the Iranian gov't changing their mind. Because If anyone tries to persuade them from developing nuclear material it will be with threat of force(militarily or economicly) or by buying off their will to produce such material. In the latter case, it will only show that to get stuff from the world you need only threaten to make nuclear material.

*deep throated grumble*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4871078.stm Is it at all possible that Iran already has the nuclear capabilities to deliver a multiple warhead missle through the ocean? It would seem strategicly viable to make a big stink about not being able to get nukes when a nuclear explotion goes off somewhere. It's not as though you actually require a test explotion first to have a working bomb. The technology is pretty available, especially to those with money that you could get it right the first try. The idea of delivering a nuclear attack through the water sounds so ludicrous and conspiricy theoretic, that to propose that Iran did so would make any nation seem frantic to point fingures towards the middle east and lower their credibility on a global scale.

Mike T, I sugjest you learn some basics about economics before posting another bizzare thread with questionable motives. Given the product prices of which you speak greed would mean nothing since their sales would be jack squat.

True 'dat

I remember watching an interesting bit on this topic a few months back on the History Channel. This specific case was talked about, and I found it to be interesting to say the least... http://www.englishfirst.org/elcenezo/elcenezoreuters81699.htm One of the few, if any(iirc) cities that have a declared official language, and it is declared Spanish in the border town of El Cenizo. On top of that they also have policy to hinder the immigration services in the area.