ParanoiA

If you're going to need any money, they will play a part in it. They'll want a product or something to show for it. Just pointing out that America, being the superpower, is the world's scapegoat for its problems and that success is rewarded with contempt. It wouldn't matter if all of our time and money and manpower went into it - somehow we did it off the backs of the poor, or unfairly held somebody back, somehow. So it doesn't matter who puts the most energy and money into making Mars habitable. Somehow, that effort will be erased when it comes time to divy up the goods...

I still want to know if terrorism is an issue or not for the left. Why are the republicans coming up with the ideas (mainly bad ones) and democrats are not? Is it a non-issue for liberals? I can accept that, I just want to know if that's the case, otherwise I'm at a total loss as to why the dems have nothing to offer the country in the way of security.

MAD only works on countries of people who are afraid to die. That's why I said "Allah will receive them". They don't care about death the way that we do. It is VERY plausible that some political figure like Osama Bin Laden could romance the people similar to Hitler style, to sacrifice or risk their country's existence to stick it to america, or your country or both, in one glorious nuclear effort. That's not very far fetched in the least. How far was Afghanistan - psychologically - from that kind of attack? If they had nukes, how much you want to bet they would have launched them when we invaded them to get the SOB and his network that killed our people? And where would they have launched them? Israel is always going to be a target, even if they're not directly involved in whatever issue is heating up. You can spin it all day, but you know damn good and well that America is not going to nuke a single country unless it was last resort - and I'm not sure that resort even exists given our military might. You think Australia is worried about getting nuked by America? Brittain? Canada? Mexico? The only countries worried about getting nuked by the US are countries that deserve to be worried about the US - the ones sponsoring the terrorizing of America. Yeah, they believe it - they don't legislate it. Never have. Remember? We left the country that tried to do that...you're still there. But, we don't worry about your nukes either. You guys are pretty stable. Even though you joined us in an "illegal" war. These countries live and quite literally die by those beliefs. They legislate it. They enforce it. They punish for it. They kill for it. They are the epidome of religious rule. Don't pretend we are the same. That's propaganda. Why are those things stupid but nukes are not? We are at war. Period. Why the hell would I want a sworn enemy (that has attacked me for 2 decades before I even started fighting back) to have weapons to keep hypocrisy, consistency, fairness in check? That's why I used that analogy, because that's the reality. It would be silly to promote the weaponry of my enemy. This is also why we don't want them to have a deterent. When you let them get nukes, then they can keep you from invading. Sounds fair right? Until you think a little deeper and consider the fact that they can harbor terrorists indefinately without fear of reprisal. They can sponsor terrorism openly, threaten any nation, call for the mass influx of terroristists - openly set up training facilities and protect them - because no one can invade and stop them since they have nukes and will threaten to destroy every Allied country within reach - namely Israel. I can live with hypocrisy...

Because the US, the greedy capitalists, will have unfairly held the rest of the countries back while they did all the development themselves. The american empire, which knows no limits, now wants to drain the resources of yet another planet. The great america just can't get fat enough. Just a thought...

Nicely put. This is what's bothered me about the whole "terrorist" label as well. We get these reports on the news about the surge, and other military operations, where certain numbers of "terrorists" were killed. Like they're all running around with black hats that say "terrorist" on them. I've often wondered if part of the problem is the generation of white haired dudes in the military seat right now. It's like we're so conditioned over the centuries for wars against nations with armies, that they reduce the complex nature of terrorism to that which they're more comfortable. They want to see uniformed enemy combatants in a field with no innocents. Sometimes I wonder if they can truly get their heads around this kind of conflict.

Yeah, cuz all those dead people you just glossed over in your analysis don't mean anything right? Fear is not valid because you'll still have plenty of people left over right? Sure, I'll donate a percentage of the US population just so we don't look "hypocritical". When you understand why John Wayne Gacy can't eat at my table with a knife, despite the hypocrisy, then you'll understand why Iran, Syria, North Korea - and any other nutcase state shouldn't have nukes. Out of context, no. Within the context of whether or not the US should stop Iran from getting nukes, it most certainly is. When I read your points, I'm picturing my army on the battlefield. Dak thinks we should stand and accept fire, rather than run and take cover. Because that would be hypocritical to shoot them, but not let them shoot us. Dak also thinks I shouldn't blow up their tank manufacturing facilities, because that would be hypocritical to keep them from building tanks while I build all I want. Or did you not realize we're at war? Are you waiting for a formal declaration from shiny shoe salemen looking politicians? Can you not see your neighbor hates your freaking guts and supports, financially and emotionally anyone who kills your people? Are you so insecure and emotionally unstable that you think it's actually practical to "mend" your relationship by allowing nukes? I'm sorry, but we only get one life. I'm not gambling mine, my wife's, my kid's and my countrymen's lives on the off chance that maybe they'll like me if I don't interfere with their nuclear ambitions and perhaps they'll never use them on me. Dude...nothing that has happened in the last 30 years suggests, in the least, that they will not use nuclear technology to kill mass amounts of people. Really, take a step back, drop the ideology for a minute, and really think about what you're saying.

Haha..yeah, because as everyone will agree - whatever the nationality of the terrorist is OBVIOUSLY the nation responsible right? yeah, that's way smarter than GWB...I'll bet the enemy never thought of that one...

Same difference. You're holding ideology above the reality of the situation. Fairness, hypocrisy, consistency - all quite relevant on a civilized playing field. That's not the field we're on. Your obsession with consistency can very measurably, plausibly end with the death of thousands, millions of people - that didn't have a say so. People that live next door rather than hundreds or thousands of miles away. If Jesus comes back and rules the earth, THEN we can talk about consistency since we have a higher authority to appeal to. But, international politics is cut throat - no higher authority, no mommy or daddy to fix things for you if you screw up and no do-overs. It just takes one nuke in the wrong hands to cause the greatest catastrophe the world has ever experienced.

Not true. The democrats will wave them in and GWB will give them amnesty. No one will check them or their boat for weapons since that would be racial profiling...

What makes you think they didn't? It's you guys that want them to pull out. The military folks (the experts in war) say they're not ready to pull out. Sounds to me like they have quite the idea of how to pull out, and it isn't time yet. Maybe you should consider someone other than yourself...like the Iraqi people. I thought liberals were always fighting for the little person. I thought liberals despised the "selfishness" of conservatives. I guess that's only when money is involved. People are expendable?

Yeah, I'm not sure why this isn't front page stuff here in the states. I've been keeping an eye out for it, but I've had to dig to find anything - weird. Honestly, I thought Britain would have declared war by now. Mainly because I think the allied powers would love to just trample over Iran. I'm glad they haven't, but I wouldn't be surprised if this blew up into an armed conflict of some kind. I'm half tempted to take the liberal approach on this just to prove a point - that the Iranians are just trying to protect themselves in the wake of so much negative opinion concerning their nuke status and Britain helped to create this animosity due the illegal war in Iraq. The Iranians are to be sympathized with and the Brits to be put in their place. But, that would be fake. Iran is a spoiled child in the form of a hostile state. I think they just want attention and to showboat for their people. Someone here at work mentioned the Iranians want an admittance of guilt so they can hang them.

Do we all have the same size nations? Same amount of food? Same amount of money? Equal imports and exports? We don't do we. And why do you suppose that is? Because we're all trying to SURVIVE dude! It's hypocritical that I should have more land than you isn't it? The fact I would fight to keep my greater portion is hypocritical. This is not about fair, Dak. It's about survival. Yes it would be really fair and stuff to allow them to develop nukes. It would also be incredibly stupid. Who's going to hear your cries for fairness when they use those nukes? Because they're not worried about destruction of themselves - Allah will receive them. This, to me, is a classic example of ideology supersceding pragmatism.

Completely untrue. Sisyphus, tell me you're not blindly defending the democrat party here. That's why I repeated, they are pushing through legislation right now. They just pushed the non-binding resolution. They were bragging about the first 100 hours or whatnot. They have no problem making policy. Yes, GWB will veto it, but it doesn't stop you from coming up with solutions - or at least it better not. I'm not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to these jokers, just to sit around and wait for a democrat to become president. I'm not talking about disagreements anyway. I'm talking about ideas. Where's the ideas? Why is only one side coming up with them? That's what I meant by asking - do you all really think it's a big deal or not? It's as if the left really isn't concerned about it - which would explain the lack of ideas and motivation for change in lieu of terrorism.

Not sure I get your answer. Are you saying the lack of interest in pushing through legislation by democrats is because of a republican in office? Or are you saying that the ideas get shot down becuase of a republican in office? Or something else? The democrats are on a fast track pushing through legislation right now - some of it directly to do with Iraq and war funding. So where's their solutions on terrorism? Where's their ideas of how to keep 9/11 from happening again? Since it meant so much to them to drag GWB over the coals about it, where is the resolve?

I think they like it because it will satisfy the cut and run mentality. They're really not concerned at all about the lives at stake or the responsibility our country has for those lives - it's all about getting out. Selfishness and ignorance.

I finally figured out, at least partly, why I get so frustrated and confused with the left concerning terrorism. The POV's taken by republicans and the administration, the Iraq war, prisoners of war, racial profiling, wire tapping - all are met with fierce opposition. But, it's not the opposition that bothers me. It's this shrugged shoulders approach to terrorism that bothers me about them. It seems obvious to me that if republicans and the administration weren't going after terrorism, that no one would. As if, declaring war on our country almost 30 years ago and following through with various bombings over the years just isn't really an issue to the left. Further, that these terrorists hide within nation states pretty much seals the deal - "there's nothing we can do...oh well...that sucks...". Further still, that these nation states seek nuclear status and "we can't be unfair or hypocritical, so let them all have nukes...". For the record, do most of the anti-war folks just not see terrorism as a big deal? 9/11 is a fluke? Or do they feel we deserve it? Capitalism is getting its due? Again, I'm not looking to drudge up the same old Iraq war arguments, but rather why is it that one party is coming up with the ideas (good or bad), and the other party is just shooting them down (for better or worse)?

Zombies will wipe us out before war will. It's poetic, makes neat bumper stickers for you car, or works as an Oliver Stone film...but it's not realistic. Humans will not wipe themselves out. We will die from the inability to adapt to changes in environment. Isn't that pretty much how the previous hominids got wiped out?

Yes, I know, all of them ran against Bush, even though Bush wasn't running for anything. And Al Queda. And Iran. And Syria or whoever else feels like nabbing a chunk of oil producing land with any half assed army at their disposal. These power junkies are justing waiting for you to leave. If you leave before Iraq has a formidable defense, then you have successfully ousted their leader and handed them over to a different tyrant. Great job. If you leave when they're ready, and listen to the experts on warfare, then they might have a fighting chance. Interesting. You chose the "anti" technique to reply to a question about the poor Iraqi people....making my point for me. Thanks. See what I mean? The focus is on fighting Bush, proving the republicans and the administration wrong - NOT on doing what's right. Screw the Iraqi people right? When anybody asks about those poor victims, just redirect them and remind them that the republican technique was "taking the fight over there, so it doesn't come over here". That makes it ok to act just like GWB and friends and screw them over - and continue to ignore their plight that you have caused. Gee...I'm so proud to be an american...

That's what I'm talking about. Why hate him? I seriously don't get it. Do you think he hates his country? Does he make the decisions he does because he wants to destroy America? Did no one vote for him? Come on man. No one has beaten this enemy - no one. But you're going to give GWB the personal hatred treatment? You may not like his decisions, but they were advised by advisors and supported by voters - about half. Whether you agree or not, I don't see any sense in the rage. I have a feeling some of you GWB haters are the same kind of people that would yell at your wife for getting you the wrong present on your birthday...

Well, wait a minute, what happened to listening to the experts? Mokele and others have pointed out, during GW debates, that scientists are the experts and we layman should listen to them. That having an "opinion" is rather insulting. Well, the military experts do not recommend a withdrawl date. So why aren't you all listening to them? Why are you discussing opinions on this matter? You aren't experts on warfare.

Now that's a logical answer.

Then you refinance to a fixed rate, take another equity hit (if it will even appraise high enough) and you learn. A lesson learned in life. The whole ARM thing is stupid for any "typical" homebuyer. They are told, via the truth in lending statement and the payment schedule what the terms of the loan are. This is not hidden in lawyer verbage or "the greedy capitalists" shrinking the print so they don't know - it is actually said "out loud" in plain freaking english that in two years your payments will be subject to a NEW interest rate. It will fluctuate up or down. How many in here really think it will go down? That's right...because we're not stupid. We don't live in denial and self chosen ignorance. Let me ask you this bascule...what kind of idiot spends thousands and thousands of dollars - makes the biggest purchase of their entire life, and doesn't even understand the ARM? Hey, I agree, the lenders are greedy capitalists just like you - taking advantage of the stupid. But, I have a hard time giving them an out because our culture is dumbed down with "pop" culture focus that spends hours watching American Idol and 5 minutes on home mortgages...

You're not serious right? Because they carry a cardboard cutout of Bush, then the conservatives have no choice but to welcome them into the fold? Well then the fact that ANY liberal, not to mention several prominent liberals, go even further than a cardboard cutout to promote this "Secret" means it is obviously a liberal faction. They are in your fold. Go ahead, welcome them, don't be so intolerant like conservatives... Michael Savage is an idiot, so I don't listen to him. I think most conservatives are dissappointed with his immigration stance. Other than that, I'm not sure who's calling him liberal.

What does Jesus Camp have to do with conservatives?

But wouldn't you agree that the right to hire and fire at will does not grant elevation above the law? IE...If these firings do have something to do with stopping investigations to protect guilty republicans, shouldn't that be questioned and exposed? I'm not saying that the democrats are legitimately pushing this mess, I think it's trumped up to continue the chaos theme. But, their motivations only matter to a certain extent. At some point the administration needs to prove themselves - whether they deserve to be obligated to or not. The checks and balances are legitimate, regardless of intent. I respectfully disagree. I do think it's mainly anti-bush policy. Because one thing I've learned about my country's government, politics and power trump all else. The war in Iraq, terrorism - all take second place to the power struggle. How is setting a timeline for withdrawl good for Iraq? How is that good for those poor people? How is stifling war funding good for our troops? None of these decisions are good for anybody other than selfish democrats. Those in this country who don't care about the mess in Iraq want to pull out and leave them to fend for themselves...just like last time. Break their house down and then leave because we can't seem to fix it in a timely manner. What a noble position that is. But that's not how it's described is it? No, no. It's described by using comparisons and "anti" ideology. We're going to stop Bush's war. We're going to pull out of Iraq and bring our soldiers back home. We're going to cut Bush's funding so he can't afford to wage war anymore. It's misdirection by using Bush as the polarization point. Instead of looking at the little people, the Iraqi common person just trying to get by in their newly war torn country courtesy of America - left to go rebuild it and fight for survival amidst the power struggle of brutal warloards and oppressive neighbors that we, again America, have left for them. Kind of like how they want to "go after" corporations and big business (like Wal-Mart) here in America, while stepping on small business owners struggling to make it. I believe much of the democrat agenda, and indeed much of the country, is content in anti-republican / anti-Bush agendas. Forget about the little people and the common man that used to be their focus - they can be stepped on as long as your sights are on countering conservatives.