This could be bad I support the "War on Terrorism". I do not support our policy on Isreal. This would be why. It needs to stop. We MUST cut off ties with Isreal until they end this. Peacefully. Leave the Palestinians alone.

could be bad? it IS bad. it has BEEN bad for decades. it WILL BE bad for sometime to continue. Israeli evildoers

Proponents of "Terra"

Aren't the israeli's and the palestinians fighting over who had rights to the land? I mean one claims it because of the bible and another claims it because they were there? Frankly I don't think we should have any part of a war in another country where people are fighting over something religious, or property rights. It just plain isn't any of our business. I don't feel we have any business aiding either side, because that would be getting involved or making a statement as to who should have what and why. I think we should just leave them alone. The more we butt in the longer it will take to have something come closer to a conclusion.

"It just plain isn't any of our business." for the love of humanity im glad your way of thinking isn't leading this country. this isolationist, turn the other cheek mentality is dangerous to the rest of the world. as a super power who meddles in other countries affairs its our business whether we like it or not. its our business because our leaders like to sell Israel f-16s and Apache gunships. We can't call for peace and then send them a boatlod of weapons like we do.

tactical nukes.....will solve it one way or another

i think the f-22 would fit nicely into Sharon's war chest *HACK* *COUGH* *WHEEEEZEEEEEE*.

damn competition. well there's always the Sudan area.

So if we don't send them boatloads of weapons, or better yet, if we never had, wouldn't it be a different situation altogether? That is my point. We may be a "super power" but why do we have to meddle in other countries affairs? All it does is bring about trouble. Why bother unless we are being directly threatened? Don't get me wrong. I don't have major issues with human aide it 3rd world countries, but I do have issues with selling bombs, guns, missles, etc. to other countries. It isn't like we need to help their wars in order to survive. I just don't see why we have to be so damned nosey. We need to work on our country before we decide to run the world or tell them what to do. If you and your neigbor were fighting over property lines on your property why on earth would I who lives in Texas get involved? Your problem is not my problem. I may not be running the leading the world. I don't want to. But how, by the way, is NOT GETTING UP IN THE WHOLE DAMNED WORLD'S BUSINESS dangerous? Isn't butting our nose in where it is not needed or wanted equally dangerous? Why do we have any business getting involved in a war, which is not our war, and is based on religion? Yeah, we're a world power who can't mind our own business, so that makes it allright to sell weapons to other countries and line our pockets in the name of their war and we won't ever have any repercussions? I don't buy this for one second. Remember I am not a humanist. I am glad to be as you call it, an isolationist. I am also sure, that I am not the only one who feels this way.

Patrick, I thought you oppposed the US intervening in other countries affairs? Calling abstaining from the Isreali-Palestinian spoiled brat "you-stay-on-your-side-of-the-room" fight isolationism does not fit your usual motif. We should not be on either side, period. Let them fight over who gets the bigger part of the sandbox, and stay the hell out of it

"but I do have issues with selling bombs, guns, missles, etc. to other countries." how do you think they pay to bomb the fuck out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Kosovo etc.? Unfortuantely we've been toying, terrorizing, meddling, creating puppet regimes, training death squads and terrorists world over for years, so indirectly we have caused many or at least been a catalyst to much of the shit going on in places like Israel, Iraq, Columbia and in the past in places like Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia etc. You can thank assholes like Reagan, Bush Sr, for laying many of the beds we are currently laying in. clinton did his fair share too, but you inherently harbor angst against him anyway. Isolationism is dangerous for the rest of the world...your lack of humanity and the arrogance possess prevent you from seeing that.

I tried to thank Ronnie, but he doesn't remember a thing.

trace i have no idea what you're talking about. im opposed to the US terrorizing other countries. im opposed to american unilateralism. im opposed to US fighting a so called war on terrorist when one of our biggest allies is doing the very things we cite as terrorism. let me ask you this trace, when do "terrorist" become "freedom fighters"? whats the difference between the KLA and the PLO? How about the Northern Alliance and the IRA?

Depends on if you are in Kosovo or Serbia Palistine or Isreal Afganistan or New York Ireland or London Fact is, there are almost NO countries/governments on earth, besides maybe the pygmies or Canada, that are not somehow involved in another countries politics. Period. Austrailia might also be an exception. I think the Brit's should relinquish control of any other countrie other then their own.

Again, Patrick, how is my view dangerous? You say my arrogance won't let me see it, then put it out there. And just because we have been doing something (ie training terrorists as you say) does that mean that we have to continue to do it? Again, if we didn't do it, there wouldn't be these repercussions, would there? Thank you for proving my point, or at least stating it in other terms.

If the neighbor of your sister knew about the possible abuse, but did nothing about it, claiming it wasn't any of his business, what would you think of that? Is it alright for himt o be an isolationist? How about that woman who was raped and killed back in the 1960s in NYC, in front of a residential block full of witnesses, and nobody did anything to help? That's isolationism. Welcome to the modern world, trace and eri. Isolationism is no longer valid.

And sticking your nose into others affairs gets a plane rammed into the world trade center. and when everyone asks WHY? The response is "Because we stuck our nose where it did not belong". Some here even said that. So, do not be an isolationist, but do not stick your nose where it does not belong. Leave Melosovich alone, leave Afganistan alone, but, what, bomb isreal for attacking the gaza strip????

The world is complicated. There is no black and white. There is no right or wrong. We have good policies, we have bad policies. Iraq has bad policies, and I am sure they have good policies. England has good policies and bad policies. Innocents do not desevere to die in (insert nation name here)for the actions of a few, but the few should not go unpunished.

Then maybe we aren't quite as isolationist as you think. If someone was being hurt right in front of me I damned well would say something. That doesn't apply. Heard the story in school. Doesn't apply to us. The neigbors didn't do anything. They fought when we tried to do something. The hospital is who reported it. They are required to by law. If he was saved, should I blame the neighbor for not reporting her? D.F.S. didn't even look into it when I reported her and the neighbors knew that. Again, this example is not valid to our beliefs. I guess, if I throw around a label Patrick puts on me I should know more about it. Then again, maybe he should know more about me before he repetitiously uses the label.

your opinions here regarding foreign policy are isolationist eri. i don't need to know anything about your personal life to make that conclusion. Sticking our nose where it doesnt belong trace is a bit of a pickle these days. You can be assured though our purposes for getting involved are almost always strategic with some sort of "national interest" in mind be it control of natural resources, placing satellite military bases in certain areas of the world or ousting leaders who know longer fit into our strategic scheme of things. The reasons for getting involved almost never have anything to do with humanitarian purposes. If we were so concerned about the people under brutal regimes like Iraq or the Taliban, we should be going after our good pals the Saudis, Egypt or Columbia as they are some of the worlds most repressive regimes. But they are all sucking our strategic cock one way or another.

Patrick, I find myslef in the unhappy predicament of agreeing with you. With the sole exception of Isreal, the only time we step in is when something we need is threatened. And we turn a blind eye to the things our "strategic" partners are doing.

On this I agree also. Again, I am not against humanitarian efforts to help when we can. I am just saying we don't need to line our pockets with others tragedy and strife. In that we need to butt out. If our reasons for being involved were humanitarian and not selfish, it would be a different situation entirely.

Test case scenario... There's a small country. For years they've been under the control of a larger totalitarian regime. Thousands of small country people have been died or been forced to work as slave labourers. Finally they get to vote to be independent. The nasty totalitarian regime doesn't like losing their little neighbour. They send militia into the little country for a nice killing spree. Thousands die because they're completely defenceless. What should America do?

Need more info. Does America have anything to profit from sending troops down there? i.e., any place to set up Starbucks or Tower Records? Or is it just a god-forsaken piece of rock?

This is besides the point, but.. why should America be the only one to do anything?

Wouldn't the U.N. be involved first? I think their reactions to what was happening would be something to consider. Also, would our means be purely humanitarian or is one of our precious natural resources at risk. Obviously something would need to be done, but it isn't black and white. Life today is more complicated than that. What exactly would these poor people need? Military action, clothes, food, medicine? Where do we actually aid? Or is it that the country is oppressed but not necessarily poor and they want to buy arms? More info necessary.

Oh never mind. Go back to your blah, blah, blah, you said, she said crapola.

The answer is obvious: We need to get a Wal-Mart in there.

Heh Czarina. Funny girl. You know, I was talking about East Timor and the reason that came to mind today is that I was there. And today I heard that Daniel Pearl was killed in Pakistan and I was there too, just a week before him. Somehow all those facts are coming together in my mind and I'm wondering why media people bother going to these places if no one is really listening or caring. I read so many arguments on the board where people already know what they think. You don't need facts from people who are there to inform you. You already know it all. I don't care what side you're on...isolationist or war mongerer...pacifist or "bomb them till they shit shrapnel"...everyone is wrong. We're wrong as soon as we say "I'm American" or "I'm Afghani" or "I'm a Christian" or "I'm a Muslim". Because that's the real mess here...people sitting around deciding other people deserve to die, or to be left to die, because they're not part of our "I'm". Anyway, Daniel Pearl got his throat cut. And he was one of my "I'm".

Cat, As a reporter, you probably see a lot more then myself. You get to see "the other side". I see our side and that is it. I see how the military reacts and I see how paranoid it is. I also know human nature. Out of site out of mind. If you do not see it, you soon forget it. If they are not blaring it on the tv everyday, it slips the collective conscience quickly. Human nature is to igonore that horrible thing that has happened and go back to sleep. For a breif momment, americans woke up to the horrible travesty that is happening in the world, but they began to whine about it being shown to them daily because they had to pay attention to it. now they are going back to sleep again, and saying "ah, who cares, what's the score on the game? is my stock still down?" This world will never be sane until there is no more "My, Us, Them, Our". We will never be OK until we truely become one race, not African-American, Irish-American but Terran. Am I making any sense? Religion and race pride will continue to tear this world apart. Wars, famines and disease will continue to plague the earth. And religion will keep us from uniting. Because the bible says that hell will break loose when we become one world, when we put aside petty currancy and religious differences. Hell really must freeze over before we move ahead.

(Correction: I'm not a reporter. Not any more anyways. But it's probably close enough.)

Oh, ok what do you do now, if you do not mind me asking?

International phone sex operator. 1900-CATGASM. I'm also a casual with Mossad. My designation is to kill all those who can't spell the name of the country, yet like to pronounce what should happen to it. What was your address again?

Your House 123 Afghan lane Litter Box, Afghanistan

Cat, I do understand what you were saying up there, and you are right. I do need to become more of a humanitarian. I do need a better understanding. I would like to learn more. My mind isn't already made up. I have always believed that we are people, whether we be of the same race, religion, etc. I enjoy peoples differences. I respect others differences and different experiences. I am truly sorry that you lost a friend. I think it would be wonderful if we could find a way to move on from the I'm and be terran. I just don't have the faintest as to how that could happen. There are so many changes that the world needs to make before we can even devise a usefull plan, that I wouldn't know where to begin. Then again, who would be in charge of the world? That would be scary to me. You are right, though. It is time to drop all of the titles and take a good look at what is going on around us.

it was meeeee

well assrape me with a chainsaw eri!!!!!! i thought about you cat when i learned of Mr. Pearl's fate. Im glad you said something. Though it comes with the territory, and there have been many other reporters killed in Afghanistan recently, this case is particularly poignant...for some reason. I just finished reading Chomsky's 9-11 today. Trace, Eri, everyone, I want to share with you an answer he gave to a questions from Greg Ruggerio and Michael Albert thats relative to Cat's question about East Timor. If you don't know who he is Trace, he's a world reknowned linguistics professor at MIT known for his indepth and extremely critical takes on American foreign policy. you dont have to accept any of this, just give it some though. Question: Prior to 9-11, the Bush administration ws being fiercely critiqued , ally nations included, for its "political unilateralism" -a refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol for greenhouse emissions, intention to violate the ABM treat in order to militarize space with a "missle defense" program, walkout of the racism conference in Durban, South Africa, to name on a few recent examples. Might the sudden US alliance-building effort spawn a new "multilateralism" in which unexpected developments-like progress for Palestinians-might advance? Answer: Its worth recalling Bush's "unilateralism" was an extension of standard practice. In 1993, Clinton informed the UN that the US will-as before-act "multilaterally when possible but unilaterally when necessary," and proceeded to do so. The position was reiterated by UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright and in 1999 by Sec of Def William Cohen, who declared that the US is commited to "unilateral use of military power" to defend vital interest, which include "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources," and indeed anything that Washington might determine to be within its own jurisdiction. But it is true that Bush went beyond, causing considerable anxiety among our allies. The current need to form a coalition may attenuate the rhetoric but is unlikely to change the policies. Members of the coalition are expected to be silent and obedient supporters, not participants. The US explicitly reserves to itself the right to act as it chooses, and is carefully avoiding any meaningful recourse to international institutions (UN), as required by law. There are gestures to the contrary, but they lack any credability, though governments will presumably accept them, bending to power, as they regularly do for their own reasons. The Palestinians are unlikely to gain anything. On the contrary, the terrorist attack on 9/11 was a crushing blow to them as they and Israel recognized immediately. basically, we'll do what we want, when we want, how we want to get what we want, and the rest of you can suck our American cock.

Interesting read, and it seems to follow truth

You should read more Chomsky then trace. For the record, I thought Cat was talking about Nicaragua, not East Timor.

cat...i was thinking about your question. its not the first time i've thought of such. look at what happened to Russia when a lot of the provinces seperated...yet one in particular...Chechnya has become a sticking point. Kosovo, Yugoslavia? Taiwan? East Timor? Texas? What should America do? What should Australia do? There was finally a concession to Australian pressure to send in peacekeepers to East Timor. Supposedly there were threats to Suharto from Clinton that if he didnt chill the fuck out, he would get it like Milosevic and Hussein "got it" It's grand, lofty and desirable to think these matters would yield to a greater way of thinking, that borders don't really matter, and we could dice up the world a million ways to one, to give everyone their independence and totalitarian regimes would not longer be relavent. but... it just doesnt happen that way.

Patrick, that is the second time in the past week you have mentioned a chainsaw up your ass based on something I said. Just wondering How does the chainsaw feel? I am afraid I didn't understand a lot of what that said. I think I got the jist of it for about the first half, but then I was lost in the language. Multilateral vs. Unilateral. I understand the multi vs uni part but I am not understanding what is meant by these terms. another phrase that got me was attenuate the rhetoric. As my old boss used to say that I got lost in the phraseology. I think I understand the point, which seems to be a valid one, but I am not quite sure.

an example of unilateralism in American policy would be the fact that we are condeming countries like Iraq, Iran, N. Korea and China for developing, and selling arms. Even of nuclear, chemical and biological nature when we, ourselves have done and continue to do, all of the above. Just today and yesterday Bush & Co. were trying to get China to stop selling arms. Yet the US is the largest arms dealer in the world, Isael, Turkey and Columbia being some of our biggest customers. Both Israel, Columbia and Turkey have used American made weapons to commit terrorist acts against people within and outside their borders. Turkey slaughted the Kurds, Columbia just started their war machine using Blackhawks and other American technology against insurgents in their country. Israel, as we know, is slaughtering Palestinians with Apache's and f-16s. mulilaterism, in essence would be the opposite. Practicing what we preach in other words. "....form a coalition may attenuate (LESSEN) the rhetoric..." eri, this sucker works pretty well. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm

GOD BLESS AMERICA! (all others suck our cock) yes, has a nice ring, very direct but where we going to fit it on our flag.

O.K. I understand now. Makes a lot of sense on a lot of levels. I do think we (as a nation) really need to work on practicing what we preach. Especially when it comes to the sale of arms.

What the hell is this about? http://www.asile.org/citoyens/ numero13/ pentagone/erreurs_en.htm again, cut and paste. FUCK YOU GATES!!!

it's jobs, you yeti freak. you're using a frickin' mac. http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm try this on for size, sem: http://bbs.sorabji.com/livewire/stalk/links.html

and by the way, up there patty & eri- unilateralism is used to indicate where the US (or another country,) acts alone. if we decide to attack iraq by ourselves, we are acting unilaterally. if we act with a coalition of other countries, we are acting multilaterally. as defined in m-w.com. patty. you dumbass.

Interesting. Actually, very convincing. The pentagon released footage finally yesterday, and Here they are.

Oh my god

Those pictures don't convince me of a plane, at all. It looks like the explosion was on the ground floor. And how is it that the explosion goes out where the plane went in, I mean wouldn't the fire come out the opposite side? That is like punching your window out from the inside and saying someone outside broke in. Any guesses as to whether or not we will fight for frickin Bethlehem now? I still say, it is a religious war and not our business to be involved. Anyone feel like explaining why we should be involved in this new nightmare?

we already are involved. our taxdollars are being used to terrorize children. this worryized me: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-030902bombs.story

i too, saw that in saturday's paper at angry sams house and just about shit my shorts. i maintain, this man is making the world more dangerous, not safer.

"Since the Clinton administration's review is also classified, no specific contrast can be drawn. However, analysts portrayed this report as representing a break with earlier policy." 1. Why is Clinton's administration's review, the right one, considering we don't know what it is? 2. Wouldn't a different person in office make a break with some policies? 3. If we don't know what is in either one, then why is it necessary to automatically assume it is evil without any information other than speculation? It drives me nuts to see that speculation against Bush is right and justified, but the same against Clinton is just plain wrong.

While your questions aren't necessarily offbase I have a couple of thoughts for you. First, notice the article said this: "U.S. policymakers have generally indicated that the United States would not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states unless they were allied with nuclear powers. They have left some ambiguity about whether the United States would use nuclear weapons in retaliation after strikes with chemical or nuclear weapons." based on what analysts can tell and what the article leads us to believe, Clinton's review took this point of view. What is different and potentially more dangerous with Bush's review, it seems, is that they cited specific countries as potential targets. THATS the problem. While Clinton's report MAY have cited specific targets, all indicators say it was left more ambiguous. Bottomline, Bush is in office now, not Clinton and what Clinton's report may or may not have said doesnt really matter now because of that fact. There's no speculation here about Bush, the LA times obtained portions of the report and to them, its pretty cut and dry. Focusing on why they appear to give Bush more shit than Clinton is really beside the point Eri.

in a follow up article in today's LA times...Defense Department officials including nitwit doublespeaker Condaleeza rice saying that this report is "all about deterrence" and that its a "prudent policy examination". The difference and the alarming sense of danger eri in the report from the Bush administration (as opposed to the undisclosed, and now irrelavent Clinton review) is the fact they are citing non-nuclear, non-biological, non-chemical weaponized (is that a word?) countries. This is a dangerous shift in policy that could affect weapons policies world over, making the world more dangerous.

"based on what analysts can tell and what the article leads us to believe, Clinton's review took this point of view." This is again conjecture. "There's no speculation here about Bush, the LA times obtained portions of the report and to them, its pretty cut and dry." Based on "portions" which would be incomplete information, which is exactly what you bitch at me about, making beliefs on bits and pieces of information, but not having the whole. "While Clinton's report MAY have cited specific targets, all indicators say it was left more ambiguous." Without having access to Clinton's report this is again conjecture. Indicators are not fact and again based on partial information. "There's no speculation here about Bush, the LA times obtained portions of the report and to them, its pretty cut and dry." I wasn't talking about the paper, but the people here on Sorabji. "What is different and potentially more dangerous with Bush's review, it seems, is that they cited specific countries as potential targets. THATS the problem." But it is allright if Clinton does (possibly) the same thing and is just more ambiguous about it? Especially considering he did this under a "peace time" and Bush does it at a time of "war"? This is what I mean about a double standard. What is good for the goose is only good for the gander if the gander is ambiguous? Preparing for use of something and actually doing it are two different things altogether. Until facts are made fully known, and not portions of them, I don't see any point in passing judgement. Wouldn't the threat of nuclear war scare you into thinking twice?

"Based on "portions" which would be incomplete information, which is exactly what you bitch at me about, making beliefs on bits and pieces of information, but not having the whole." Um, no Bush administration official is denying the report or its contents. um eri, there comes a time when you DO have to form an opinion you have to leave the security of solid concrete factual information and form an opinion based on what you believe. Thats all I ever ask. In the past, you didnt even have background information on the topic. Its like making an opinion on school vouchers without even knowing what hell school vouchers are. It had nothing to do with conjecture. "But it is allright if Clinton does (possibly) the same thing and is just more ambiguous about it? Especially considering he did this under a "peace time" and Bush does it at a time of "war"? " It doesnt matter NOW. You're missing the point here Eri by paying so much attention to "well what if it were Clinton?" crap. It doesnt matter. He isn't president any more and regardless of what his policy was Bush has made his own and Bush's policy is making the world a more dangerous place. Eri, in case you didnt read the follow up or watch any of the Sunday addresses by Bush officials on the various news programs, the article appears to be right on, no one is denying it, so i think its a perfect time to pass judgement. I don't believe in the idea of nuclear war as a deterrant anymore than i believe in the idea of the death penalty as a deterrant. Its a bunk argument with little foundation or examples.

"I don't believe in the idea of nuclear war as a deterrant anymore than i believe in the idea of the death penalty as a deterrant. Its a bunk argument with little foundation or examples." We are still here, aren't we? no one has dropped a bomb since wwii, have they? seems to work for me. I think twice about killing eri's sister because I dont want to die in the electric chair. There is an example. "Eri, in case you didnt read the follow up or watch any of the Sunday addresses by Bush officials on the various news programs, the article appears to be right on, no one is denying it, so i think its a perfect time to pass judgement." Umm, did you watch it? They have been talking about this possibility since at least november. It's called contigincy planning. being prepared. worst case senerio.

"He isn't president any more and regardless of what his policy was Bush has made his own and Bush's policy is making the world a more dangerous place." Have you ever heard of what happens when you assume?

eri im familiar with the cliche. I encourage you to pay attention to the present. Trace its well documented, despite your irrelavent position, that capitol punishment does NOT deter crime. Trace, making the argument that nuclear deterrance works based on the fact that we are still here is no basis for any argument. Thats absurd. "It's called contigincy planning. being prepared. worst case senerio." Trace, who the fuck are you going to nuke if we are victims of more terrorism? This line of thinking is also absurd. What was mentioned in the LA Times is entirely different than the conversations about preparedness and worst case scenario planning from months ago. It was front page news for a reason.

I am up to date on the present. I have been educating myself much more in the past couple of weeks than at any other time in my life. I even know how to read. "What was mentioned in the LA Times is entirely different than the conversations about preparedness and worst case scenario planning from months ago. It was front page news for a reason." Exactly how is it different? Why is it "front page news" if not for the obvious? Are you too paranoid about what ifs to see what is right in front of your face? A compliment for you Patrick. You are the master of spin.

"Trace, making the argument that nuclear deterrance works based on the fact that we are still here is no basis for any argument. Thats absurd." So is saying "I don't believe in the idea of nuclear war as a deterrant .... Its a bunk argument with little foundation or examples." The two statements cancel each other out. As far as my "irrelevent" position on not wanting to commit murder for fear of capital punishment due to "well-documented" studies. Don't you work in the real world? Most "Studies" or "Surveys" or "Market Research" is just flat wrong. I promise you, my little nay-sayer, that I am not the only one who is, according to you, stupid enough not murder some one for fear of the electric chair. If you think I am, you are really, really full of your self. Because for some reason, you have this half baked notion that if it is your position, then it must be the right position, or opinion. The media that reports these study findings or survey results or poll statics are just as bad as you. I don't know very many people that lived around us durring the lewinsky thing that even thought it was no big deal, or thought he was doing a good job for the economy. most of them were saying "hey, I wasn't polled". But, I expect you to say something about the back waters area I lived in and the uneducated slobs around there. I can tell you, honestly, that Patrick you are not the definition of "Informed Citizen". You are not the template for how this world thinks. and people who live in the NY or LA area are not automatically more educated that people in the KC or SA area, I promise you that. Thank god!

So, Trace, if Eri's sister was in a state with no death penalty, would you go there and kill her? Is that your only deterrant?

He wouldn't be able to kill her. He wouldn't know her, because she would have already killed me before he had the chance to meet me. She did try it a couple of times. In the end she feared the death penalty because she didn't know how to kill me and my grandmother and not get caught, so she stopped trying.

eri....pay attention. The article cites: "The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments." THATS how its different. Fer fucks sake man...its different than any kind of talk of nuclear power since the Cold War. It cites a shift in nuclear policy since the cold war. Trace you're not even making any sense.

can someone please tell me what the hell the UN has been doing lately about all this? Are they all on vacation? Have they said ANYTHING? I know they're rather inaffective but come on, somebody's got to try to talk down your redneck leader. Seriously, what are they doing? Sitting on their fat asses somewhere thinking: "oh, check it out Bob, the U.S is going to war with all these countries, and i think they've got a hankering to whip out that huge nuclear cock sometime soon." "That's nice. Hey, pass the sugar?" wtf And also, how can they call it a 'war'? there is NO fucking war. A war requires 2 (count em' two) armies. There is only ONE army here. It's like ants vs. people.....

This is not a conventional war like the wars of the past, army against army. That was apparent from the start. "in the event of surprising military developments." Is this a direct quote? Can we trust this statement or is it summarized from something a bit more specific? This is what I mean by incomplete information. Patrick, this is getting old. All I hear anymore is blah, blah, blah. Sometimes, your dribble can be excruciating. You have already made up your mind before you have all of the facts. I am paying attention, but I will not make any decision until I have all the facts, not just newspaper tidbits.

"Is this a direct quote? Can we trust this statement or is it summarized from something a bit more specific? This is what I mean by incomplete information" If you were paying attention you would know the answer to this question. If you read the article, which you imply you did, you would know that answer to this. This isnt newspaper tidbits we are talking about here. We are talking about published military policy that no one in the government is denying. Its right THERE in black and white. Wait for the facts (Godot) if you like, meanwhile the rest of the world is moving on.

c'mon wisper... like you've never declared war on ants. the bottom line is that we're doing the right thing. it took me awhile, but i've come to that conclusion. these are tough choices to make. choices that most liberals (obviously) wouldn't have the spine to make. innocent people will die. what we need to do in ensure that the fewest of our innocent people die. that is the bottom line. protect our own. the idea that people are basically good is false. the idea that by treating people well we can remove or even reduce the threat of terrorism is false. everyone has been afraid to fuck with us. now they're REALLY afraid to fuck with us. good for us.

i need to say nothing more

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The terrorists are conspiring to pollute the precious bodily fluids of the American people. Kill em all and let god sort em out!

I couldn't agree more Sir. Yeah we'll do out "best" to minimize collateral damage...*hehehehehe* especially when we get the nuclear green light!!!!

great come back, patty.

i goofed on that last post. i meant to sign off as "Major Poop". great comeback to my great comeback natty

i always knew nate had a sweet, vulnerable side.

keep trying patty. burp up something with substance and i'll respond in kind.

you seem terribly uptight and cranky nate. despite what you may think, i don't post to meet any standards of yours.

"despite what you may think, i don't post to meet any standards of yours." Of course not. You are waiting for us to conform to your standards.

i am not a victim of terrorism. i am a survivor of suburbia. bush is not my president. he is a stupid monkey-faced rich boy that has been deemed a hero by his country because he attacked afghanistan after the "attack on america". i'd be pretty darn scared if i were in another country and saw tons and tons of american soldiers around me. i'd be afraid for my life and for my family. i would want them out, because it's hard to find the person inside the uniform.

"the bottom line is that we're doing the right thing. it took me awhile, but i've come to that conclusion. these are tough choices to make. choices that most liberals (obviously) wouldn't have the spine to make. innocent people will die. what we need to do in ensure that the fewest of our innocent people die. that is the bottom line. protect our own. the idea that people are basically good is false. the idea that by treating people well we can remove or even reduce the threat of terrorism is false. everyone has been afraid to fuck with us. now they're REALLY afraid to fuck with us. good for us." Exactly what I have been saying since day one. Kill those fuckers to PROTECT OUR OWN. Bottom line. Nice to see a little loyalty around here. About time and way over do. Yes some innocent people will die to ensure our safety and to those who have died to protect our own, I say thank you for your loyalty and for looking out for our future. To those whose lives were taken by those fuckers, they know they're being defended and that their deaths didnt go unrecognized or uncared for. I remember being called all kinds of names and being bashed for defending my country but thats ok. I have, and will always continue to stand by my beliefs, opinions, patriotism, and most of all, my country. All this horse shit about having to be educated in order to form opinions and beliefs is just that....horse shit. Dont matter where your from, how much education a person has or hasnt received. Anyone, even the common fuckin' idiot knows what those fuckers did and that they MUST pay the consequences. Lets see 'em fuck with us now. Bet they, and anyone else will now think twice.

I say protect your own and I am called an isolationist. Anyone else says it and you don't say a thing. Patrick, you are a hypocrite.

So many victims, so little screen space.

im not a hypocrite, i'm just not engaging nate and his idiotic statements that i tend to believe he is baiting you chatter monkeys with. and if it isnt bait im not still not engaging it because its such a contrast to nate's positions prior. this talk about "taking care of our own", "lets seem em fuck with us now", this John Wayne Americano bravado, this "if they weren't afraid then, they sure are now" idea is not only dangerous, its similar to the kind of nationalist rhetoric of nazi germany. YOu think the Palestinians are more afraid now with Israel's harsh reponse? No dumbass, they are just more resolved, dug in and determined. You think the "evil-doers" are more scared now? No they are just more determined to inflict greater damage. shit im engaging...... YOINK!

i must be god. people no longer read what i say. they read what i wrote and interpret it to fit their own worlds.

Bait or no bait, kidding or not kidding, who gives a flying a fuck. It was said and I agreed with it...dumbass. Ya know Patty, YOU are the biggest chatter monkey here. Your all over the place claiming to know everything about everything and putting people down who dont share your thoughts. Sucks to be you. Share this thought..I called you a traitor from day one and I meant it. Try worrying about your own people for a change. FUCK the middle east crap. You and your breaking news CNN e-mail alerts can bite me. As I've said before, you and all the bullshit that comes out of your mouth has become very "TIRESOME" to me and I'm not gonna lower myself and start the same ole fights with the same ole words and the same ole name calling etc...etc...etc...your not worth it. try "engaging" in some vocabulary other than retarded things like "YOINK" very immature and very unbecomming.

blah blah blah, spin spin spin, says the hypocrite who is unwilling to acknowledge his own actions. Patrick, when you say one thing to condemn someone and then do the same thing yourself, or praise others for doing the same thing, that makes you a hypocrite. It doesn't matter if you put spin on it to make yourself feel better. You are still a hypocrite. Glad to see your true colors. Dani, congrats on not entering the name calling contest. I am impressed. There is the Dani I used to know!

Well actually Eri, I appreciate the compliment but I entered the name calling contest long time ago and now it's old and boring so I just dont feel the need / desire to go there again. The Dani you used to know defended herself, said what she had to say, and didnt drag it out for 6 months. All I did was call names and fight and all of the sudden, the same things are being said over and over again. So why bother. My honesty has always been a problem here but...like I care. I say what I gotta say and I aint a pussy about it. Thats all. No biggie. I dont play both sides of the fence just to get someone to perhaps "like me more today than they did yesterday, or last week, or last month." I say what I feel and stick to it. I dont need to go do a whole shit load of reading and watching and listening to develop my own opinions...or perhaps all of the sudden change them. I see whats in front of me. Plain and simple. Whats in front of me right now is the fact that we are not safe from them until they are eliminated. The more fuckers we get rid of now, the safer we are in the future. It's not a John Wayne Americano bravado thing ( BIG OLE SUPER DUHHH ON THAT ONE PATTY) it's common sense. And I do believe that when this is all over and other countries have seen what we've done to defend and protect ourselves, they wont be so quick to attack us.

Play nice you two. Daddy doesn't want to have to get out his paddlin' stick.

Jeez Dougie, If I werent so exhausted right now, that whole Daddy with the paddlin' stick thing would have turned me on.

Ooh, do tell more...

I need a good paddling!

I've been saying it all along....Tatical Nukes...no more Mr. Nice Guy...

Looks like the plans are to plan for your contingency. Eventually you just might get your way!

Mornin' wood paddlin'?

Got some nighttime wood paddlin' last night. Not up for another this morning, maybe later today!

i hear Home Depot is having a sale on sand Eri, Dani, Trace.

I hear Wal-Mart has toys in the infants section to stimulate brain activity Patty.

HA! nothing personal, patrick, but that was funny.

sure agatha...rally up the other monkeys why don't ya.

oh and eri...clearly you were deprived of such toys, perhaps you'd like to shop with me.

nice try Patty, but it didn't work. You forget I am raising two geniuses and have had all of these things for a long time. Actually I have had them since my own childhood when I was in the different genius programs available in Cali. You're going to have to do better than that. Of course, I do have some you can borrow.

what was the remark about sand about? you think we have our heads stuck there????

You ARE the weakest monkey Patty...goodbye. See, if your imagination was half as good as mine, you would have thought of some very good uses for the home depot sale on sand. But I dont expect you to actually think. I just expect you to be you. BORING. Better you than me. Lighten up. Dont be such a dick all the time. For fuks sake, I'm still wonderin' about Dougie's paddlin' stick. Bet it rocks. Yeah. No doubt. Patty has potential but he's to fuckin' stuck on himself. Loosen up. develop a cool attitude. God I really cant stand you. Wanna get a room?!?!?!?!!?

Wonderin' about my paddlin' stick, that'll get you a paddlin'. Fightin' with Paddy, that'll get you a paddlin'. My paddlin' stick is an awesome sight to behold. Now excuse me while I go paddle my paddlin' stick.

Such valuable treasures (the paddlin' stick) should be shared. Not kept a secret. Fightin' with Paddy wont ever give me a paddlin'. The paddlin' belongs to you and only you Dougie. You are the paddlin' God. The paddlin' King. The paddlin' master. Share the wealth.

Patty hasn't said anything for a while. Once the tables turn on him, he goes quiet. Does that mean that he can't stand the heat? I am sure that in his self righteous mind he feels like he won't dignify these remarks against him. Patty if you can't stand the heat, well at least you got out of the kitchen.

will you at least bite my ass? the conversation has become mundane. i wouldnt consider the comments of dani and eri "heat", would you? its been well established that going back and forth with the blockhead known as dani is futile. eri and trace have become tiresome. otherwise no one else is talking, thats why i've gone quiet bitch.

blah, blah, blah. Good comeback there Patrick. Calling someone a bitch and asking them to bite your ass shows real intelligence.

You mean people still use the word blockhead?? You are such a nerd. I always knew it. Dork boy.

uhm.....guys? it's words. On a screen. seriously. remember what Cat said about running in the Special Olympics + debating on the internet...

hey wisper did you get my email? i've actually switched from hotmail because it was sporadically eating outbound messages, if you didnt, email me here