I don't know. I just can't imagine even the US justice system to be so broken that sham trials akin to Stalin's are possible.
I don't know. I just can't imagine even the US justice system to be so broken that sham trials akin to Stalin's are possible.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Really? I see cases in the news all the time that demonstrate myriad manipulations of the system by those with whatever means on any side of particular issue. There are web sites dedicated to tracking and documenting such things.Originally Posted by CornedBee
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
Then perhaps I'm just naive ...
All the buzzt!
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Wow. So many hopeless posts on such a boring thread!
USA is just too complex...
First of all, in Estonia the president doesn't have much power (signs the new laws only). He just represents the country. President is elected by the parliament (101 members), which is elected by people. There is not much debates and stuff going on with president election, because the president just needs to be a honorable, reasonable and experienced person who could represent the country and know what's going on.
The parliament and ministries have the real power. The good thing about the president having no actual power is that then he is always highly respected. The debates and advertisings you have with president elections, we have with global elections (I don't how it's called exactly). BUT, there's an important difference in our society. The word "democrats", "socialists", "liberals" have almost no meaning here. Pretty much every party agrees which the "core of the system" should be like. Usually we have together in parliament about 6-7 parties. There are some parties with certain views of life (like the Green ones), but mostly they are generic. Every party usually makes one important campaign promise (for example lowering some kind of taxes, or, as one party did last year, promised to finance a bridge which connects the main land and our largest island) and lots of little ones. Parties are usually selected by three things: trustworthiness, campaign promise and by the people they represent (it's not liberals or democrats, it's Estonians or Russians).
About the Bush and Iraq. What I think is that at first, Bush was sure that Iraq has some mass destruction weapons which he thought would've been used when USA does something that Iraq doesn't like. He couldn't let that happen, could he. So he invaded Iraq. But no mass destruction weapons were found. But then the muslim terrorists started blowing themselves up there and Bush decided that he needs to assure the safety of Iraq, so there won't be another Afganistan. No it's been a long long time and Bush thinks he has almost finished his task. I've seen some press conferences of Bush and I can say that the man believes what the man says. So, he can't just quit it now. It's like Cancelling a download on 90%. Compare the terrorists (or lack of security) with malicious bacterials - if you don't kill them all, they come back stronger than ever.
What I can say, is that disrespect and insults against Bush are highly disgraceful. I would never ever try to insult a politician. There are more civilized way to express your criticism.
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
Estonia sounds like a nice country.
I think the American people are justified in insulting Bush. The situation in Iraq is not a simple as he and the administration would like you to believe, there were other underlying motives (oil). At first he claims that they are trying to remove WMD's, but none were found. So why are we still there? According to Bush it is because we need to free the Iraqis, so we took out Saddam Hussein. But Iraq was not ready for the democracy that we forced upon them. So now were are there to fix a problem that we in part created. And why would we choose to liberate Iraq over any other country? The Sudanese have it pretty bad.
You also must understand that terrorists are reacting in response to the invasions. Read this.
Gentoo Linux - 2.6.22.1
GCC version 4.2.0
Insulting our elected government officials is within our right. It's also within our rights to fire their a s s e s in upcoming elections.
Iraq, was a mistake, period. No Wmds, and the only other country estatic about Saddam being dead n' gone is Iran. Ruthless rulers are sometimes required to keep a chaotic and sometimes violent society in check. I don't condone his brutality, I simply understand it.
As far as reasons for still being in Iraq, well that's obvious. Miscalculations. Disbanding an entire military and policy force, inept puppet governments. And of course, we cannot forget that the reason Iraq now is a haven for terrorists is because of the war. We created the perfect environment for them to flourish inside of.
Until you need the president to mobilize the army to defend it's citizens from Russians burning the place down.
The Democrats authorized the war. As such, they supported it. If it's so obvious Bush lied and the rest of the charges the Dems like to spew, and that the Dems were somehow misled and not just too stupid to realize what they were voting for, and that now currently most people want to cut and run, then the votes would exist to end the war. They don't. The war continues because Congress fears the will of the people with this issue. Case closed.
Since when does the U.S. Congress pay attention to what the American Public wants? Near election time?
..... and everyone was misled, not just the Democrats. I'd also like to see which poll you've used to substantiate the claim that the public backs the President's failed war policy. And to get to the heart of the nut here, you don't destroy terrorism by blowing people up, you must change the conditions conducive to the rise of it.
I don't know, but it was nice to see them fold on the immigration bill after getting hounded on it.
It's one of the few issues that I actually have seen liberals and conservatives in the US (not in Congress, I might add) agreeing on an issue so strongly.
I hope you include Bush in that. If I remember correctly, the 9/11 Commission Report stated that the intelligence services failed to serve the President adequately before 9/11. I doubt they did a much better job with regard to Iraq only a few years after 9/11. Based upon the intelligence everyone had, I think Congress and the President both made the right call to start the war. Apparently the Dems got the same reports. If they weren't able to read, or chose not to, then blaming Bush over it is really a pathetic way of avoiding personal responsibility.
Since the question itself is quite biased, and you ask for a poll to find a supporter of something deemed "failed", I'll just point out that the President enjoys a better approval rating over Congress. Congress' approval rating is at an all-time low.
Overall, I think this signifies the dissatisfaction in general with the situation in Iraq. People want some fix for the situation in Iraq, and yet they know it's not likely to come. In terms of people's views of Congress, the conservatives aren't happy with the Dems in control and launching all those investigations that lead to nowhere, and the liberals aren't happy that the Dems haven't managed to somehow end the war. Hence, no one loves Congress.
In terms of the President, I think everyone wants him to pull out an Iraq Fix out of nowhere and manage to succeed and get everything over and done with. That's not likely to happen, either, but I'm happy that the war is over in Iraq rather than in Manhatten. Sorry if I'm a little selfish, but it makes sense.
The conditions you speak of are the so called holy men of the islamofascists that want to take over the world and create an islamist state according to their view of what islam is. Their message is one of hatred and disgust for the world.
As further proof of this being the cause, I'd like to point out that suicide bombings by islamic terrorists were not very common prior to the 90's. In the 70's they used to hijack jets a lot, and blow them up, but releasing the hostages was not necessarily a strange thing for them to do. Since this was getting no where, they switched strategies. They worked on brainwashing the next generations on how important it was to perform suicide bombings, and now we have this problem in the culture mixed in with other items.
Look at what they're teaching the kids now! Hamas had some Mickey Mouse character that in the last episode got assasinated by the "Jews". And then they introduced some character that I think is supposed to be a bee that says he'll take up the cause of the dead mouse guy and wants to eventually give his life to fight the Jews.
What I suggest we do is blow up the guys preaching the message. If it's so wonderful to die a death this way, let's give it to them that preach it. If they can get on al jazeera or wherever else and say they're willing to die, let's make it convienient to do it, and let's stop letting them tell this to the kids.
Could you put that in a more biased way?
I also see you are keeping 'on message' with the 'cut and run' phrase.
If Iraq having WMD was a problem, why did the US not stop selling WMD to Iraq after the massacre of Kurds in 1988?
Sen Riegle’s report in 1994 found 771 shipments of precursors for WMD to Iraq from the US between 1985 and the first gulf war in 1991. (inc Anthrax, Sarin, Botulism, Gangrene…)
During these shipments it was well know what Sadam was doing with these WMD (using them on Iran and the Kurds, with CIA intel to target the attacks).
Bush snr knew that Iraq had used these US supplied WMD on Kurds in 1988 but kept sending Iraq WMD [last confirmed shipment by the CDC on 29 Nov 1989].
http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html
Here is a list of the biological agents shipped to Iraq
http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html#exports
I think you should look at some history to understand WHY these people are willing to give their lives to spread terror in the US (rather than blaming it on a religion).
Try looking up Orlando Busch Avila, pardoned by Bush snr. I suppose he is a ‘freedom fighter’ and not a ‘terrorist’.
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
So the lives of the Iraqis are worth less than the lives of Americans?
Please correct me if I'm reading that wrong.
M.Eng Computer Engineering CandidateB.Sc Computer Science
Robotics and graphics enthusiast.
I would rather the military is fighting the war out somewhere else than having American policemen, firefighters, and civilians experience another 9/11 on their own soil. The military is made up of men and women that have decided to put themselves in jepordy so that others don't have to. It's somewhat unfortunate that the Iraqis are in the middle of this war, but we can't change that.
On the subject of the Iraqis: Does the coalition do them a greater service in staying or leaving? Leaving means Iran will be free to put their claws inside the country, just like Syria has been doing to Lebanon. The insurgents will be there anyway whether we stay there or leave, but hopefully we prevent more terrorist attacks on our own soil.
If my view on this is not very palatable I'm sorry, but I think it's a better view than those that wish Saddam was still slaughtering them. If you've got a better solution, I'm willing to hear it.
If we're going to fight on their soil, the least that could be done is offer better protection of civilians, who have nothing to do with what's happening, and maybe stop all the pointless raids of Iraqi homes.
Islamic extremists were already mad for what they feel we've done to them and their countries. How is staying there shooting at them going to make any difference?
M.Eng Computer Engineering CandidateB.Sc Computer Science
Robotics and graphics enthusiast.
