IceCold

Yes, IceCold is the account I use while at work because I frequently am forced to leave my computer before I'm able to view all of the new posts. As an admin and moderator, I want to ensure that I read every single post in these forums and the "New Posts" function is the most efficient way to do that.

I also enjoy a bit of latitude believing that people won't think that an opinion or comment expressed by IceCold is coming from an administrator/moderator. Not that I really censor myself too often, but sometimes it's nice to "let your hair down". I've been considering limiting my Sandbox opinion posts to only come from IceCold and my moderator posts to come from Cing, but I think that might not be worth the effort.

IceCold

You're wrong. WMDs were found in Iraq. As were chemical weapons labs. We just didn't find any of the stockpiles that we thought were there. The quantities were all small...
The situation is/was entirely different. Nobody else was in a position or had the inclination to do anything about Iraq. With Korea, the second most powerful nation in the world has a vested interest in controlling the situation. Top that off with the USA's somewhat shaky relations with this other superpower and you've got a situation that must be handled MUCH more delicately.
I guess most black Americans don't appreciate their way of life... Most black slaves were unwilling to take up arms against their owners and many didn't know what to do with themselves after being freed. A lot of them continued to work for their owners.

And the American Revolution isn't as cut and dried as you seem to think, either. There were British loyalists for years and years after the war.

TheFeniX

Unwillingness to take up arms against a ruthless tyrant because he's used attack helicopters to brutally slaughter fleeing men, women, and children (his own countrymen/women no less) != No desire to be free.

Cing's got it on the money with American slaves. But I'll add: Bush Sr. sold out the Iraqi Revolution back in Desert Storm. We marched in, stoppped outside Baghdad, then left them to fend for themselves. They were massacred.

Would you be so trusting if 10 years later the same guys came in and said "We're back and we promise this time we won't bail on you."?

I mean seriously, the Jews took it hard in WWII and so did the Japanesse American Citizens. Did the fact that they didn't start fighting back unarmed against men with assault rifles make them not want to be free? Hard to fight when you're just struggling to keep your family alive.

__________________

leejo

And precisely why the 2nd amendment is so strongly supported.

Buck Fush

Amen
needmorewords

DudeMan

so these japanese american citizens then, none of them gun owners, or is this a flaw in your second amendment, that even with the right to bare arms, its still only mob rules. as long as the majority agrees, the minority are ****ed.

because believe it or not there was a large number of germans who believed in what the nazis did, same as these japanese american citizens were not given the best of deals. same as some at quantanimo bay are innocent, or held without charge indeffinatly (or for an unknown amount of time)

you see the 2nd amendment means nothing when propaganda persuades your country to act injustly, and this is the same with any country, by no means do i mean to single out the USA, but when you think because you own a gun you have more power, we (people who do not believe in liberal gun laws) do not.

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

TheFeniX

That's untrue and you know it. The camps here were a dark part in American history, but you can't pigeon-hole it. If mob mentality ruled America, then the radical fundamentalists in power would be ramming Jesus down everyone's throat. Every country has both internal and external incidents that go complete against what they stand for. They are exceptions to the rule, not definitions.

Depending on the minority. As I've said before, ideals don't last long when reality hits. It's not right, but you always have to try.

Or British occupied India... and the entire African campaign.

I have a good retort for this, but I'd like to see what Leejo has to say about it.

__________________

leejo

wha? huh? I just enjoyed a long spell in the bathroom and now I'm going to bed.

Food for thought: Kosovo. Even today in the heart of Europe, murderous racism exists. Ah well, if they start dragging us out of our homes here in Austin, to paraphrase Churchill, at least I can take a few with me.

Sweet dreams all.

USN_Squid

This is a story from the London Times concerning a cabinet memo that was written two days before the the Downing Street Memo. It clarifies things a bit I think. Oh, and this memo is official unlike the Downing Street Memo.

Note Item #6:
Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq.

__________________

USN_Squid

And I will add this from here:

The media and the Democrats are starting to hammer the president over the Downing Street memo. The authenticity of the memo has not even been established and yet the media are happily going along for the ride. And don't forget that both Blair and Bush have called the allegations stemming from the memo as absurd. This has not stopped the media or the Democrats.

And here is another question for you: The Downing Street memo alleges that Bush had decided to go to war by May of 2002 and was going to "fix" the intelligence to support his case. Could anything be more absurd? We are supposed to believe that Bush knew no weapons were in Iraq, but decided to "fix" the intelligence so that he could tell everyone there were weapons.

Why would he do that? He would have had to of known that once weapons were not found he would get hammered for it. President Bush is not a stupid politician. Moreover, Clinton spent eight years telling us Iraq had weapons. What did Bush do, go back in time and "fix" the intelligence while Clinton was in office in order to support a war in the future if and when he became president?

The media in this country have not asked this question so either they want this story to hurt President Bush so they won't ask it, or they are just really, really bad journalist. Take your pick.

__________________

CingularDuality

Yes, but not intentionally...
I haven't. And neither have most of the dumb Americans that I was referring to... That was my point.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

CingularDuality

I'm confused. The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, and you're trying to apply it to our nation. I understand how this stems from this discussion, but I think you're misapplying your argument. Does an armed population make a nation more powerful? Not really. It does make it harder to invade and occupy, but it doesn't offer much (other than perhaps culturally trained marksmen for the military) in terms of projectable power. No, the power guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment is much more personal. It's the power that makes a petite woman as sure of her personal protection as a burly man. It's the power that makes a family sure of the security of their own home. It's the power that allows Americans to know that criminals aren't the only ones with guns...

As far as national power goes, well, might I remind everyone of the Lend-Lease Act?

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

jex

This comes as no surprise to me and funny to see people still defending the lie that we invaded for the reasons stated. Btw the british gov't have removed all 3 reasons for going to war but it was ok because saddam was such an evil man (but the leader of uzbekistan is OK even though he boils his people alive and is just as brutal but Donny rumsfeld still felt that he was a friend after visiting there recently)

Since that time Oil revenues have gone through the roof. BP, Shell and no doubt many other oil companies profits have gone through the roof, at the same time companies like halliburton are making billions on rebuilding contracts. $63 million has gone missing in Iraq through these "contracts" and yet no-one bats an eyelid.

And who's paying for it? That's right - good old you and me and the rest of the plebian tax payers. Your taxes go to pay off the big fat cats that leach off your hard work.

Additionally the whole escapade has seen the murder of millions of men, women and children but that's OK because it's all for this farce called democracy.

So now the US and the UK, who's dwindling oil supplies called for a control (hence the also faked reasons for attacking Afghanistan who's main crime was to ask for proof that OBL was behind the 911 attacks, and now that pipeline can go ahead - also prior to this, that pipeline was due to go through Bosnia - ooh funny how we were also there too, must be just a coincidence though) and we now have control over Iraq's oil.

Everything in politics happens for a reason, and if you listen to your government as your source of information then you'll never see the real picture. Do yourself a favour and read up some provable facts, instead of saying "he has links to terrorism" but never, ever, being able to support those comments.

As for proof to my ramble above, everything I've said here I've said before in previous posts and i've provided links in those to my sources. And as for sources, tomato is my favourite

yum, yum

__________________
Jex

Pokerface

There is a subtle yet VERY important difference between "They have weapons, therefore we'll keep an eye on them." and "They have weapons that are such an imminent threat to our lives and way of life that we must go in and depose the leader of the nation." To me, that's what "fixing" the intel entailed: taking what was said and turning into hype with a sense of urgency due to danger that did not exist. Clinton's administration said that Iraq had weapons, yes, but they weren't so brazen as to go marching on Baghdad about it. When GWB made that move, and a year later the CIA and a cast of thousands say "Oops", it's GWB that looks the fool.

Had stockpiles of WMDs been found along with plans to deliver them to my house, killing my friends, neighbors, and family, then I'd be standing on the right with the rest of you. Had Bush captured OBL in his march on Afghanistan, I'd be on the right with the rest of you. Had GWB decided to go after a nation that has said "Yeah, we're nuclear, and not above testing it out on people who tick us off" like North Korea, I'd be on the right with the rest of you. But as it stands, in retaliation for the murder of thousands on our own soil, GWB has just pushed an agenda he would have apparently had regardless of the towers falling, turning the lost lives of 9/11 into cogs of his political machine.

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

jex

But no weapons have been found and he hasn't been hammered for it, just like he knew would happen. And anyway it doesn't matter since he can no longer run for president. He was part of a plan and fully expendable so even if he does get hammered, his part in the overall scheme of things has been played out. The wool was pulled over the eyes of the public (yet again), and that's all that mattered.

__________________
Jex