mmarlo

That guy's a dumbass. If he's hat worried about it, he should just buy her a toy.

MMarlo - are you sure you're not Michael Moore?

I'm not filthy rich or fat, and I hope I'm not as big of a ####### as he is!

Why aren't there any military bases in Israel then? Israel is smack dab in the middle of the Middle East,

is our most staunch ally and recipient of billions of dollars in military aid.

Because we have them in a much less volatile and vunerable location, Saudi Arabia. Of course that pisses off Messers Bin Laden et al., but that's besides the point.

It's a good thing the Saudis have their ruthless, oppressive regime in place. Gives us some stability from which we can make sure the Shiites don't connect all their oil into the East Asian grid!

My family has had a history of very good performance from Toyotas--Corollas, Camrys, and Avalons. Out of the many Toyotas we've had, aside from standard maintenance, we've only had to make one repair--replacing a wheel bearing that went bad. Not like the series of problems we had with previous Fords. At least you shouldn't have to worry about your transmission if you get a Corolla or a Civic.

So you believe that it is ok to target terrorism as long as we only go after those responsible for 9/11? The other terrorists have a get out of jail free card? And you would still have Saddam Hussein reigning in terror?

What do you think about someone who has blow up ships in Miami Harbor (in Miami, Florida) with rocket launcher, and has downed commercial airliners full of passengers?

Most people would call him a terrorist. We just let him out of jail last week and refuse to extradite him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

See my post above.

So you believe that it is ok to target terrorism as long as we only go after those responsible for 9/11? The other terrorists have a get out of jail free card?

I think all terrorists should be held accountable for their actions, whether the terrorists are Saudis, Irish, Indonesian, Zimbabwean, American, etc.

And you would still have Saddam Hussein reigning in terror?

Of course Saddam Hussein shouldn't be reigning in terror. Those currently in power and their mentors should not have supported him when he was committing the atrocities for which he was hanged. Our leaders have no problem supporting a dictator when it suits their interests. They had no problem with Hussein, Suharto, etc., and it wasn't like they remained silent and let these guys do bad things; we provided them with material support during their worst crimes. Yes, this is the "honorable" man you love so much, his cronies, and his father's cronies. They have no problem with many repressive regimes around the world, today or in the past. Democracy is only promoted when it is convenient. It's not just Republicans to blame, however, as the horrific embargo only strengthened and centralized Hussein's power and caused more suffering for Iraqi civilians.

Do you think that the soldiers in Iraq are picking "innocent civilians" out of a crowd and having target practice? Mothers and children? Or people that are an actual threat? Are the members of our military that callous?

I'm sure in general most of our troops only do their job and of course try to limit harm to civilians as much as possible, but the military strategy and the weapons use does involve in my view, and certainly in most of the victims' countrymen's views, an unnecessary loss of life. For example, the use of cluster bombs does not discriminate between terrorist and civilian. Nor do the tactics employed recently in the bombings in Somalia, or ones I read about in Pakistan, where we blew up houses that may or may not have killed one or two al Qaeda operatives, but also killed a dozen or more civilians. It is tragic that these other civilians died, but what is worse from an even more practical point of view is that it's difficult to explain the concept of "collatoral damage" to the victims, to other Somalis, or Pakistanis. In the case of the bombing in Pakistan I have in mind, the following day 100,000 people marched on Islamabad in protest. We may have killed one or two al Qaeda operatives (in an organization that is designed to allow lower ranking members to easily take the place of higher ranking members), but we certainly added fuel to the flames and may have directly encouraged hundreds or thousands of others to directly support the terrorists. In Somalia, the customs of the local ethnic groups require the death of one of its members to be avenged, either through some kind of reparations payments or by killing the killer. So, from a strategic point of view, we are only creating a greater problem and we're killing civilians along the way.

I guess what I need to know is, if there is a better way of targeting terror .. what is it?

There are other ways to deal with terrorism. One important way is to stop participating in it. This lesson was learned by the British in dealing with the IRA. Northern Ireland may not be the greatest place in the world today, but the situation is a lot more peaceful after both parties began addressing each other's grievances without violence. One of the main grievances against the United States is that we have meddled in Middle Eastern affairs for so long while undermining democratic states, like Iran before we installed the Shah, while supporting brutal tyrants, like Hussein in Iraq, and repressive regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia, and by consistently blocking peace attempts concerning the establishment of a Palestinian state (see the long veto record in UN resolutions, Jimmy Carter's book, the work of Norman Finklestein, etc).

Sorry to hear that you're under AR. There are some good threads on here about the process, which can be lengthy and frustrating. Your file will definitely have been given a case number by now, as it has probably gone to Washington for further processing--background checks and such. I think this is fairly common for petitions for Russian citizens. Do some searches, and you'll find more info.

Helluva job, Stevie!

You've certainly bought the rhetoric of our fearless leader, and you definitely don't get my point.

The fact that the catastrophic human tragedy of 9/11 occured gave us no right to kill many times more innocent civilians in other countries, particularly one that had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq literally had nothing to do with 9/11, and there was scant evidence at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan that the Afghans had anything to do with it, either. The best intelligence reports were that there was a "belief" that the plan was hatched in Afghanistan, even if all the important legwork took place in Europe, which it did. (Side note: we bombed Afghanistan because we said they wouldn't turn over terrorist suspects to us. In a tragic irony, we happen to be withholding a known terrorist, Luis Posada, who bombed an airliner and in a separate incident attempted to assassinate Castro in a bombing that killed many other civilians, from extradition to Venezuela and Cuba on the laughable grounds (in light of our policy of extraordinary rendition) that he might face torture in those countries. In fact, this terrorist, a known flight risk, was just released from prison in Miami. If we apply the principle of universality--an elementary moral principle--and hold ourselves to the same standards as we hold others, by the same logic, both Cuba and Venezuela should be entitled to bomb us.) Instead, we did the only thing that could have strengthened al Qaeda, and we have succeeded in doing so admirably, to the detriment of our security and the security of innocent civilians throughout the world. You keep saying that GWB and his administration is working to eliminate the threats of terrorism, but in fact by all measurable estimates, and by the own intelligence reports of the CIA, they have increased the threat of terrorism within our borders substantially. That doesn't make me feel any safer. They may be "working hard", but they are hardly working to protect us, spread freedom, or promote democracy.

It's all about the blue boxes, apparently.

CB, I don't know where to begin. How about the fact that the level of violence in Iraq has increased exponentially in our time there, we have alienated Muslims around the world and through our own actions brought worldwide support for the grievances of an extremely marginalized al Qaeda group, and we have increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the US through our own use of violence, as the CIA predicted before the war on Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are appropriate ways to respond to terrorism, but our government has fought terrorism with terrorism, which only results in further violence, resentment and hatred toward Americans (when in fact the resentment should be directed at our leaders), and unnecessary death and destruction. George Bush's world police has nothing to do with ensuring anyone's safety or spreading any freedom or democracy.

Mussolini, Hitler, and Japan's leaders claimed such noble intentions as they were invading the Sudetenland, Ethiopia, and Manchuria. The British colonial empire also made noble claims as they were bringing peace and prosperity to the uncivilized.

We don't judge our leaders on their words, we judge them on their actions, and our leaders actions are in sharp contrast to his words, as he supports democracy only when its convenient and brings peace only by accident.

This is just another game to rack up "posts".

Anyone know about studies done on the motivations that trigger citizens to enroll in the military? It would be interest to know what percentage go because they are more or less forced to out of economic hardship and because of a lack of other opportunities.

Our world would be a much safer place if our miltary-industrial complex didn't sprawl across the world and our military expenditures didn't exceed the combined total of military expenditures of all the other countries in the world combined. That isn't defense, it's offense, and the decisions our government seems to make over and over again promote instability and undermine democracy, despite the noble intentions they proudly declare.

No question about it. Each casualty deserves far more attention than it gets from our profit-driven media.

And we should also be mourning the Iraqi civilians dying at mind-boggling rates in senseless tragedies that our administration is in large part responsible for.

The question is, who are these people? Are they on active duty? If not, why does the army

need 1.5 million "employees"?

Its called "Google".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military...in_each_service

I'm sorry. In my sarcasm, I failed to take your "research" into full consideration. I'll be sure to do that the next time I have a smart ### thing to say when I'm replying to someone else's post.

ok,..im guestimating here, but my hubby, who is an NCO earns roughly 38,000 a year in the army,....he gets an extra 525 a month extra right now in various danger pay allowances etc. They get their laundry done for them, and feed them, and house them, in some cases with water and electricity. So thats roughly 43,000 for a year in hell. A previous poster worked out the average cost per soldier to be 72,000. So i think the remainder of that 72,000 is well spent, trying to keep the troops well cared for.

Dont forget a greater majority are officers and the like, which are automatically on about 10,000 a year more than my hubby. So to me the cost of personnel spending is more than reasonable. Military are not the best paid people in the world, far from it,...what they get paid for doing what they do is a pittance really, for what they have to put up with on a daily basis, just to keep us free.

Just my 2 cents

Jodee

What you're talking about is a pittance of what mawilson is talking about. $108billion! The militarization of space and the destruction of the world ain't cheap! Don't forget, we need to replace all of our nukes, which are enough to blow up everyone a few times over.

Congrats, but be patient, you still have a long way to go! I hope your application reaches the US Embassy in good time and procedes quickly from here on.

I thought the policy toward Mexico, Canada, and the Bahamas changed this year, with a passport now being required. Better double-check before you or your SO try entering!

This is very good news. I hope your interview goes as smoothly as ours did. Good luck!

Although the fish I had in Kenya (usually tilapia) was generally very good, and even better if you could find mudfish, the worst dish I had in Kenya was a fish dish, called omena, which essentially is fried whole minnows, which I think had first been dried, and then mixed with a kind of tomato-based stew. I had one bite and that was more than enough for me. The crunching of the head and still-forming fish bones was bad enough, but the smell and taste was just over the top. My fiancee made the mistake of having a bit more than I did, out of respect for our friend who prepared the dish, and paid for it by having to run to the choo all night. We still have a joke today about that dinner. The accompanying dishes were ugali and sukuma wiki (collared greens), which are basically the staple starch and vegetable dishes in most of Kenya, and those dishes never tasted so sweet as when we could choose them over the omena.

In other news .... Magnus is from Bamenda, an english speaking region in the NorthWest Province. His native language is moghamo. He is amazing to me.. Speaks english, french, german, pidgin, and a whole slew of african dialects. Me... barely have english down.. the language that i loved hearing the most when i was there was pidgin, a slang english.. they are surprised when whites can understand it i could understand it, but not speak it yet.

Hmm...I've seen an article on Moghamo. I must have it around here somewhere...Cool, isn't multilingualism great? One of Africa's richest resources...

I've got a few:

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."

"The Bush Administration do have moral values. Their moral values are very explicit: shine the boots of the rich and the powerful, kick everybody else in the face, and let your grandchildren pay for it. That simple principle predicts almost everything that's happening."

"If there was anyone who actually fit the category of conservative, if there was such a category of people, they would have a very easy way to deal with the fact that 60% of the children under 2 [in Nicaragua] are suffering probable brain damage. Namely, by paying their debts. Simple conservative principle. But that's beyond unthinkable. Compassionate conservatives might want to go beyond that, if they existed. But they're much more interested in making political capital over the fact that a woman in a vegetative state shouldn't be allowed to die in dignity."

--Noam Chomsky

This is really off topic. Stick to politics and your sex life, please!

Psssshttt, I got you all beat!

While Skydiving.

Wow you must be fast!

How long does it take to reach the ground once you've jumped out of the plane? (Serious question, not trying to be facetious....I've never been skydiving, so I don't know.)

I have to admit though....it does sound rather exciting, just not too sure about the logistics....isn't the parachute a whole harness contraption thingie? I just can't even begin to visualize....sorry. Hope it was fun though!

-P

yeah ive never been skydiving, i was just trying to fit in with you XXXtreme lovemakers...

Figured that, but it was an amusing post no less!