OT Wasted lives

Heaven help us, he wants the people of each country to decide how to run their country.What a bad man. Oh the humanity.

Do you actually read what you write?

Carl

And if the people reject democracy, like Jefferson and Washington did? Democracy in the end will be as bad for the Bill of Rights as Islam, or haven't you read the Patriot act?

Which of your rights has the Patriot Act taken away? Can't you still go anywhere you want, do the same things you always could and say whatever you want?

GW

Aw, common, Nick.

NOBODY has read the Patriot act.

It would be UNpatriotic...

Oh yeah! I understand, and wasn't critical of what you'd said. More so just agreeing with your comments by making a few of my own.

Exactly! But then, if you want to see any civilization take a giant leap backwards, introduce religion------ANY religion------ to the society, and watch folks start believing in what can be no better described as "witchcraft". Fact is, Christianity is no better-------history has shown religions of all flavors to be bloodthirsty organizations--------filled with mysticism and killing.

Doesn't hurt that these morons readily give up their lives to kill others, either. I'm not convinced that the typical USSR soldier was that dedicated, meaning I don't recall any of them being suicide bombers.

I hope I can speak for the masses when I say that what you may have heard is an anomaly-----that it doesn't represent the common man. Imagine being in the position of wanting to serve your country, then finding that your leaders have a "get even" mentality-----sort of like trying to pay back the guy that tried, unsuccessfully, to kill your daddy when he was president. Some of these guys (and gals) are serving their duty under protest------but still serving their duty. They're earned respect----and proven that they are willing to lay down their lives----even when we're being lead by morons, of which there appears to be no shortage these days.

Harold

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:35:41 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Nick Hull quickly quoth:

BOTH have their heads up their asses.

Hey, let's negotiate, trying the following:

Everyone will abandon their religions and Shrub'll forget about wedging democrazy up their, erm, niches, letting them set up whatever works for everyone there.

uncivilized.

I think your statement about introducing religion is not substantiable. I am unaware of any historical evidence of a non religious society, only theroies of non religious prehistoric societies. I am open to correction if you have references.

While there have certianly been bloodthirsty political leaders claiming to be of particular religions, bloodthirsty individual religious leaders, and bloodthirsty periods in religions, I don't believe it is accurate, in general, to characterize religions as bloodthirsty organizations.

protest------but

"Larry Jaques" wrote

As a practical first step to ending the sectarian violence, try this:

REWARD THE VICTIMS. Go around to the morgues and the blast sites and hand out large wads of cash to the next of kin. Ten Shia get blown up, ten Shia families become instantly rich. Twenty Sunni turn up shot, twenty Sunni families receive a fortune. Where is the money to come from? easy: FROM THE OIL REVENUES.

The idea is to REDUCE THE INCENTIVE for killing people of the opposite sect. Sunni or Shia, do you really want to make your enemies rich? With the very money you're ultimately fighting over?

To work, the victim reward payments have to be large, immediate, and totally non-sectarian. Who can you trust to hand out gobs of money to victims' families impartially? Easy: the US ARMY. Make them the world's most heavily armed version of the old Ed McMahon Prize Patrol. This is a clear mission, unilaterally achievable, which does _not_ require an American corporal from Idaho to know or care about the differences between Sunni and Shia.

Republicans are forever touting the power of "incentives" over "regulation". Having an _incentive_ to not kill people means that you don't need a foreign soldier standing over you to enforce a regulation against killing people, because you have a good _selfish_ reason to not kill people. If Republicans really believe their own ideas, and if they really believe that the first step to "victory" is quelling the sectarian violence, you'd think they would "suggest" this plan to Maliki tomorrow.

-- TP

Just personal observations-----and maybe I'm mixing politics with religion----but then that's what people do----considering one controls the other. I'd suggest such examples as the Aztecs, offering human sacrifices----or the Romans when they ruled with an iron fist-----or the Mormon's----the Mountain Meadow Massacre comes to mind-----religious folks tend to be a bit weird-----and often gladly kill those with which they don't agree.

Only because law makes it difficult to act out without penalty. Aren't we seeing ample evidence of that in Iraq right now? Tell me it's not sanctioned by religion----if that's what you'd like to call it.

Harold

Harold, I think you may be confusing religion with "something else." While it is true that there are examples of violence purely in the name of religion, the problem is usually between different tribes/nationalities/peoples, frequently when one group has invaded or conquered another somewhere along the line. Of such events, ancient hatreds are made and an ongoing battle ensues. Because the two groups usually are of different religions, it is easy to characterize the fight as being between the two religions. And religion may become an excuse to justify the violence. But, in reality, religion is just a marker. The real issue is generally economic.

Jerry

Pretty good point, Jerry. Assuming you're right, and you probably are, religion then becomes the basis for making their actions "right"-------their god of choice wants them to kill you and destroy your god of choice, so their actions are then justified.

Humans suck.

Harold

substantiable.

"right"-------their

Actually, the truly devout of nearly any religion are good and gentle people. What happens is that leaders who worship power rather than any "god" tend, often somewhat cynically, to use religion to justify their depradations to the masses.

Jerry

Right on, Jerry. Well said.

Broadening the answer, which rights have I lost in my short lifetime due to the Patriot act and other democratically enacted laws;

• The right to trial by jury; my brother (a poor disabled elderly farmer) has been 'assessed' fines exceeding a Million dollars, with no right to trial by jury or any access to a courtroom.

• The right to keep and bear arms; I used to buy and sell guns with no paperwork, now I cannot buy a gun without getting permission from the govt and often waiting monthe for the permission to be granted. Not to mention that I now need a LICENCE to carry a concealed weapon.

• The right to free choice in medicine; I have to get permission from the govt to buy medicine that my doctor tells me is essential for life.

• The right to access chemicals; when I was young I could walk into a hardware store and buy dynamite when I needed it. Now I have to get an expensive licence and build expensive storage facilities and am pretty well forced to buy whole cases instead of the few sticks I require.

• The right to Habeas Corpus, pretty much killed by the patriot act.

There are many other RIGHTS THAT I ENJOYED AS A YOUTH but are now restricted or eliminated, but I want to keep this short. Committees of Correspondence Web page:- tinyurl.com/y7th2c

This is a really good idea, one of the few I've heard that stands a good chance of working. I do NOT like the idea of the US army handling this, maybe the Red Crescent or some other neutral organization.

Committees of Correspondence Web page:- tinyurl.com/y7th2c

I would like to see some more detail on this. I got to read the web page that you mentioned, it mentions a book and it is not clear exactly what was said.

It definitely does, but I do not think that converting us to Islam is Osama Bin Laden's goal, that's all.

This is called a "my country" attitude -- and yes I would do that.

Besides, torture and killings are flourishing in "new Iraq" and elections were not free.

Not a result of the PA or Homeland security acts.

Not a result of the PA or Homeland security acts.

This goes back at least as far as 1968, if not before.

Not a result of the PA or Homeland security acts.

Not a result of the PA or Homeland security acts.

Still waiting for cites on this if you would.

So you are admitting that none of your rights have been removed by Bush/Homeland Security/PA

Thank you for the confession.

Gunner

He only wants me, you and your son dead.

A f****ng prince of a lad that Osama.

Gunner

Really?

Cites?

Gunner