*DAMN R6 Forum

The Bush administration is proposing changes (not the good kind of changes) to what I consider to be maybe the most disgusting piece of legislation ever passed, the USA Patriot Act. Odd that they are releasing their intent to pursue such a policy at the same time they raise the "Terrorist Alert" to HIGH, isn't it?

They discussed this abomination on Bill Moyers' show last night, and after reading the transcripts I am truly disgusted. I was disgusted by the complete disregard for civil liberties in the 1st patriot act, but this new act sets dangerous new precedents that bring shame to the US. Among the powers Ashcroft hopes to gain through this bill:

1. Ashcroft will have unchecked power to deport any foreigner, including lawful permenant aliens.
2. The government will be able to make secret arrests (never before done in the history of the United States) and keep these arrests secret indefinetely or until an indictment is made.
3. The government would have the power to bypass courts and grand juries in order to conduct surveillance without a judge's permission.

Some of the other provisions in the bill include powers the intelligence community used to have, but were taken away because the powers were abused. Do you think that with these other new, even more powerful abilities bestowed upon them that abuses wouldn't occur?

to learn more about this:
Bill Moyer's Transcript (http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_lewis2.html)
the full proposed bill (http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/downloads/Story_01_020703_Doc_1.pdf)

Let me know how you feel about the Patriot Act and possible expansion to it.

     But, but, but, there are so many great reasons to create an American SS. Oh, wait, no there aren't. Tasty, I was disgusted by the powers invested in the Attorney General following the WTC attack, and they keep increasing. These powers will serve no good purpose. The whole situation smacks of a carefully-orchestrated mind-fuck of the populace, who are credulous and uneducated and are therefore easy to manipulate using the media. "Oo! Oo! Amber alert! Danger, danger Will Robinson! We the rulers need more power to keep you, our helpless flock, safe from the eeeeeeeeevil foreigners. So give them to us." And whadda ya know, it works.

     I have my suspicions that the Bush regime is trying to set itself up as the permanent ruling party. Admittedly, that's slightly farfetched, but the way things are looking, it seems more than slightly possible to pull off.

Tasty nobody replied this cuz it was over thier head but these acts are stupid. Anyway on a different note , if ......no now its more of a WHEN we go to war Im gonna be rioting in the streets baby we already are working up our cheers, re-activating them from the Vietnam era:

1 2 3 4 STOP BUSH'S BLOODY WAR

HEY HEY USA HOW MANY KIDS WE GONNA KILL TODAY
any other ones?

If you're happy to be moving to Canada clap your hands
*clap* *clap*
If you're happy to be moving to Canada clap your hands
*clap* *clap*
If you're happy to be moving to Canada and you really want to show it
If you're happy to be moving to Canada clap your hands
*clap* *clap*

The only possible good that can come out of this Domestic Security Enhancement Act is that they could make Zaitsev disappear when he "riots".

I just love people that threaten violence in the name of peace, don't you?  

Yes, after reading the whole PDF, it is quite scarry.  I was hopeful that the Patriot Act would die a withering death in the next few months.  Guess that was a pipe dream.  

Oh, and for the poor Ghost of Bondo, hasn't Canada already pretty much backed the going to war with Iraq?  And don't they have less liberty then the US (before these acts)?  

If you are a dumbass and you know it clap your hands:

*clap clap* oh wait, did I clap at the wrong moment...?

And yes, it is indeed scary (and sad) that a country based on liberty is heading in this direction...

In what ways that matter does Canada have less liberty than that US?

Oh, and was the dumbass comment really necessary, it just makes you look like a prick and invalidates any point that you had (although I didn't really see one).

Did your post about Canada have any point at all?  Didn't think so.  In fact, I think that's considered SPAM.

And Canada has many less liberties in ways that matter to me.  And since I've lived in both places, I would be qualified to express my opinion on it.  

And as far as you are concerned, I am a prick.  Eat me.

BUCC thanks my friend for proving my point. You did exactly as I thought you would. WHY PROVER PEACE WITH VIOLENCE. Now take my rioting and upscale that to USA in IRAQ WE WANT PEACE SO WE ARE GOING TO ATTACK THEM. hmmmmmmmmmm you yourself said thats stupid!

I'm pretty sure of that Canada does not have laws that allow the police to secretly arrest people or to have surveillance on random people without a judge's consent.

What is people's problems with Canada anyway? Seems like a great country to me, although maybe a bit cold.

Yeah, Canada does look like a sweet country. The one thing stopping me from moving up there is that extra dollar or two if I want to buy a magazine. Crazy Canadian taxes. ;D

Well, if you are bringing money with you the magazines don't actually cost any more.  At the moment you basically get $3 Canadian to every $2 US.  So your $5 mag may be $7 there, but you are actually paying less than $5 American.  Of course if you are working in Canada then you are being paid Canadian and it will be a bit steeper.  But many things like real estate and health care are much cheaper so in the long run the cost of living is less.

canada pwns everyone
i actually moved (read fled) up hear when numbnuts bush got elected so i have sympathy for bondo. as far as the liberty thing goes, canada pretty much has the same anti-terror laws as the US (maybe this has changed) as the US and algerians are getting deported all the time because they are suspected terrorists. if the rcmp has theyre doubts about you there are ways for them to get you, just like the fbi. i don't know what you mean by "less liberty" in canada bucc, but thats bs. ok, taxes are higher, but public health care and education are infinitely better here, despite all the problems. if anything canadians probably have more liberty since you can smoke pot here w/o going away for 2 to 5. btw, mr. mellow, as bondo said, the exchange rate favors you (1$ cdn= 0.60$ US) so everything is cheaper here even i the prices are higher.
kami, many americans think canadians live in igloos, so i wouldnt worry about them having a problem with it. ive actually had ppl ask me if we have indoor plumbing and electricity here.....

Haha abe, they seriously asked you if you had indoor plumbing and electricity?

Zaitsev, way to not actually read any of my posts!!!  Or the news.  The US government doesn't want PEACE most of all, it wants SECURITY.  Wake up already!  There are valid reasons for violence and war.  I'm not the one preaching for peace at any price.  Anyone that likes war is an asshole.  Anyone that craves peace at any price is just as much of an asshole.  Living at one extreeme or the other is just stupid.

Abe, Kami, Canada is a very nice country actually.  I've lived there and like it.  It does have less liberties then the US though.  Read the laws sometimes.  And that has nothing to do with health care or taxes.  

Oh, and please learn that most laws in the USA are state and local, not national.  Bondo never seemed to understand it.  But in Ann Arbor Michigan, it's only a $25 fine for getting caught with pot.  Not 2-5 years.  (personal consumption, not distribution).  Ann Arbor (where I got my masters) is about as liberal as you will find.  

Now, until this SS like act passes Congress, we still have more liberties.  That's why I don't think this bill will actually pass.  This country was founded by fighting against the exact bullshit that is in DSEA.  Bondo and some others made fun of the fact that Americans would ever need to rise up against their own government.  But it is this sort of bullshit that caused it 227 years ago.  All they have to do is keep going down that road, and ignoring the public.  

One last thought.  All the people that were against the second ammendment and those liberties sure seem to not like any of their other liberties getting trampled.  Maybe you'll start to think about how these things do go together.  Like I said before.  I stand for the liberties this country was built upon.  All of them.  All the founding principles, with more enlightenment.  Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness is still as important today as ever.

I never said pot would get you 2-5 years...that was abe...or were you just throwing my name in there to needlessly insult me?  And just because different states have different laws doesn't mean you can't make generalizations such as pot being punished a certain amount or probably what you were referring to before in my comment that schools are paid for locally and so poor areas have poor schools and rich areas have good schools.  Sure, it doesn't specifically work for every area but it is a general truth about the US.

As for arguing that we wouldn't need to fight for liberties or what not.  I never said that we wouldn't have the need to, I said that owning a few guns wouldn't enable you to fight for liberties because the goverment controls the army and serious weaponry.  Having a handgun at your house won't secure your safety or your liberty any better than not having a gun.

The American gun policies as I see it is that having a gun at home makes you safe, what kind of bullshit is that anyway?

     Guns do not win a revolution, but they make it a damn sight easier to do so. Besides which, if there was an out-and-out revolution, I like to think that many soldiers would desert and join the revolutionaries. There would still be fighting and bloodshed, but it would not be an army against the Joneses. It would be an undermanned army against an undermanned army. Of course the logistics of war, politics, psychology make it more complicated than that, so don't bother saying so. My point is, we're not talking about American troops marching into Nazi Germany, steely-eyed and full of resolve to destroy a great evil. We're talking about American troops attacking their own towns and families, and there's little else that destroys morale as effectively.

     I was reading about the first "Patriot" Act legislation, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein was quoted as saying that she recieved tens of thousands of letters from her constituents, all of which were against the legislation, and "if I were to vote right now, based on this feedback, I would have no choice but to vote against the measure." But she voted for it. Newsflash: elected representatives are not representing the people who voted them into office any more. Remember "no taxation without representation"?

I'd be interested to see a side-by-side civil liberties comparison between the two countries. I don't really know anything about Canada's system, but it seems that so far no one for either side has addressed in what ways Canada does or doesn't have more liberty. So address it, because I want to know. I also fail to see how this affects the 2nd amendment, since its basically the only amendment in the bill of rights that the Bush administration hasn't fucked with.

I'd be interested to see a side-by-side civil liberties comparison between the two countries. I don't really know anything about Canada's system, but it seems that so far no one for either side has addressed in what ways Canada does or doesn't have more liberty. So address it, because I want to know. I also fail to see how this affects the 2nd amendment, since its basically the only amendment in the bill of rights that the Bush administration hasn't fucked with.

Ahaaa hahahaaaa ha! HAHAHA! American politics makes me sick. I hate my government, it is nazistic. And to think, my family went here for freedom. Ha! I will move back to Russia soon, and going at this rate, RUSSIA WILL HAVE MORE LIBERTIES THAN YOU! Secret arrests? Tribunals, seems like I emigrated from the Soviet Union to the Soviet Union! I may be drunk, but I know what I am talking about.

All I did was make a humourous post about being glad I'm moving to Canada and Bucc called me a dumbass for it.  Since he is the one insisting Canada has less liberties I think the burden of proof is on him.

I'd expect Canada to be just as free when it comes to civil rights and political rights as the US is right now.

MUAHAHAHA! U ARE SUCH A DUMBFUCK BUSHANEER ITS UNBELIEVABLE!
Thats exactly what your gay-ass goverment is actually doing. (Sooo funny!!! LOL)

props Bondo and Topic creator:

civil rights is not something your goverment gives you for free. Your ancients fought for these rights and now its YOUR damn turn to defend em. But if u blindly follow the "war against terrorism" quack-quack u will loose em all until a real badass appears (even worser than fuckbush) who will turn the new laws against you. (already happened. remember a man called hitler? or remember a state called UDSSR? or ... or ... or ...

I would stand up and fight instead opening my ass wide enuff so my goverment can piss into it.

tnx, i love u too ~

Bander

p.s.:

FUCK BUSH!

(i think i will let make some T-shirts with this slogan and become a damn MILLIONAIRE by selling em. Muahahaha!)

Freedom means to be able to speak out what u think. If someone says "either u are with us - or against us" this is just the freedom of choice.

I guess all democraties (except israel) on earth have almost the same picture of freedom & democracy.

But now the moron Plant and his bushmen are planting fear and paranoia in the thoughts of many americans - their goal: u r scared? well i will protect u. but give me all the power i demand, and dont ask any questions. If not u will be killed soon by some guys who hate u for no reason. Nice strategy. I guess Bush red that in a book from G?bbels:

"Die Masse ist leicht zu manipulieren. Wenn Sie Angst hat vertraut sie blind ihren f?hrern."

translation:

"The Masses are easy to manipulate. If they have fear and are panicked they will follow blindely ANY leadership."

See: One asshole always learns fom another asshole. Fuckit.

The comment was directed at Abe and Kami, just like it was written.  The reference to you was in there because you just don't seem to get it.


Why?  Why can you make generalizations such as these?  Living in California is much different, with much different laws then living in say, Rhode Island.  Why should you support stereotypes or generalizations that falsely represent our country?  

It would be like me saying that in Canada it's ok for women to go around topless.  That's not entirelly true.  As far as I know, only Ontario has that law so far (but this may have changed).  

Like I said, we are a nation of States.  It needs to be pointed out.  

Millions of people with hunting rifles, shotguns and hand guns woould make a huge difference.  I completely disagree with you.  If everyone in American had a gun, how many would that be?  How many in our armed forces?  Do the math.  Or do you think the government is actually stupid enough to use weapons of mass destruction on it's own land (nobody is quite that stupid, and no one man has that power).


Kami, there is a lot of reading you can do.  You can start by looking back at the threads on gun control.  There were many links to university studies.  But this thread isn't about gun control.


Couldn't agree with you more in the first half of your post.


Not completly true, even if I agree with your underlying point.  We live in a republic.  They are supposed to know more about the issues and weigh those facts against the interests of their constituants.  So, we are being represented.

(see, I even tear down things in people I agree with).

However, with the overwhelming measures in the act, and the outcry of the public, I think it's very important that Congress share it's case and defend it's position in this case.  

If our congressmen don't, I'm guessing that we will find many new faces in Washington in the next few years.  Hell, if my rep votes for the new one, I may even run against him.  Running on that platform (not answering to the people that put you there) alone could get some elected.

ah, NO.  You got it wrong again you dumbfuck.  Our government is threatening violence in the name of SECURITY.

And like I've said 100 times already.  I don't listen to their reasons only.  I bother to form my own opinion about Iraq.  Too bad you can't read that either dumbass.


Actually, before anyone should get up in arms, you should wait and see if the normal checks and balances we have in our government work.

The courts have ruled against a few things in the Patriot Act (which is their role in the three branches, eh?).  Then we have the fact that we can vote out the people and elect others, ones that don't agree with this bullshit.

Bush doesn't rule America.  If Congress actually passes this bullshit (and I'll be very angry if they do) the courts can still kill it (but not until someons rights are trampled).  

Don't forget those robbed individuals that are appointed for life, and can't be touched by Bush or anyone else.

yeah ok. i dont have to time or attention span to read all this crap, but let me just say a few things: 1) the u.s. pwns 2) so does bush 3) war is inevitable (and quite necessary)  4) bander is a pissy little boy (who lives in a shitty  country that we saved from teh nazis, but he is such a fucknut he cant accept the fact that we are supperior)  5) thank god bondo is moving canada (although i'm sure he doesnt vote, we dont need dumbshits like him)

k. that's all.

(i apologize if my flame is incoherant. it's been a while)

ooooo. time for a pro-life flame : D

HEY FUCKHEAD LIBERAL ZAIT. ANY CLUE HOW MANY KIDS ARE FUCKING MURDERED EVERY DAY IN THE NAME OF WOMENS CHOICE? stupid asses. i hate u fucking liberals. so ur gonna riot when we go to war are you? dumbass. i hope u get tear gassed to death.

That's really fodder for another thread Tasty.  But, the ones I know would include rules of evidence, due process differences (get arrested in Canada sometime for a bar fight).  

I'll give you a good duelism, that isn't great for showing one side or the other, but will give you an idea why it needs it's own thread.  Someone could say that Canada is more liberal, because they don't limit beer to 3.2% to protect their citizens (as many states do).  But that could be turned right around because they aren't allowed to sell liquer over 100 proof.  (not in the bars in Windsor for example).  

That poor example is a wash.  Both governments get envolved.  And not all states / provences have the same laws.  But it shows how many turns it can take.  If you really want to see the differences, read the Canadian Constitution, or start the new thread.



And you are saying that Canada doesn't?  Or just in the ways you care about?

     Ah, but keep in mind the nice little clauses in the "Patriot" Act II that give the  power to take away the citizenship of and deport or imprison indefinitely any person who is a member of, or who has given aid to, any group that the Attorney General has designated a terrorist organization. Obviously, that ability (among other dictator-class powers granted in the bill) isn't going to be used for evil instantly upon the signing into law of the bill, but inconvenient people will start "disappearing" eventually. My point is, by the time someone can bring the case before the Supreme Court, it may be too late.

     As for the Supreme Court, I was reading the other day how it looks as though Bush II is going to get to appoint at least four judges to that body. Several are going to retire, and it looks as though one or two will be dead soon. I dunno about you guys, but the thought of Bush-appointed Supreme Court judges fills me with dread. Bush's legacy will keep haunting us for decades.

Yeah, I've heard stories of some world-class organizers getting stopped at the airport when en route to a protest. That kind of stuff makes me want to barf. I can only hope that the already appointed judges have the strength to hold on for a couple more years until we can get Bush the fuck out of office.

 I think that since we overthrew dictators in possible Communist or Facist governments in the name of democracy that other democratic countries should try to overthrow Bush if he destroys ours. Helen Thomas (a veteran whitehouse reporter) has called Bush "the worst president in our country's history". Obviously a controversial moniker, but one that I am starting to agree with nevertheless.

btw: spaz: chill out on the hatefulness. just makes you look... retarded.

Yes, that is a downside.  The Supreme Court basically has to wait until someone's rights are trampled.  Someone may know this (because I don't and haven't read up).  Can someone bring this case to the Supreme Court without there being a lower courts ruling?  I know that they don't have to hear any case, that they pick them, but I'm not up on what can even be presented to them.

Oh, and that Bush could appoint 4 judges is very scarry.  That could very well color the court for the next 20 years.

Tasty I agree, If republicans have a whole new term holding all branches of the government we are screwed. The media seems to very biased on picking up on more conservative aspects of the news which seems to be because they conform with the party in charge, for fundings perhaps.

Damn Spaz, sounds like you are a nazi, let me ripp down each of your "facts." 2) Bush takes away civil liberties, that certainly does not "pwn"3) You dont know what a war is like do  you? How bout we send you to the front lines. I bet you bark out, "WAR" anytime you want. You want war now? Huh? My cousin went to war to defend Russian citizens from extreamists, you want to go to war over a few empty containers. War is not needed and you are an irrational nut.
4) Actually Bander lives in Austria. We (the Russians) captured Vienna (the capital) in WWII. Thus we saved them from Nazism. The Austrians voted to not be Communist and Russia accepted that, so Austria saved itself from Communism. God I love the Americans, they totally disregard what Russia did in the war, like those 25 million lives dont matter. Erks me at times. 5) Cant argue with ya there.

God I love ripping down easy posts, spaz your idiocy has made my day. I thank you.

Whats the deal with all you IGNORENT SOB'S saying that europe owes us somethin from World War II? Europe doesnt owe us a damn bit of NOTHING and to make it more remember the frrench and indian war? Engalnd helped us. You dont repay people by sendiing your troops UN-NESSICARILY (sp) so a foriegn country to die., That isnt payment, its stupid. You can claim the owe us but we are the ones in billions of dollars of debt to them when they help us out of social and economical depressions.

America liberated Western Europe along with England and Canada. They did not assimilate Western Europe.

Zait Britain did not help us in the French and Indian War. We were part of Britain at that time. We are not in billions of dollars in debt to them. They dont bail us out of depression. Usually when we get in an economic shit hole like we did in the 30s, they follow us.

I don't believe in the argument that you need a gun at home ?because you might need it in a revolution?. That's just really silly, why would you need a revolution? I don't think we can expect the US to turn into a dictatorship in the near future because Americans are smarter than that. If the Patriot act would pass (which I really hope won't happen), then you are all in deep shit, but you won't need a revolution 'cos of it.

Thank you. Another proof of the idioty of most americans who cant even look over the ream of their coffee cup.

Listen up hairless cunt: Soviets liberated Berlin and Vienna. THANKS genossen!

U.S. just stepped into every war in europe, wisely choosing the side of the slicely stronger - and then they earned a lot of cash for "rebuilding europe".

Learn history out of a book and not from a spielberg movie u volltrottel ;)

BAH: It just amuses me to always notice how SHITTY your scchool system must be.

And look: I maybe live in a small country. But it has a healthy nature, no atomic power shiat, a solid democracy, freedom of speech and good people who dont even think a second about if war is a "good" thing.

Yeah - and your country is BIG. Like a BIG pile of shit (if it would be only filled with faggots like u, Bushaneer and Bush itself). Go and be happy when eating your next "unhealthy and fatty" burger.

P.S.: The second ww endet 1945. austria was anexed 1938 by hitler cuz U.S. let us alone (we called for help u idiot but your smart President said: "Hitler is a garanty for a stable europe. No intervention for austria"). So - and now look into the mirror and poke into your own face mr. "i have no clue about nothing but i talk shit". MUAHAHAHA!

I dont wanna mention all the shiat your "HOLY" country did in vietnam, kambotcha or korea. You are just a stupid rat - living in the stomac of a big gun. Put it on mr. bushs head and pull the trigger Bl?dmann.

ausserdem kenn ich euch U.S. kriegstreiber trotteln eh schon von der letzten diskussion wos um afghanistan ging. jetzt widerholen sich eure ganzen d?mlichen argumente aber ihr sausch?deln merkts garnet dass ihr deppat seids.

servas orschloch

@Kami: They need guns cuz they live in a dangerous country where some crack-freak or mental dirupted ex-G.I. can should you anytime for 1$ cash or cuz he doesnt like your hair colour.

They need guns to support the weapon industrie.

They need guns to feel like men (cuz their pants are emty)

They need guns to be prepared for their next civil-war

They need guns to be able to commit suicide when they finally notice that they live in a good place that turns into massive shit cuz they forgot how to use their brains (but they still know where the trigger of their gun is)

They need guns to find stupid arguments why they need guns

They need guns cuz they dont even thrust the goverment they voted before

People who possess a gun are mental distorted humans in my eyes (except soldiers, police, security personell)

Basta Camarillo ~ viva tha "real" freedom loving america
death to dumbass-nation!

Bander

Bander,

nobody has blamed you for Haider or said you like him, simply because you are austrian. and please stop glorifying austria as this sanctuary of humanism and sanity. many austrians are biggots that hate foreigners and who voted for Haider, just like many americans are biggots and xenophobes, who voted for Bush.

just a question for the austrians: why do so many of  you hate prussians so much? i lived in vieanna and was treated like a leper because i prounounced it "ick" or "wat". i thought that was ancient history.

next, bander, when i think of the Anschluss (germany's annexation of austria), the first thing that comes to my mind is the gargantuan crowd that came to see hitler speak and not dollfusses' cry for help. the history books also remember austrians as being in favor of the anschluss. yes, maybe not all austrians, but probably more than americans who currently support the war on iraq.

then, ww2. if i remember correctly, america was attacked by japan after isolating itself from world affairs. furthermore, at the time (1941/42) it looked like the axis might actually win. that is not sticking your nose in everywhere, picking the winning side or earning a lot of cash. to me, that sounds a lot like being attacked, kinda like what happened on sept. 11th.

im not blindly defending the US here, but get your facts staight. you patronize and categorize every american here, who is for the war, as a "volltrotel". i hope you meet an austrian who disagrees with you so that you have to respond to his points instead of dissing his country. oops, i forget....austrians are all good people who would never think of hurting a fly, even less support an evil and warmongering nation like the US (sarcasm).

     Trusting any government is a bad idea. Remember, one definition of a gov't is: the group which claims for itself the power to kill people who they don't like. The gov't is the only group who is legally allowed to back up their rules with men with guns. Power must be watched, and watched carefully. Trusting your government is just a wee bit too innocently wide-eyed for my taste.

     Besides which, mistrust of the government is embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Checks and balances, the power of impeachment, the bicameral legislature, the three-branch system, the Supreme Court's powers, all are specifically intended to make the American gov't slower to act, less efficient in getting things done (there is nothing more dangerous to its people than an efficient gov't), and correctable if it does something bad. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing.

     And that is why I, for one, am upset over the "Patriot" Act I and II: they are deviating from the established precedent in giving massive unilateral power to one person (the Attorney General), and also by making many processes more efficient, such as by removing the necessity of due process and habeas corpus. Not a good thing, and certainly not trustworthy.

Hehe, I liked this one best.

Oh and about your fatty unhealthy burger comment...I don't think I've mentioned it here but at the start of the year I switched over to being a full-out vegitarian...haven't eaten meat in 40 days and don't plan to for the rest of my life.  Mind you I'm not vegan, I still have cheese and occasionally other dairy...need my calcium after all.

Lothario,

i agree with everything you say in your last two paragraphs, but youre first sentance and most of what follows sounds like somthing right out of charlton hestons mouth.

trust is one thing, blind trust is another. i for one have confidence in my government and i believe they are, generally speaking, acting in our collective interest. to assume anything else of a democraticly elected government is almost absurd. and this is one of the big criticisms i have for american society....this outdated and almost irrational phobia that our government will somehow go bananas and start killing us all. the result of this has been that the country is armed to the teeth, yet lacks any sort of public health care or welfare system. bander pointed out that our schools are shitty too, and i agree. the combination of a shitty education system, gun culture, not enough abortions and too much free time produces accidents like spaz.( no offense, spaz, but you shit all over yourself in that post. go read a book!)

Lothario, the government has napalm and Mx missles. do you really think that a bunch of hicks in michigan with ak 47s is really gonna make a difference?? i don't. if the government really was out to get you, no matter how many glocks you have and how many times a week you go to the shooting range....unless you are propising that every citizen get his own tank, it is ludicrous to assume that the "right to bear arms" is going to protect you from any national government and its military.

as much as i think bush is an ass, i still have faith in our legislative and judicial system (eventhough both are full of bush's buddys), as well as the military, the state department and the rest of the bureacracy that makes up our government to prevent him turning the US into a gestapo-state and appointing John Ashcroft (can u believe he lost an election to a DEAD guy???) Reichscsar for security matters. besides, i think a lot of whats in these acts is genuinly aimed at terrorists  and not part of a master plan to install a totalitarian government (remember that bush is a big fan of cutting government himself, unless of course its corporate welfare or defense).

ps. : wasnt part of austria occupied by US troops for a few years after ww2? this is not meant to be polemic in any way.....im simply asking if this was because the russian genosses gave the other allies part of austia (like they did with berlin) or whether US/UK/France actually invaded part of austria before may 1945. just cuious.

Funding?  For the news media?  What are you smoking exactly Zaitsev?  

The only pressure that the government can place on the news media in this country is plain and simple barter.  Hey, if you don't print that, I'll give you something better.  There is more of an impact from big business and the pulling of advertising (where they make their money).  You are more likely to see a negative article about Bush and War in Newsweek then you are to see a negative story about tobacco.  But you see both.

Who do you think it is that exposes any government wrong?  

Every communication medium has it's own slant, usually depending on the owner and editors.  But the government doesn't control them, that is just too far fetched.

Ok, is any part of what you wrote here true Zaitsev?

England didn't help us in the French Indian wars, Those wars were between France and England over who controlled what in North American.  The French had a large chunk in the north, you may have heard of it.  It's called Canada now.  So there was much fighting around New York as both sides (England and France) were trying to expand.  This was before the USA was a nation.  And if France had won, who knows, there may never have been the American or French revolutions.  (now the French did eventually support the US in it's Revolution, once America proved it was strong enough to have a chance.)

I have no idea what you are even trying to say about repaying by sending troops.  I do know that after WW2, the European nations in question formed an organization with the USA, called NATO.  It being a mutial defense treaty amongst other things.  This was more important to the Europeans, who feared that Russia was going to continue moving east after the war.  If that had happened, the USA would have sent troops in, as thy promised.  If it happened today, the US would still send troops.  As they should (otherwise, why have mutual defense agreements?)

Who are we billions and billions of dollars in debt to?  Who is billions and billions in debt to us??  You do realize that there are many countries that owe US money, right??  That we are also lenders and givers?  But, back to your statement, why don't you look up which banks hold most of the notes on the US.  I think you'll find much if it comes from Saudi Arabia.  Yes, some comes from European banks.  But then, European nations owe money to both the US government and to US banks too.  That's the world of economics for you.  Banks (sometimes governments) think we are a good investment and lend money.  Do your parents owe any special allegiance to the Bank that holds their mortgage?  Or do they just owe the cash?

P.S. look up how many loans European nations defaulted on after WW2 before bringing it up next time.  The bad part about lending governments money.  If they don't really want to pay, it's not like you can foreclose.

Kami, I'm going to ask you again to go and read the old threads.  The information you are looking for has to do with the forming of our constitution and the second amendment.  Our forefathers that formed this country, and had to fight with those same guns, wrote it.  But please don't start that thread here again.


Again, Bander uses his worthless time to show us all what dumbasses most of Austria must be (using his logic).


So, those Americans and Brits that were in Berlin had nothing to do with it?  You are such a stupid fuck.  If you really think that the Allies would have won the war without America, the UK or the Soviet Union all there and doing all each of them could, you are the one in need of a history lesson.  Without American and British forces pushing from the west and south, the Axis forces could have focused on the Russians.  They may not have taken all of Russia (this is a debate between me and Cossack), but the Soviet Union probably wouldn't have taken them either.  Also, it was a bigger deal for America, because we were also fighting the Nippons at the same time, with little help.  


Wrong again.  The Allies were losing the war when America joined WW2.  And we didn't completely pick that side, the Nippon's did that picking for us.

What other wars in Europe have we just "stepped into"?  WWI?  Yeah, real tough as to whose side we would have come onto there, wasn't it?  Fool.  Any others?


Obviously it's a littler better then yours, if this is what you learned.


All of the world made that mistake.  Takes a biggot like you to try to pin it on America.  But, while pointing, who put him in power in the first place??  Why not point the finger in that direction?  Oh, becaue it doesn't fit your hate.  I see.


OMG, they don't eat burgers in Austria!!  OMG, they only eat healty food in Austria!!  OMG, they are so superior!!  What a fucking idiot you are with your implied insults like that.  Why don't you rund down to the corner and get a McDonalds happy meal.  Since there are a shit load of them there, you may as well.  Guess people eat like shit there too.

Have to disagree with you here Abe.  

First, while the government has the better weapons and technology, how many actual soilders does it have?  How many would actually fight other Americans?

Second, underarmed guerralas have proven time and time again that they can defeat better trained and equipted soilders.  You should have learned that from history.  (and they manage to find ways to get the arms.  Besides stealing them and taking them off bodies, they will most assuradly get them from other countries, like with all revolutions).

Third, Michigan is not full of hicks (had to say that).  There are, however, a bunch of nuts up in the woods with guns that think that Revolution is much closer then it is.

Fourth, People said the same thing about 227 years ago.  They were wrong then.

Now, Like you Abe, I still have faith in our other branches of government (but it is being stretched).  This talk of revolution is fantasy about what happens if the other two branches don't do the right thing too.  

The talk about guns just went back to one of the key reasons that the 2nd ammendment was put there.  And remember, back then, they didn't limit the guns either.  Not like today.  You and some others were mentioning glocks and pistols.  When it was written, how it was written, it meant the same guns that the government had.  The gun control activists have been chipping away at it for decades.  But that is another thread.

Abe, I've made that argument before about the armed public being able to some how rise up when the goverment has the massive weaponry.  Usually the reply is that the army wouldn't fight its own people with all those weapons so the guns do make a difference.  Well, if the the case is that the army won't defend the goverment from the public, then why do they even need the guns in the first place?  Either way the guns are certainly not defended by the idea of protection against tierany.

I think the US is way to arms-centric, both in populous and in goverment.  If I'm not mistaken the Department of Defense has the highest budget of all sections of the goverment.  We care more about building new weapons than we do about the welfare of our citizens.  No one else in the world is spending nearly as much as we are on military so why do we need to.  We aren't in an arms race anymore.

False premise lieads to a false conclusion.  the usual reply isn't that the army wouldn't fight.  Just that some wouldn't.  

The biggest point that was made was that the army lacked the numbers to stop an open revolt of the populace.  Thanks for not getting that.  Our armed forces only number in the hundreds of thousands.  Sure, they may be able to say, take NYC, and it's 8 million or so, but not the whole nation.  And it wouldn't want to use the heavier weapons, becaue it would be damaging itself (what good would it do to nuke yourself?).

The point has been stated about gurella wars, and how many of them have been successful.  Thanks for ignoring those too (that was sarcasim)


No, we aren't in an arms race anymore.  But it still takes money to ensure defense, to maintane what exists, and to stay ahead of the rest.  

And defense spending has been cut many times since the arms race has been over (it's the biggest place Clinton got the cash from).

One last point, defense is also a part of the wellfare of the citizens.  Just like in every other country.

Whoever keeps bringing up that Ashcroft lost to a dead guy fails to see who the dead guy was and the circumstances surrounding the election. I hate to say iy, but whoever keeps bringing up this issue (may be more than one person in multiple threads) is plain ignorant. Here is how it went down:

Mel Carnahan (the dead guy as you ppl refer to him as) was a long time beloved Governor (7 years) of Missouri. Shortly before the election, he died in a plane wreck and his wife got elected in a landslide sympathy vote. A sympathy vote. The way most of you idiots make it seem is that they would rather vote for a dead guy than Ashcroft - the answer is most likely not. Everyone knew that his wife would be appointed and they felt sorry for her so the Carnahan ticket won.

This is not an endorsement for John Ashcroft, who is too Conservative for my liking, this is an edorsement for people to get their facts straight.

Back on topic: This went off topic a long time ago.

As for Bander: I have been around here a long time, and I have spoken with you on multiple occasions. However, I happen to be for the war...does this make me all the things you are stereotyping Americans to be? I'd rather not flame anyone that I don't truely despise (there are only a few of those dicks out here), but cut it with your wide-ranging stereotyping or else I will have to unfortunately start to flame you.

Everyone else: enjoy this thread, the flames are keeping me warm during this cold (for Southern California standards) rainstorm.

Find so lets say half would fight for the goverment and half would fight for the public...still no need for guns.


You asshole, abe's post that I replied to was before your replies so I hadn't seen them...I hadn't ignored them.  I'd rather have a machine gun facing 100 pistol wielding people than vice versa.  The army has both superior firepower and protection...what does the public have that could deal with a tank...nuclear weapons aren't the only big firepower the US has...it has many things that could be used without damaging the land to the point that it would be damaging itself to use.  As for the point of guerilla warfare...in the two instances that come immeditately to mind (American Revolution and Vietnam) the country that was having success was the home country.  In the case of a civil war (which is what a US vs US conflict would be even if it is goverment/army vs. public) both sides would be the home side and know the terrain.  I think the guerilla factor would be marginalized because of this.


Yes, it is part just like every other country...but how about we spend a reasonable amount on it like every other developed nation.

Has anyone else noticed that these so-called militia movements are by and large crazy people? I'm not saying that all gun owners are crazy, but if anyone else saw Bowling for Columbine and reads the news then they have probably come to the conclusion that these militia gun nuts are just that:nuts. I don't think anything they do really gets taken seriously, and I don't think that there is a serious enough force of people that are willing to fight the government should that opportunity ever arise. I'm not even sure I know anyone that owns a gun, and the last thing I need is for my rights to be defended by a bunch of followers of the Aryan Nations and the Christian Identity movement. I'll take my passive resistance and nonviolent protest thank you very much.

Bucc, could you please cut down on your daily post count (or post length)? It's kind of annoying to have to read 5 of your essays when you've just been away from the forum for 12 hours.  ;)

     The more people who can offer resistance, the more likely the military boys are to think twice about attacking them. There are probably quite a few soldiers who would simply desert and help the revolutionaries without any coercion, but they're in the minority. The group identity (i.e. herding instinct) is a major driving force in human behavior. It takes a lot for most people to stop following the herd, but the prospect of attacking one of your own country's cities, which is known to be stocked to the gills with violent resisters, may be enough.



     Do you honestly think that there aren't civilians who have the means to take out a tank? Or who have the same guns that the military has? Mortars, hand grenades, grenade launchers, all these things can be bought on the open (or sometimes not-so-open) market. You persist in envisioning this as a mob with water balloons confronting the Terminator and Robocop. Yeah, it'd be lopsided as far as equipment goes, but not as lopsided as you insist, and sheer numbers would skew the balance back towards the revolutionaries.



     And neither of those wars were civil wars. You've cited an example that has little to no bearing on the issue at hand.



     How much richer is America than "every other developed nation"? A "reasonable amount" for Italy or Canada is virtually a drop in the bucket for America. Besides, like it or not, beneficial or not, America's leaders have committed us to playing world cop, and we need big boomsticks for that. So we pay for them.

Unture, and off topic.  Bring back the gun topic if you want, I'll be happy to show you the errors of your ways.  Seriously, I've asked Kami the same thing.  Let's not polute an important topic like this with that big of another issue.


I've made them in the past as well, as you know.  Like back in the old threads you were talking about.


If knowing the terrain were the only factor, you could be right.  But it's not.  

First, we'll talk about tanks, and how they have been proven not to be the best thing to be in, while in a city.  Starting with the russians and bottles of gasoline to the fact that roads tear up their tracks.  And how long do you think it would take someone like me, to whip out a copy of the anarchist cookbook and whip up some decent explosives, powerful enough not to destroy a tank, but most likely to disable it.  No.  Tanks have for open fields if you read about them.  

Then we'll look at bombs.  Well, you don't want to tear up the infrastructure of your own country, do you?  So you don't want to bomb the hell out of it.  These are the cities and towns and farms that the country needs.

Which brings us to more conventional weapons and helicopters.  Those are the effective weapons, and the ones that would have to be fought.  Hunting rifles and shotguns and even pistols can do wonders against them.

Also, there are many many more examples of gurella warfare.  One thing is that yes, they are usually defensive (Vietnam wasn't though.  They were attacking south.  So saying that they knew it would be like saying that I'd know the territory in Florida as well as those that lived there).  There are many lessons to be learned from it.  It's not about who knows the territory better.  Who uses it better would be more accurate.


We do spend a reasonable amount on it.  As I define reasonible.  Another example of a weak argument.  Tell us why we should spend less, how much difference that would make, and why it's more important.  saying "spend a reasonable amount" is weak, because it's wide open, not specific and lack just about anything but your opinion that we spend too much.  I mean, you can talk about how much a country like the UK spends on wellfare and how much it spends on Defense per capata, or China maybe.  Or Iraq, yeah, how much do they spend on weapons compared to wellfare?  Be specific.  If you think we should spend more on wellfare programs, that's one thing.  If you think we should spend less on defense, that's another.  Why? is the question to either.

I think you'll also notice you used one of those weak absolutes agains "every developed nation".  Bet I can find more then one that spends a greater percent difference.  

Yep.  99.9% pure nut from all the ones I've seen and read about.  They are extremests.  Fanatics.  And like all fanatics, they don't think quite right.  That goes the same for the peace fanatics.  Not someone that hates war, but the "peace at any price" people.  They are also a bit off.  I'm a moderate myself.  I think our prisions are too soft, but am against the death penalty.  I'm pro gun, but think that there should be more accountability.  I don't use recreational drugs of any kind other then alcohol, but don't think they should be outlawed for responsible use.  


That's the perfect place to start.  Peaceful demonstration is a great first step.  And in a perfect world, it would be all that was ever needed.  We don't live there.  We live in a world were there are just bad, evil people.  And sometimes, someone has to stoop down to that level and knock them around a little, to make it a better place.  It shouldn't be the first step, or even an early step.  But I accept that it is often a necessary step.



Sorry, I've spent most of the past 36 hours in the hospital with my woman.  She's been having a few problems with her pregnancy.  Nothing too serious and baby is fine.  But I was bored, had my laptop and had to do something while watching her sleep.

Oh alright, good to know she's doing ok! Congrats on the kid, in advance ;)

Bucc, if I went into full detail on every single point I've ever made in my life I would be doing nothing but typing thousand word posts by the dozen.  I personally don't feel like spending that much time on the forum.  This is a casual conversation place.  I give you a few breif comments.  But since you ask I'll be more than willing to expand on it.  But my not doing so originally isn't a sign of a weak argument...because it isn't the whole argument...just the thesis.

By reasonable, I meant as a percentage of budget.  And by developed nation I meant Western Europe and North America.  Basically our allies in NATO for this example.  The US spends as much as every other country in NATO combined.  How is that for a sign we spend too much.  We shouldn't play the world's policeman...you should know me well enough to know I think we are too involved militarily around the world.  We should keep a military that can defend our country...something that wouldn't take nearly as much as we spend currently.  I mean, the UK seems to have a pretty capable army in technology and skill...enough to properly do what they need to.  It isn't like there is any current threat for a mass scale war like WWII.  China is about the only country powerful enough and populated enough to do that and they are not as evil as it is made to seem often.  They are making quite a bit of progress in being a developed peaceful nation just like Japan has become after WWII.

So tell me Bucc, did my expanding please you...somehow I doubt it because to this day I don't think you've ever said any of my arguments are reasonable.

China, peaceful? Thats bullshit. Since you are a geography major, you should know where the Spratly Islands are. You know what the Chinese want to do there? China still of course wants to take Taiwan. China is more expansionist than ever, and you know whats scary? The Chinese Giant is waking up and relizing its potential. China may be becoming economicaly close, but that means nothing to their "expansionist dreams."  We need a large army, because wether you like it or not, we are a super power with intrests. Wether you like it or not, that is our oil in Saudi Arabia this could come under threat. Drilling in that miserable desert full of hostile people so we dont drill in ANWR and Yellowstone.

As for guns. I love guns, I am a marksman by hobby and hunt when I can. Why because it is fun and white tailed deer are fucking like rabbits. Bander am I sick because I own a gun? I kill Deer wich some PETA nutjobs may find as genocide, but fuck them. I dont go after people and I am not a militia men, eventhough I live in the middle of Texas.

Nope.  You missed my point.  It's not the brevity of them, but more the overgeneralization of them.  I'll point this out in a second.  But it's your complete overstatements that weaken your arguments the most.


Well, expecting anyone else to limit a braod statment like "all developed nations" to only include Western Europe and North America is a bit of a stretch, isn't it.  OK, it's one hell of a stretch.  I think of a developed nation being the opposite of a third world country.  I didn't realize that Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, China, (ok, I'll stop there, but I could go on and on) were not considered "developed nations".

 It is these kinds of statements, which you have to keep redefining, which really make you look stupid.  And you do it all the time.

Back to the major theme:


Ok, another small problem.  First you say as a percentage of budget, then you make a big deal out of Combining the rest of NATO.  Well, that's apples and oranges right off the bat.  Stick with one, then move to the other.  Because we could theoretically spend a lower percent of the budget on defense and still outspend them, that's part of the joy of mathmatics (especially when you have a much larger budget to start with).

So first, (I'm going to assume you are correct in saying that America outspends the rest of NATO combined on Defense, but I'm not sure I believe it)  How is it for a sign?  A shitty one.  A meaningless one.  To mean anything I'd have to see the numbers.  Some of those nations could be underspending in my opinion.  For a sign, it needs to be put into some context.

Second, percentage of governemnt spending is a good place to start looking, as long as we keep in mind that it's not a vacume, and there are outside factors that should be looked at too.


Ok, it can easilly be argued that playing the "worlds policeman" is a large part of keeping our country safe.  While the US may use too heavy of a hand in it, I don't think we should go back to being isolationists either.  Read your history and see where that got us in the past.  It's all in moderation.  

And I take it that you are saying the US shouldn't be part of the UN peacekeeping troops then?  

And even if we did cut back on the involvement we take in international affairs, why are you so sure that we wouldn't need to spend as much as we do now??  Many experts think we are not spending enough to keep up anymore with all the cuts that have been made already?  What do you base that opinion on?  I mean, we've decomissioned so much of our Navy, because the ships are too expensive to keep out there.  Our pilots dont' have the budget to spend enough time in the air training.  I could go on a rant with that side, what makes you think we could spend less?

Well, no offense to my Brit friends here, but Argentina gave them fits 20 some years ago, or did you forget about that?  They found that they were not as well off as they thought they were, and it came as a big surprise.  I know you don't remember Iron Marg first hand, but I do.  What Argentina did to the Brits rocked the whole world for a while.

As for the rest of NATO, most of those countries couldn't defend themselves from a large theat if they stood alone.  They relax their spending, relying on the strength of the alliance instead of their own to protect them if anything were to go wrong.  I don't happen to agree with that in the case of the USA.  I don't think that the one aircraft carrier that France could provide would protect us much if, say, things escalated with North Korea.   Here's another way to look at it.  Maybe they are using the USA a bit.  If the USA were to pull out of NATO, do you think they would spend more on defense, or the same?  I'm sure the UK and Canada wouldn't change much, but I'd bet real money that the rest of NATO would start increasing the spending.

To your point about there not being a current threat like WW2.  First, I'll say that at the first Gulf war, Iraq had one of the largest armys in the world.  Nobody was expecting that war.  Second I'll ask you, how long did it take for Hitler to take a bankrupt country that had no army left, and turn it around, and start WW2?  How many years?  How many innocent lives were lost because nobody was prepared?  Because nobody wanted to spend on defense after WW1, because nobody wanted to play world policeman.  Think about it.  How long does it take for something like that to break out?  I'm not even saying we have to even know who that threat is today, but it sure didn't take Hitler long to go from a cocktail party joke to controlling most of Europe, did it?  Now, how long do you think it would take us to build back up, if we don't bother to keep up (or stay ahead)?  

You see, you don't just prepare for the dangers you know.  You prepare for the dangers that you don't know.


Somehow, I doubt you have ever really paid attention to my posts.  I also doubt you have gone back and read that post about peacekeepers.  If you did, like I mentioned earlier today, you probably wouldn't make yourself look like such a dumbass with statements like that.

Bucc, your facts are correct on Argentina, way to do your homework however if you remember that then we have to think about Vietnam. The only Differnece between Us in vietnam and Brits in Argentina is that well we did much worse. The European countries dont owe the U.S. shit especially not from WWII because we knew of the massacres and the wars but we were not going to do ANYTHING accept for Lend Lease until Pearl Harbor. So we didnt save them we just got dragged into thier side. And yes the UK could take of Iraq fairly easily regardless of bad technique a few decades ago.

This view of America to UN as big daddy just doesnt make sense. The United States makes up a lot of the UN that is true but dont you think if the US wasnt in the UN then yes France and England and the other countries would step up their spending to make it more powerful? Its not that they are weak its just theres no immediate reason to be strong. I mean really only the US is having MAJOR problems with N. Korea but England and France and all of Europe for that matter are no sissies they are as capable in Warfare when they are united as we are when we stand alone. You say they are in a treaty so they should rely on it for help both military and in the desicion making process and I say well then SO SHOULD THE  UNITED STATES. Because its thoughts of how much better we are then other countries that get people to slam planes into OUR buildings and NOT those in London.

I have no problem with people who have hunting licenses and go out into the forest to cap some deer, but when people keep handguns JUST to feel safe, I have a problem.

Alright, I hate this forum word cap limit (I usually dont hit it because I am not tearing anyone a monster sized asshole usually) but I must say that Zaitsev's post was one of the most ignorant pieces of crap I have seen on these forums in a long time. Nearly all of his points are absoultely absurd. I'll elaborate more when I get back on monday - assuming no one else sees how horrible it is and bothers to rip him a new one.

Zait, such a simplistic view is preposterous on so many fronts that it's not even funny. I guess saving the free world AND rebuilding everyone's economy (including Germany and Japan) doesn't count for shit anymore.


Wait, I think I remember this one from history class too. So let's see, you have a major international coalition with the goal of promoting peace led by England and France without the aid of the United States. I suggest you read about the League of Nations Zait. Yeah, I'm sure they would stand up to people.

Something about "me" (some of u will be surprised ;)

Bander:

A lazy austrian, working as an art director in a big agency, running a rap-club in the arena in vienna, rapper of a german-language austrian rap-band, who smokes weed cuz he dislike the taste and followups of alcohol (except consuming one fresh cold beer to hold the whole night when he goes to the "flex" - a great viennese music club for electronic music (elektro, breakbeat, jungle, rap etc ...)

He likes Fast-Food a lot (even when he permanently curses it). BigMac, FishMac, Chicken McNuggets YEAH (damn unhealthy but the best thing u can do if everything is closed around you). He likes american rap music, some of his favorite all-time movies are from hollywood - he has been in america more than 4 times, visiting his afghan relatives, who live there in NY and cali.

Bander drives an american car (red cryzler neon. stickshift. 145PS), is clan founder of a great online Clan called *DAMN filled with a huge numer of americans who are called "friends" by Bander.

Hes interested in politics but noticed already that thinking politic must be a global game. He thinks since he explored the internet that it does NOT depend on the nationality of a person, not on his race, skin color, political opinions if u like someone or not. SInce he found out that he tries to keep all the people of this/our planet in his mind when talking about any political issues - to focus the whole puzzle and not just a little fragment. and he always tries to think this way: What if i would actually not be "save" here in austria - what if i would have been born in XXX (insert place here).

Banders english sucks sometimes when he tries to explain complicated things - but at last he can speak a foreign language and communicate in the web with persons of all nations -

Sometimes if Bander runs mad he startes cursing a lot and he does this with purpose - if this happens he uses stereotypics, flame vocabulary and cussings of all sort - this happens when Bander has the feeling to have repeated on that point on and on and when he finds out that someone just doent listen.  Then he dicides that he has delivered all his arguments on that case and moves on -

Bander is very interested in political issues - now and the historical ones - is reading every big paper u can buy here. he is proud on his little but culturally rich, social  and peaceful homecountry wich had a violent history in the past - also with dark shadows. but it seems his countries people learned out of that. And he likes Europe. He already isnt feeling as a "austrian" anymore  only . but as an "European" with Afghan Roots.

People say that europe and the U.S. are like:

U.S. from the Mars - Europe comes from the Venus. Thats shiat. Europeans and Americans are the same people. U live in a young and big country. Sometimes it made shit (like all countries did in history), sometimes it was the "rescue in last time". All in all america is a cool country (cuz its citizen are "good") - but bander actually things that right now a "evil" goverment is manipulating many "good" americans, so they support almost blindly his personal plans.

Thats Banders only dispute that he has with "america". and if he juts dislikes Bushaneer for his furious pro-war (aka killing) arguments this doesnt mean anything about Banders feelings towards the U.S. citizens in general.

End of the "Bander Manual". Hope it answered some open questions.
If not, dont worry - i dont really care ;)

props to all my friends on GR no matter from what hole they come ;)

Bander

I think what Zait was tring to say is that the Western European nations are not subject to our every whim. By rebuilding their economies we helped them not subordinate them.

UK and France wouldnt be good for the security council. I am glad the US is in the Security Council because then the world would be warped into Russian and Chinese spheres of influence. You take the US out, and I guarantee you, that would probablly happen.

I will tell you what gets buildings slammed into our buildings, its economic expansionism and exploitation. Too much of the world's wealth is in the United States. Russians think they are better than everyone else, and you know the French think they are better than everyone else. You dont see the Kremlin and the Eiffel Tower in flames.

P.S.: when i said your education system is "shit" i expected to be flamed down. but hum? now, to be more precise:

it does NOT suck in general. but i have the feeling it depends on WHERE u get education in the U.S. and for my taste its too much focussed on inner-american issues - not on global history and stuff.

Maybe its cuz the american history didnt start that long ago, and its has been needed to develope a "U.S. american identity" in the beginning of the continent. but now, when the U.S. are playing such an important role on earth as "remaining as the last superpower" i think its urgent needed to get a better feeling for the surrounding world, as an american.

if i sounded like "americans are dumb" (lol, i bet it did) i say sorry. thats not what i meant. in fact most americans u meet over here in europe are very nice guys. maybe cuz they arent armed and cuz they can be open minded too.

To the person who asked why austrians "hate" prussians:

ey man. austrians dont really hate em - its like a long going joke - they make fun of us, we make fun of em. we go there to vacation, they come here. austrians only get really mad on em if they beat us up in soccer again ;)

and for the "anschluss": austrians are discussing this point too. my opinion is - when hitler annexed austria and people applauded him on "heldenplatz" this never where all austrians. what would be your feelings if someone anexes your homecountry and eliminates his historical name and history from the landmaps? it would have hurted ME a lot. (and austria had a much longer history than kuwait or U.S. for excemple)

dude: i can tell u a lot negative things about my country too. there is not always black & white only. i dont think its the "best" i think its a good one. and about "Haider": neverthless what he says or does- he never hurt or killed, nor was he involved in any case where someone got killed or hurt during his polical ?ra. I dont like him very much but at last he did something good: He - the anti-foreinger man - suddenly calls himself arab-friend, visits the near east a lot and is (funny but true) our best "protection shield against terror" that we have actually LOL.
its really strange. and by the way: his party killed itself last year. if he ever was a threat - its laughtable anyways now ;)

BAH i go to bed now. g?night yo suckaz!

;)

Banda

cossack,
i dont see the kremlin or the eiffel tower burning, but i see hostages being taken in moscow theatres and i have seen bombs explode in the paris metro, bith in reaction to those governments policies. besides, if you look at the post sep. 11th alquaida attacks (i.e. Bali, djerba and in pakistan, you will find that europeans and australinas were better represented amongst the casualties than americans. this isnt somthing btw the US and alquaida, but between the western world and alquaida. economic expansionism and exploitation are not uniquly american phenomena. france does the same thing in africa, but i have yet to see a bunch of pissed off conglolese coming to france to start shit. to me, this is more a question of america being the big guy and others being jelous.

i don't agree with the proposition that europe owes america anything more than they are giving them right now. it would be nice to see that we can count on our allies (as we can with britain or spain) to back us up if we need help, but WW2 in no way obliges europe to do anything. by this logic, we should actually be grateful to the french for helping us defeat britain in the war of independace. besides, russia isnt asking for anything from europe now eventhough they lost 25 million people fighting hitler and actually captured berlin. this argument is extremly flawed and anyone who cites this as a reason for why europe shold be helping us is a knucklehead, imo, pure and simple and should go read up on his history.

zaitsev, drawing an analogy between the vietnam war and the falklands/maldivas conflict is a bit far fetched. argentina invaded a bunch of little islands that they figured the brits wouldnt care since they are inhabited by more sheep than people and have no real strategic value to the UK anyways. Britain sees a threat to its credibility as a major power and reacts militarily, recapturing the falklands in a matter of weeks. now tell me how this is comparable to vietnam. on which you seem to consider yourself knowlegable about......i won't go into the rest of your post because ace already did.

Abe, Abe:

Dood - please dont force me to point out that the problkems in russia are caused from the russian "war against terror" in chechenia(!) and that this has nothing to do with al kaeeda. If i must this would this would bring you dangerously near to "dumbassism".

BAH - look! Such stupid arguments and u want me and others to discuss with you? lol ...

It wasn't going to last close to that long Assassin.


I think ace just about covered this side of things.  And I'd sure like to know what you are basing the UK taking on Iraq of 1990 fairly easilly on it's own??


This is where all your other mistakes started.  If you had paid attention to my post, you'd see I was talking about NATO, not the UN.  I was talking about how many members of NATO rely on the strengh and size of the US millitay to cut spending of their own.  


OUCH, bad example.  How many terrorist bombs go off in England?  Jesus H Christ Zaitsev, think about these examples.  Put a little effort into it.  England has been facing terrorist attacks since before I was born.  It's gotten better and better in the past 15 years, and I can't remember the last time I read about it, which is a good thing.  But damn, use a better example, like Canada.


JUST is the key word Kami.  I have both handguns and shotguns.  I don't keep them to feel safe at all.  It's not their purpose.  Both Bambi and Thumper may like to see me not have them though ;)  And I actually enjoy target shooting with the .45 quite a bit.  It's very fun.  Like playing GhR or RS, but with more noise and feeling, but less movement.

Bah. Shooting animals. Hope u also eat em then.

If i need the feeling of a gun over here in austria i simply go to a "Bundesheer Schiessstand" and fire some hours with a nice Steyr-STG77 (Armeuniversalgewehr Standart Sturmgewehr)

I dont need a fucking gun at home between my sockets. and if i want to eat some deer i go 180kmh on the "landstrasse" or buy some out of the supermarket fridge.

I also never liked cowboy movies. some prolos running around like cocks with stiff armes, always being paranoid and having to much alcohol and too less sex.

Especially handguns are sick in my eyes. have u ever looked at one, while remembering that this tool is especially designed to kill PEOPLE?

u cant really go hunting with a gun, there u need a rifle. a fucking gun is especially design to take away human live with it. its unnatural to have the permanent oppurtunity to take away someones live at home.
even most animals have natural restrictions so even when they fight among themselves they never fight to the death.

And the funny thing for me: America is sooo religious. But i never heard about jesus carring around a 45er magnum while preacing love and peace. I just mention this cuz american presidents always are seen on cnn, talking about war standing in front of peacfel places like curces, or in kindergardens. this doesnt fit together. this makes me sick.

but all i wrote wont make the asses any more clever.

basta camarillo

Bandah

bander,
was soll der scheiss???(wtf for those who dont know german....)


now look over my post.


now.....well, it seems that i was saying that the "problems in russia" are in reaction to that governments poilcy.......don't put words in my mouth, please.

so you think i'm dangerously close to 'dumbassism' because of what you think i am saying? not reading other peoples posts properly is dangerously close to dumbassism if you ask me....

also, komm mir nicht mit solcher dummen scheisse angelaufen, wenn du nicht eimal gruendlich durchgelesn hasst. was versucht du eigentlich zu beweisen?

I was refering to this. U where talking about checenia and al kaeeda.

The conflict in chechenia should rather make u think:

Its declared as a "war against terror" too. Do u like the outcome so far?
IRA bombs in London? Not anymore. But that was the same effect that u always get if you occupie another nations people for your own advantage.

What should we learn out of this? Occupation brings Terror.
U dont want Terror? No occupation then (i also mean political occupation). But instead learning u think you guys could be successful with tactics wich already proofed emselves as inefficient, by other nations. Thats saaaad!

btw.: your german translator sux. but use it - i still can understand what it produces. at last u are trying ;)

Actually Bander, Al Queada has and is taking part in Chechnya. The Battle of Kunduz in Afghanistan last year had many Chechens fighting on the side of Al Queada.

The underlying point I was tring to make is that it takes more than feeling like you are better than everyone else to cause a 9/11 catastrophe. (I picked some bad examples) What I am tring to say is that exploitation is the root of the problem.

bander,

wenn du mich nicht gern hasst ist das eine sache, aber versuch wenigstens meine argumente so zu lesen wie sie gemeint sind....ich habe klar und deutlich gesagt, dass, meiner meinung nach, der krieg in chechien vollkomen das resultat des verhaltens der russischen regierung dort ist und nicht, wie du es interpretiert hast, dass ich irgendeine verbindung zwischen den chechenen und alquaida mache.

im not going to translate this (i mean use my auto-translator.......LMAO, u arrogant prick) since every literate person on this forum, unlike Bander, saw that i said chechnya is the russian's fault and not alkaida.

the sad thing is, bander, that i actually was warming up to you after your "bander-facts" post, because it gives me a better idea of where your arguments come from. i know, bander......u don't give a fuck. just thought id mention it anyway.

btw, if my german translator could translate your austrian colloquialisms, i think everyone on this forum would have a good laugh.....in case you dont read my posts, i think ive mentioned that german is my mothertongue, so what are you trying to prove by criticising my german? granted its rusty (last time i lived in a german speaking environment was 10 yrs ago) but for somone who is so sensitive about people making fun of his english (which i never did, btw), you are pretty quick to mock others for their language skills.

Yeah. Its true that many afghan mujahedeen fight and fought with their chechenian "brothers". In fact even Mullah Omar offered Shah Ahmed Massud a cease fire so they Taliban would have been able to send fighters to "liberate" Grosny. Massud denied with the words "why to fight another war, while we still havent solved the problems in our own country). BUT: even if it should be supported by al-kaeeda (why not also the U.S. again? its the same thing like with the afghans. Just a theorie.) it IS a other conflict. Started back before any osama shiat - remember Commander Dudajev and Company?

I am also not protecting the Chechen terrorists, but whe ever saw the pictures of the capital "grosny" (translated: terrible) will agree that exactly this is the "stony field" where terror must grow automatically.

But lets go back to the topic now ;) greets and Nastrovie Dude!

I am afghan, u are a russ ;) but no bad blood between us. all afghans know well that the UDSSR didnt let many choice to their young men when they sent em towards kabul. we always used to be very good friends before the occupation. another good reason to condemn military violence, no matter for what reason.

Bander

I agree no bad blood between us. We may have some conflicting views when it comes to Central Asia and the Caucuses. I hope thats what Afghans think, but I doubt it is what the uneducated sheep hearder in the Panjsir thinks.

I have much respect for Dudayeev he is a real patriot, but both sides have degraded themselves too much, that no one shows any moral highground.

Of course.  And thoes against hunting can blow me, as it's part of my heritage and culture (the native american one).  And for the first smart ass that talks about using a bow and arrow, not only do I do that, but not all native americans used them either.


Two things.  First, my uncle hunts with a handgun all the time.  A .44 magnum will bring down a deer as quick as a deerslug from a shotgun will.  It just makes it more of a challenge to hit.  But he manages to get one the first day every year.  And he has never injured a deer and lost it (for those PETA fans).

Second, I believe I learned in my history classes that many men had to keep swords in their homes in the old days.  And produce them, shiny and sharp on holidays.  This was expected of all able bodied men, in the case that they were called to fight.  Seems I read this being a European thing.  It goes back between the dark ages and the Napollianic Wars.  It was also a custom with Americans back in the  old days too, when the militia was very important (going back to the war of 1812 and further back).   It's been much more of a custom from people to have weapons, like swords (which are meant to kill men too) in their homes.  This didn't happen when guns came around, it's a very very old tradition.  So, I think it's more unnatural to NOT have a weapon around.  Not that I think I need a weapon in my home to be safe.  Just poining out that people have kept weapons in their homes long before the gun or pistol was around.

Bander, it's nice to see that you can actually write without being a complete asshole.  I really don't see why you enjoy starting flame wars, but you do seem to love it, and you are good at it.

I'll let you know a little about me now.  

First, I didn't vote for Bush.  I hate him.  I can't stand him.

Second, I work as a consultant, trying to start my own business up right now.  I'm 33 years old with my first kid (a girl) due in 8 weeks.

Third, I have a Bachalors of Science and a Masters of Business Administration degrees.

Fourth, I speak more then one language too, German just doesn't happen to be one of them.  Besides English, I speak a little Spanish, Arabic, and Cherokee.  But I am very out of practice, I dont' get the chance to use them very often (besides using Arabic to order food).

Fifth, my brother in law is muslim.  Born in Lebanon.  I don't hate islam at all.

Sixth, and I'm surprised with all the conspiracy theories goign, nobody has pondered why I was a roomate with someone 3 years younger them me), I spent 18months between high school and college in the Peace Corps (yes, I will get mocked for that I'm sure).  In Honduras and Columbia.  Since I had school paid for with academic scholarships, I decided, being the liberal I was at the time, to go do the liberal thing and build homes in Central America.  It was long ago (back in '87 - '88), and the last time that I actually used spanish.

Seven, I've spent time in Mexico, Central America, South America (besides Columbia), England, Ireland, France, Itally and even Germany (but not Austria).  Plus some islands in the Caribian.  I've also lived in Canada.

So you see Bander, I'm not a Bush supporter, or an arab hater.  I was a liberal, but moved onto moderate.  And I'm not an under-educated kid.  I'm also not ignorant of the rest of the world.  

The only thing that does really bother me is stupidity.  The biggest examples I know of are biggotry and hypocricy.  So do me a favor and give the flame starters a rest.  Or at least bother to read my posts for real.

k bander, remember that time i pwned u with that post about how the u.s. rebuit the austrian army after ww2? didnt think so.
coss, the russians lost 25 million cause stalin was a moron. i'm not saying that the russians didnt contribute, they did i damned fine job all things considered.  i would proudly join the millitary if they needed me, and if i could. however, i have a disablility that prevents me from joining. i dont want war, but i see no other way. i really cant wait to see what u fucks will have to say when we are attacked again. i really cant. fuck all of you.

That Russian thing wasnt aimed directly at you spaz, it was more of a rant that traveled to that statement. We are on different sides of the political spectrum, it dosent take away the quality of your persona. People including me are angry that our government is opening our mail, bugging our phones. Watching us. That is what I dont like and I am protesting against it. I am in favor of hightened security, but not at the price of taking away those seemingly baisic rights. Increase the patrols, insert human intel into the field, but dont take our right to protest in the streets and tap our phones and what not.

i totally agree dude.

thats why i say: lets send the "uneducated sheep hearder from the Panjsir" to school, then to university. lets give em a chance to get back aducation and a future. lets involve these people into our "modern times" so we dont have to fear them anymore. and lets not give em a reason to hate us at all. that would be the perfect solution.

ok and as to afghans: my friend georgij is a russ too, he plays in a hardcore band called "sojut" (kewl hehe). i often talked with him about that already - most afgans already know exactly that they where only used as "marrionettes" from many, during the end of the cold war.

occupied by the soviets, misused by the americans, later by the pakistanis, then by the americans again (when the U.S. supported omar and the taliban movement), the rest of the story we all know :(

afghans arent fanatic people unlike these al-kaida merchenaries around osama (the saudi man) - they may be sheperds and poor but they are really clever. even american soldiers admitted in a interview: the afghans are unlike other asian people. once u explained em one thing once, they know what to do.

i am very often very surprised about the keen political analyzis from some unknown old afghan men on tv, when being asked about the political ongoings.

even when the U.S. bombings took place most afghans where fully aware of what going on (not making any collateral damage any better). the best i liked was these meeting between afgan people who lost relatives during the U.S. bombings and american citizens who lost relatives in the 9/11 attacks. that was really touching everyones hearth.

maybe some guys dont get it straight: if i say "fuck bush" this doesnt mean the U.S. is fucked up for all time now - thats at last the reason for me why posting in such threads like this one.

tnx for your messages and postings cossak, i always like to read em ~

and to dudayew: he also impressed me in the beginning - but he revealed himself as an asshole pretty fast too. but i am pretty sure checenya is 2lost ground" for russland now - no way to forget for both sides. therefore: let checenya go (and what do u think about geaorgia? next crisis zone?)

peace ~

bander

They have a "domino theory meantality"  in Moscow. If they let go of Chechnya now, it will be Ossetia next, then Dagestan, and then Turkestan (area around city of Kazan). I dont know about "lost ground."