Bush's Tax Cut: Effective?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, we have no right to just traipse into various countries and bomb them just to protect us from potential attacks.  

As a matter of fact, we do.  Why don't you go look it up?  I swear I don't understand how you made it out of High School with so little a grasp on history and government.  I feel like a history teacher here.

[BFG]

What planet are you on Buccaneer? The Im american= i am god world?
I hate to tell you this but there is nothing where being american gives you the right to do things that you have done... Where exactly would we be looking up the bit about killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians?

I found it quite amusing how you bypassed all the comments about Isreal. And how america is funding terrorism like the IRA in northern ireland. Again, what about your continuing funding of israel. - Isreael is breaking UN resolutions just as you claim iraq was... So when are you going to go kill tens of thousands of isreali citizens? Damn it, American troops can't even manage to shoot at the enemy - you end up shooting your allies.

 And i deeply regret our involvment in iraq. The Uk has made some huge mistakes, and the more that Blair and bush get on the worse it gets, Bush simply needs the UK for its military -- which thank god isn't a bunch of trigger happy Gi's as we saw in iraq.
Don't suppose you heard how US soldiers killed familys of iraqi's at check points? no... that would be unpatriotic wouldn't it.

I look forward to hearing that America has gone to war with itself in its 'crusade' against terrorism.. Only thing is you will blow half your own civilians up, and let the guys you actually went in to get, escape.

Did you know about really what america is doing in iraq? Is your media still 'censored' so much to remain 'patriotic' that you don't know how american troops have stood by guarding oil pipes etc, watching looting, fighting and killing without rasing a finger?

Like bondo said. You can't just decide to attack a contry because 'it might' think about attacking you. Has it occured to you why america might be in this constant state of fear from attack now? Its not everybody else, i hate to tell u this but actually america is not perfect! Im not saying anyone is, but the idea that America is some crusading master land defending the right of 'democracy' etc is bull shit. Absolutly bullshit. Like i said before, you still kill your own civilians! How can u expect us to take a country seriously that gasses, electrocutes, shoots, etc its own civilians?

We didn't go in to make it a better place for them.? We went in to make it a safer place for us, by destroying all the weapons we did, and scattering the terrorists.? No, it sure didn't solve the problem, but it did buy some time.? They have to regroup and resupply in the least.

It was not a war to save Afghanistan, it was a war to kill terrorists and their infrastructure.

BTW, it's not up to us to improve their quality of life, that's up to them.? We send plenty of food and money to assist with that already.? More then anyone else.

I can't be bothered to waste my time with an answer to that, execpt i think youve just answered a lot of my comments earlier. You went in as a 'pre-emtive strike'. You seem to feel that it is quite all right to attack another country beause it 'MIGHT' have terroirsts. how do you define a terrorist? someone who dosn't like america?

Did you know about the hundreds of Christian aid workers from america who are working on a food for christianity basis? Of course, sorry terrorists.... It has nothign to do with islam im sure, silly me.

And where is Osma bin Larden now? And where is Saddam Hussain? Just out of curiosity.

OR are we talking about the Prisoners in camp X-Ray (guatamala bay). The 'illigal combatants' which you are 'detaining'. YET again breaking the Geneva Convention. They are POW's But you give them no rights, no access to lawyers. Are these the terrorists you went to destroy? the 14 and fifteen year olds that you keep locked up?

What a great country. oh well done. But of course it dosn't matter about the rest of the world does it... as long as america gets it's oil, kills and destroys all who resist, and rape the rest of the world for its own profit then its fine isn't it!

I wish I could be simply totally anti american, but fortunatly there are a very large amount of people who are intellegent, understanding people, who don't agree with what the Bush administration has done / is doing.


It makes me physically sick.


ps. let me leave you with just on thing: In a survey done a few months ago. A cross section of Americans were survayed about their geographical knowlege. Most of them couldn't pick out the different parts of the world, and a scary percentage couldn't show the researchers where they lived on the globe..... Need i say more?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I think the Bush Administration needs to be diagonosed with schitzophrenia and ruled unfit to govern, because that is in essance what they are.  They are crazily afraid of everyone to the point that they are dangerous to themself and others.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

What planet are you on Buccaneer? The Im american= i am god world?

No, the real world, not the idealistic childlike world.

Where exactly would we be looking up the bit about killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians?

Actually, you can look it up just fine in regards to your country.  The British Empire.  Right?

If you are talking about what gives a country the right to go to war with another that it considers a threat, you shock me that you don't know this.  All sovereign nations hold that right.  Do you really need me to find it for you?  Just the law or examples in history?  Because if you can't even look up the most basic facts of government and nations, how can you talk about any international issues with any intelligence at all?  Not that you've had any intelligence so far, just emotion.

I found it quite amusing how you bypassed all the comments about Isreal. And how america is funding terrorism like the IRA in northern ireland. Again, what about your continuing funding of israel.

When in the world have I bypassed comments about Isreal?  I've agreed and explained why the US holds it's position on Isreal.  Just look in the threads actually ABOUT IT.

As for funding terrorism like the IRA, our government isn't doing it.  And it's actually against the law if they catch the citizens doing it.  So tell me, how much funding is going into the IRA for terrorism from the USA now a days?  As a matter of fact, when was the last terrorist incident of the IRA?

Damn it, American troops can't even manage to shoot at the enemy - you end up shooting your allies.

Ok, fuck you.  That's just bullshit you cocksucker.

And i deeply regret our involvment in iraq. The Uk has made some huge mistakes, and the more that Blair and bush get on the worse it gets, Bush simply needs the UK for its military -- which thank god isn't a bunch of trigger happy Gi's as we saw in iraq.

Beg pardon?  The US needs the British military?  Now that's a joke.  And don't fucking downplay the UK, they wanted to be there.  They didn't need any pushing, the UK was ready to go from day one.  

And I'll take the success of the American armed forces over the record of the Brit's any-day.

Don't suppose you heard how US soldiers killed familys of iraqi's at check points? no... that would be unpatriotic wouldn't it.

The difference is, I can see it for what it is, and blame the right people.  Not just point at Americans like you do.

If you see soldiers at a road block, all with lots and lost of shinny weapons, and signs in many languages saying to stop or be shot, what do you do?  Well, the stupid people that tried to run the roadblock caused their own deaths, and those of their passengers.  I don't point the finger at the soldiers, I point them at the person that was so stupid, they chose to ignore the roadblock.  

Did you know about really what america is doing in iraq? Is your media still 'censored' so much to remain 'patriotic' that you don't know how american troops have stood by guarding oil pipes etc, watching looting, fighting and killing without rasing a finger?

Very aware of what they are doing.  You mean protecting against the ecological disaster that Iraq pulled last time buy opening and burning those oil lines?  And they don't raise a finger, eh?  Bullshit.  Talk to me when you are full of lies.  They aren't killing people (you know, those innocent civilian looters), but that doesn't mean they do nothing.  Are you even still paying attention to new news?

Like bondo said. You can't just decide to attack a contry because 'it might' think about attacking you.

Did attack us.  We were talking about Al Quida, after all.  And if you are talking about the Taliban, well, then you are still off base.  And you really, really, really should learn more of your history boy.

Has it occured to you why america might be in this constant state of fear from attack now?

Who is in a constant state of fear?  The only people I ever hear say that are not in America, funny that.  Nice of you to assume something that you have no fucking clue over.  Any of you Americans in a "constant state of fear" over terrorist attacks?  Building bomb shelters in your back yards yet?  Don't make me laugh with your bullshit.

Did you know about the hundreds of Christian aid workers from america who are working on a food for christianity basis? Of course, sorry terrorists.... It has nothign to do with islam im sure, silly me.

If you have a point there, I sure as hell couldn't figure it out.  So Christian aid workers (from multiple countries, btw) are giving out food.  Are you saying that they are not giving it out to the Muslims?  Because 1) I've not heard any programs that don't and 2) even if that's the case, so what, they have the right to give FOOD to whomever they choose.  

And where is Osma bin Larden now? And where is Saddam Hussain? Just out of curiosity.

Love to know, but in both cases, they are on the run and no longer a real threat in the immediate future.

OR are we talking about the Prisoners in camp X-Ray (guatamala bay). The 'illigal combatants' which you are 'detaining'. YET again breaking the Geneva Convention. They are POW's But you give them no rights, no access to lawyers. Are these the terrorists you went to destroy? the 14 and fifteen year olds that you keep locked up?

Where's Guatamala Bay?  Funny how you bring up American kids not knowing geography when you don't either.

Excuse me?  POW's?  Breaking the Geneva Convention?  This was covered long ago, but you need to actually learn what the Geneva Convention says and look as to how it's applied.  Illegal combatants is a real thing, addressed by the Geneva Convention.  POW's have rights, but these guys fall outside.  Look it up.

And the 14 and 15 year olds?  How many bombers throughout the history of that region have been 14 and 15.  You think none?  You think just because they are 15 they can't be a terrorist?  Get real.

What a great country. oh well done. But of course it dosn't matter about the rest of the world does it... as long as america gets it's oil, kills and destroys all who resist, and rape the rest of the world for its own profit then its fine isn't it!

Blow me with your anti-American bullshit.  Especially coming from a country that supported the war.  Clean your own fucking house if that's the way you feel, before pointing at ours.

ps. let me leave you with just on thing: In a survey done a few months ago. A cross section of Americans were survayed about their geographical knowlege. Most of them couldn't pick out the different parts of the world, and a scary percentage couldn't show the researchers where they lived on the globe..... Need i say more?

Funny, bet I could find plenty of guys down in the tubes that are that stupid too.

And let me leave you with just one thing (ok, three things).  1) You are not talking to someone that can't do that.  I have both a working brain and an education.  2) When you are making a point about people being stupid, maybe you shouldn't have spelling errors all over that fucking point.  Fucking opinionated, half educated kids annoy me.  And 3) if you want to discuss this, how about putting it in a thread for it, not about taxes.

[BFG]

Fine, enought with the cheep insults if thats all u can manage. I don't have enough engergy to try and explain very very simply in words my point. So i'll let you carry on.
The idealistic childlike world? yes thats the world where america dosn't go throwing its military might around and attacking other countries.

Yes unfortuatly parts of the bristish goverment agreed to the iraqi war. I didn't down play it as far as i am concerned. I am well aware of our involvement, and am very close to people who have or are serving out there... But by no means did the country agree to it  and by no means did the whole of goverment back the military action (its just we didn't  pick on those who voiced their opposition and call them unpatriotic or some shit). And yes i hate to say it but you did actually need the Royal marines and british troops, because they were not rookies, and they actually had experience in close quarter urban warfare, and peacekeeping duties unlike the american troops. Oh and they were capable of not shooting each other.

Ok, fuck you.? That's just bullshit you cocksucker.

And your calling me immature? it was a statment, that unfortunatly is somwhat accurate - bearing in mind the number of Canadian, British and American troops... the americans have killed.

 Im sorry but good spelling is not a sign of intelligence. And neither is bad spelling a sign of stupidity. Perhaps if the education system in general was more broadminded it would understand more that intelligence is actually the ability to learn, to understand and most simply to think. So bad spelling makes you stupid?  Then many of the worlds greatest artists, scientists, academics etc. are stupid? because they are dyslexic? i doubt that.

Sovereign nations? A right to go to war? Have you heard of the UN? Or how about the 21st Century?

Emotion, intelligence. right. of course emotions are not something to be considered! silly me. we should just decide that it is our right to go bomb the f*ck out of someone. yeah of course... silly me.

Fine I can't spell Guatamala bay. not the end of the world. Yes it was covered a long time ago... but america did nothing about it and they remain in detention. I won't go into the reason why i believe america is breaking the geneva convention, or why they Should be considered Pows. Because i have just the smallest inclining u will just bypass it along with everything else you don't want to read.

oh and calling me a

Fucking opinionated, half educated kid

really isn't very productive.

Obviously i should maybe keep anything 'not patriotic' that might slightly blemish the stars and strips away from this forum. So much for free speech eh!

Enough. enough time wasted.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Fine, enought with the cheep insults if thats all u can manage.

Your' whole last post was nothing but a cheap insult to anyone with half a brain or more, so don't start the "wounded me" bullshit.

yes thats the world where america dosn't go throwing its military might around and attacking other countries.

There you go again, looking towards America when your own country has a much richer and deeper history in this regards.  Asshole.

But by no means did the country agree to it  

Really?  Seems that the BBC published polls after Blair went on TV at the commencement of hostilities and shifted public opinion to the point where over 50% of polled people were for it?  Did you forget about that little fact?  Not the over 70% of America, but still most of the people.

And yes i hate to say it but you did actually need the Royal marines and british troops, because they were not rookies, and they actually had experience in close quarter urban warfare, and peacekeeping duties unlike the american troops.

Again, another obvious bullshit comment coming from someone that knows jack shit.  On the one side, you talk about all the wars America starts, on the other, you talk about our troops having no experience.  How does that work out exactly?  American troops haven't been deployed to peace keeping duties?  Really?

And your calling me immature? it was a statment, that unfortunatly is somwhat accurate - bearing in mind the number of Canadian, British and American troops... the americans have killed.

It was an insult asshole.  And I called you ignorant, not immature.  If you weren't so ignorant maybe you would be able to read that.

So bad spelling makes you stupid?  Then many of the worlds greatest artists, scientists, academics etc. are stupid? because they are dyslexic? i doubt that.

I ever say bad spelling makes everyone stupid?  What makes you stupid is the lack of basic skills to even look at your own history, or that of other nations.  What makes you stupid is to talk about Americans not knowing geography, then making a geographical error like you did.  Guatemala is in Central America, not a base in Cuba.  Guantanamo Bay is a US Base on the island of Cuba.  But it's ok for you to poke fun at Americans that don't know geography.  Fuck you.

Another thing that makes you stupid is calling it a violation of the Geneva Convention when you've obviously not read it.  

Sovereign nations? A right to go to war? Have you heard of the UN? Or how about the 21st Century?

Yep, I've heard of both.  You want to show me where in joining the UN any nation gave up it's Sovereign Rights?  You want to tell me where the expiration date on those rights were printed, like on a gallon of milk, that said they were no good after 2000?  No nation gave up the rights like you seem to think.  Show me where it says they did.

Fine I can't spell Guatamala bay. not the end of the world. Yes it was covered a long time ago... but america did nothing about it and they remain in detention. I won't go into the reason why i believe america is breaking the geneva convention, or why they Should be considered Pows. Because i have just the smallest inclining u will just bypass it along with everything else you don't want to read.

You should have noticed by now that I don't bypass, I leave that to others.  First, don't try to pass of "Guatamala" as a spelling mistake, that's such horse shit since it's a different place.  Second, America didn't have to do anything about it because they aren't in violation, why do you think other countries aren't all over them about it as a violation?  You can believe it all you want, but it's pretty obvious that belief isn't based on the actual situation or the actual Articles from the Geneva Convention, but just from the opinion of someone that hasn't taken the time to read them himself.  So don't try to hide your ignorance behind a simple mistake, or a lie that I'd bypass them.  You are just hiding.

oh and calling me a

Fucking opinionated, half educated kid

really isn't very productive.

Obviously i should maybe keep anything 'not patriotic' that might slightly blemish the stars and strips away from this forum. So much for free speech eh!

Was it less productive then you talking about Americans that can't pass a geography test?  I think not.  But it was accurate.

And you should keep the bullshit out.  There were plenty of threads about this topic, go bring one of them back or start a new one.  This was a discussion on taxes.  But your hole post was bullshit.  Your high on opinions and short on facts.  You say you aren't anti-American but everything else in your post reeks of it.  And you come from a country that does this more then America does (and are in obvious need of a good history tutor).  

[tasty]

Bucc, I would say this guy is right about one thing. Americans do almost no peacekeeping. The countries responsible for UN peacekeeping are mostly the small European ones, because their troops are better sized and better suited for the type of missions that peacekeeping involves. Also the general opinion in the UN is that the bigger countries cannot be trusted to do peacekeeping because they have too many other vested interests, which is why US Russia China hardly ever do it. Another factor is the fact that after Mogadishu many congressional interests decided they weren't willing to risk any US troops for missions that did not directly benefit the US. Not to say that US troops are never deployed for peacekeeping, but its very rare nowadays.

[BFG]

This is a bloody joke.

Yes you did imply that bad spelling = lack off intellegence. And yes i did mean Guantanamo Bay (ty for correct spelling) - and yes thankyou i do know what it is. Thats becasue our media actually reports on it rather than hide from anything 'non patriotic'. All this shit about freedom of speech? And you bitch and insult anyone who posts anything that might not fit in with your views. But of course anyone who isn't american isn't worth listening to? Or don't tell me 'just half assed oppiononated little shits'?

Since when were we talking about old history? I havnt' been, apart from conflict in the last 60 odd years. Hell of course Britain has a pretty busy history of invading countries, and yes the British empire and at no point have i defended our actions and have no intention of doing so as i do now agree with what has happend (oh am i being unpatriotic? better arrest me). But im not quite sure if your aware that im actually talking about the the late 20th and now 21st century?

Soverign rights... There is a difference between protecting and defending your country... and just saying 'oh these guys might have an odd terrorist. lets launch a preemptive strike against them just incase'. A very big difference.

I am calling it a Violation of the Geneva Convention because that is what i believe it to be. The illigal detention of people who will not be given the status of "POW" Which they are! They were defending their country from an attacking force. America just stuck them out there so they are not under American Jurisdiction and so you can do the f*ck you want with them. They have not even been charged... but instead simply detained as 'suspected terrorists'. Without even being allowed access to lawyers? and what about the decision to try them in military courts? behind closed doors? Oh yes. great one.

So America can just walz around doing what it likes, locking up who it likes? And you spew bullshit about defending democracy and freedom of speech? What about the 'patriotism act'? very interesting.
Oh and countries have been complaining about it being a violation. And shit loads of lawyers have been as well.. Seems like you just don't hear about it from your 'patriotic' media.

What on earth are you talking about? I said the majority of your troops were not used to urban warfare, or much peacekeeping. I said that beacuse most of the conflict that america has appeard to have been involved in recently has simply involved flying over a country dropping massive bombs... I won't mention the chinese embassy in afganastan beacuse of course.... er. that was a mistake.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

This is a bloody joke.

The joke is that you think you know what you are talking about.

And yes i did mean Guantanamo Bay (ty for correct spelling) - and yes thankyou i do know what it is.

Bullshit.  calling Guantanamo Guatemala is a geographical error, just like the ones you brought up about Americans.

Thats becasue our media actually reports on it rather than hide from anything 'non patriotic'. All this shit about freedom of speech? And you bitch and insult anyone who posts anything that might not fit in with your views. But of course anyone who isn't american isn't worth listening to? Or don't tell me 'just half assed oppiononated little shits'?

Yep, you got it with the last there, except you forgot uneducated.  Our news covers it all, and I even read news from around the world, not just the ones that support my view.  Something you don't seem capable of.  But I'm also not going to sit back and let an ignorant little prick broadcast falsehoods that smack of propoganda either.  Yes, insulting the other view does fall under freedom of speech, but I wouldn't actually expect you to understand that.

Since when were we talking about old history? I havnt' been, apart from conflict in the last 60 odd years. Hell of course Britain has a pretty busy history of invading countries, and yes the British empire and at no point have i defended our actions and have no intention of doing so as i do now agree with what has happend (oh am i being unpatriotic? better arrest me). But im not quite sure if your aware that im actually talking about the the late 20th and now 21st century?

So, your history classes teach you that the UK hasn't been in any conflict for the last 60 years.  So Korea, Vietnam, Falklands, Kosavo (you brought that up about America, right?) the First Gulf War, the Second Gulf War, Afghanistan (forget about those SAS guys that were there?), and, let's not forget Ireland (I'll even let some of the bullshit that went on after WW2 in the Middle East slide, since  that is a ways back.)  Now, I know I've missed some of the more minor stuff, so you'll have to forgive me, since this was all just off the top of my head.  So, I wasn't really talking about ancient history, but you don't seem to be up on the history you are even talking about.

Soverign rights... There is a difference between protecting and defending your country... and just saying 'oh these guys might have an odd terrorist. lets launch a preemptive strike against them just incase'. A very big difference.

Which wasn't the case in Afghanistan at all.  So I don't know what you are smoking, but you really should stop before you can't control your basic bodily functions anymore.  Your sense of reality seems to be distorted enough to last a lifetime already.  Nobody intelligent, even here, ever argued that the terrorists weren't there (considering that the Taliban basically admitted it).  The arguments were if it was worth the innocent Afghani lives that would be lost because they were "in the way" to put it very crudely.  But you are bringing it to a new height of not even reading the basics.

And yes, countries still have Soverign Rights.  Take Iraq back in the First Gulf War.  They actually had the right to attack Kuwait because of side drilling into Iraq.  They didn't go about it right, and then they committed many crimes while there, but they had the right to go to war.  And America, having a treaty with Kuwait had a right to jump right in.

The UN didn't make countries give up these rights.  The UN is a body who has a major goal of keeping wars from braking out.  But it's not a government onto itself.  But the UN, like the League of Nations, will probably fail, because too many countries (and don't point the finger at just the USA here, because the UK, half of Europe, China, and quite a few others all fit the mold very well) will play too many games inside the UN, or not listen to it outside.

I am calling it a Violation of the Geneva Convention because that is what i believe it to be. The illigal detention of people who will not be given the status of "POW" Which they are! They were defending their country from an attacking force.

What country were they fighting for exactly?  Most of them were found hiding, not fighting.  And do you actually know the difference between POW and Illegal Combatant?  Because you sure don't seem to.  These are not POW's.  Read up before you want to talk about it.  

Without even being allowed access to lawyers? and what about the decision to try them in military courts? behind closed doors? Oh yes. great one.

And you think your news reports it all?  Or do you just keep getting it wrong?  They don't have access to civilian lawyers.  They do military ones.  Oh, and if they were POW's, their own military would provide it, but, since they aren't, our military will.

So America can just walz around doing what it likes, locking up who it likes? And you spew bullshit about defending democracy and freedom of speech? What about the 'patriotism act'? very interesting.

Yeah, the patriotism act sucks big time, it will make this more like the UK if nothing else.  It blows.

As for waltzing in and locking up criminals, yes.  What in the hell is wrong with going in there and yanking a terrorist off the streets?  Don't forget that other governments actually helped us capture quite a few of them, and that most of them were under false passports as well.  Or did you forget to read that part in your vast research?

Oh and countries have been complaining about it being a violation. And shit loads of lawyers have been as well.. Seems like you just don't hear about it from your 'patriotic' media.

What governments are complaining about it?  I don't care about ignorant fops or bleeding heart liberals who protest without even reading the articles, I'm talking about governments.

I said the majority of your troops were not used to urban warfare, or much peacekeeping. I said that beacuse most of the conflict that america has appeard to have been involved in recently has simply involved flying over a country dropping massive bombs.

No, that's not what you said at all.  Fucking dumbass can't even read what you typed just a few posts back?

Here, let me refresh your dumbass for you:

And yes i hate to say it but you did actually need the Royal marines and british troops, because they were not rookies, and they actually had experience in close quarter urban warfare, and peacekeeping duties unlike the american troops. Oh and they were capable of not shooting each other.

Hmm, you call them "rookies", and imply that they had no experience in urban warfare or peacekeeping.  Notice that word, "unlike".  That's where you made the implication.

So don't give me your bullshit about how you said "the majority" etc.  That's must more coverup for being an fucking idiot.  

You continue with your fucked up little comments about friendly fire in each and every post as well, and yet you whine about my calling you the asshole that you are?  Funny that.

You picked this fight chump, and you deserve every little dig on your faulty assumptions and lack of any real intelligence.  You came here and spouted anti-american bullshit in a thread that had nothing to do with this.  And you do so coming from a country that has a much more rich history of this crap then the USA.  And yes, you are just as bad in modern times, so suck it.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I see you've added another person to your blacklist Bucc.  Nice work.  And seeing as the blacklist is still only liberals, you are being really convincing about that whole it is how they argue not what they argue logic as to why you act like an asshole.

I won't speak to your alleged moderate status other than to say, I'm less liberal than you are conservative.

[BFG]

Ok no more.
If chucking insults at people who don't agree with you is your only answer i can't be ased. And i love your idea that the patiotism act will make it more like the Uk... I had a good chuckle about that one. very amusing. Perhaps we should do things like introduce the death sentance as well? or how about let everyone have guns? Funny shit.

Majority... yes it is a word. Do you think i said it for a laugh or i was making a joke? Could it possibly occur to you that i actually said it because the majority did not approve of the war on iraq. If you were actually aware of the situation you would know the details. That the general population of this country backed the soldiers and the difficult task they had to do (especailly when being bombed and shot at by the americans). They did not however support the reasons for going to war.. People were much keener that the UN wepons inspecters were given a chance to do the job they had been sent to do. Not many people were happy about Tony blair sucking up to some dumb ass ape of a president who decided he was going to attack. For gods sake please don't say somthing like you think the Bush administration is good. The removal of bush and the administration would probably the biggest advance in world peace we could see for decades...

My history class? Lol. no it certainly didn't. Nor did my history teachers sit there and shpeel some shit about how wonderfully fucking brilliant americ is and how americans are the best in the world etc etc. Lets all go on a crusade to fight the muslims. Funny how about learning from the mistakes made in the past (Yes I am more than happy to say that The English/British made many many many huge and horrible mistakes). But no. Its time for a crusade against the axix of evil? don't make me laugh please.

Whats most amusing is I know so many americans who are intellegent, polite, knowledgeable, people, who are capable at looking beyond their own nose and are able to dicuss and talk about stuff without talking crap chucking insults.
Im not even anti american as you put it before. What I am against, is the hot headed, narrow minded, short sighted, simplistic and unsensitive views that you and others appear to possess. However as i do (amazingly enough) support the freedom of speech i respect what are your views, however much i disagree with them. So I'll let you continue to insult and abuse and slag off anyone else you find who posts their views that don't agree with yours, and you can live in your little world of the idealism that your country represents democracy and the freedom of speech, beliefs etc..
Amazing how you think you know so much about me... very inpressive. And exactly where did i say anything about the UK not being involved in any conflict? erm nowhere. So it would be nice if in several of these replys you hadn't talked rubbish. I won't even think to ask about your 'education'.

I am not aware of what a Pow is or a non combatant? right ok. well. maybe i should do this in nice and easy words.
 let me explain:

 ?POW status is granted to selected categories of individuals that have fallen into the power of the enemy. These categories are:

Regular combatants:

The first and most important group of individuals eligible for POW status is regular combatants. The main characteristic of regular combatants is that, being part of a regular army, they have the right to directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into the power of the enemy, they become prisoners of war and cannot be prosecuted or punished for having taken part in these hostilities. Members of militias, paramilitary groups and volunteer corps forming part of the regular armed forces are considered regular combatants and benefit from POW status.

Other combatants
Combatants who do not belong to the armed forces of the party to the international conflict in question do not benefit from POW status. However, there can be situations where military groups, although not being part of the regular armed forces, may belong to the party to the conflict, such as resistance movements in occupied territories. These combatants may benefit from POW status if they fulfill the following conditions:

  (a) the combatants must be organized into a military structure, i.e. commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
  (b) the combatants must wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
  (c) they must carry arms openly; and,
  (d) they must conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war can also benefit from POW status.

Non-combatants:
According to the Third Geneva Convention, non-combatant individuals accompanying the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as the civilian crew of a military aircraft, war correspondents, supply contractors or suppliers for the welfare of the armed forces also benefit from POW status, provided that they are authorized to fulfill these functions by the armed forces and carry proper identification issued by the armed forces.


? Civilians joining the armed resistance in a  lev?e en masse acquire combatant status even though they do not belong to the regular armed forces or an associated militia.

In very particular circumstances, civilians may become combatants and obtain prisoner of war status if captured by the enemy. This exception is called  lev?e en masse  and concerns inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who take up arms spontaneously to resist invading forces as they approach.  As combatants, they may be attacked until they surrender. To satisfy this exception, they must:
 
  -        not have had the time to form regular armed units;
 -        carry their arms openly; and
 -        respect the laws and customs of war. (Third Geneva Convention ).

 These particular combatants do not need to distinguish themselves from civilians, apart from carrying their weapons openly. It should be noted that the term  lev?e en masse  denotes a collective movement against an invading party and cannot be applied to isolated individuals taking up arms.

?  The general rule is that unlike combatants, protected civilians who fall into the hands of the enemy may not be detained.  The two exceptions are that an occupying power may intern some civilians for individually determined imperative security reasons (Fourth Geneva Convention  ) and that, as in peacetime, persons suspected of crimes may be detained.  Finally, it must be recalled that those civilians who participate in a  lev?e en masse  against the approaching enemy are combatants and may therefore be interned in the same manner as all other prisoners of war.

 
There you have it. Are you going to call this 'fucking bullshit half assed uneducated crap etc etc' as well in your so well thoughtout argument? But of course... Im not american so...

So so so much more that I would say. But to be honest I am really wasting my time even posting anything to you, to be honest... Much better to talk to people who actually have the ability to think, and a) not just regurgitate crap that they think is the absolute thuth, but also b) are actually capable of thinking.  heh.  I reallly don't think your worth the effort. So forget it. enough.  bye!  

[BFG]

Damn it, You have got me so angry about this i can't but help posting this article about the prisoner status debate. Written by an AMERICAN i might add... But of course. lock her up. she is being unpatriotic.

Shortly after Iraq captured some American soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush expressed concern for the captured Americans. He said, "We expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely .?.?. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals."

The 1949 Geneva Convention guarantees prisoners of war certain rights, and Bush wanted to make sure that any American prisoners of war had the rights to which they were guaranteed.

However, Bush is denying those same rights to prisoners in U.S. custody.

According to the Geneva Convention, a prisoner of war is guaranteed certain rights. Yet, if a detainee were to lose the designation "prisoner of war" and gain a different designation, such as "enemy combatant," he or she would have no such rights. Our very clever president saw this loophole in the laws, the same laws he claims to follow so closely, and decided to use it to aid in the destruction of our enemies.

Of course, he will provide sufficient food and shelter, but there are still some vital rights that prisoners of war are guaranteed but that the enemy combatants are being denied.

The Geneva Convention states that in no circumstances should a prisoner of war be tried by a court that does not guarantee independence and impartiality and does not allow the accused the rights and means of defense. A prisoner of war is entitled to assistance by one of his fellow prisoners, defense by a qualified attorney of his or her own choice, the calling of witnesses and, if the prisoner finds it necessary, the services of a competent interpreter. However, most enemy combatants are denied the right to an attorney, and their trials, if they have them, are anything but impartial.

Approximately 660 prisoners who had been in U.S. custody since the war in Afghanistan ended remain in U.S. custody at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Few of those prisoners, if any, have been charged with any crimes, legitimate or not.

There are also many Iraqis being detained as enemy combatants. However, according to the Geneva Convention, all prisoners of war should be released after the fighting has ceased.

Now that the United States is no longer fighting a war in Afghanistan, and now that Operation Iraqi Freedom has come successfully to a close, why do Afghan and Iraqi prisoners remain in U.S. custody? Clearly, the majority of Bush's enemy combatants have the right to go freely to their own homes. Clearly, Bush, according to the Geneva Convention, does not have the right to detain the prisoners any longer. He has created for himself yet another loophole.

In March, our president publicly demanded that American prisoners of war be given their due rights as prisoners of war, and their Iraqi captors seemed to have complied. It is sad to think that some people believe that the American democratic motto of all people being created equal is limited to Americans.

Now it is time for Bush to comply with his own request.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I see you've added another person to your blacklist Bucc.  Nice work.  And seeing as the blacklist is still only liberals, you are being really convincing about that whole it is how they argue not what they argue logic as to why you act like an asshole.

I won't speak to your alleged moderate status other than to say, I'm less liberal than you are conservative.

I actually haven't labeled him a liberal Bondo, you just did.  I'm calling him a dumbass because that's his place.  Remember, my blacklist is for the stupid beyond all hope people, not people of just a political agenda.

As for you thinking I'm more conservative then you are liberal, that's a bunch of bullshit.  My argument with this douche-bag hasn't even been conservative or liberal, it's been about his misinformation and ignorance.

And, for the record, if you go back to the old war threads, you'll see me giving the dumbasses on the other side of the argument shit too Bondo.  Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't bother to read the parts that don't agree with your theories.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Perhaps we should do things like introduce the death sentance as well? or how about let everyone have guns? Funny shit.

Showing your ignorance again.  We have the death penalty here in Michigan?  Didn't think so asshole.

And I actually can name 10 Brit's that are pissed about having to give up their fowl guns.  Because I know them.  So don't bring guns into it.  You act like you know America you little faggot, but you don't know it at all.

Not many people were happy about Tony blair sucking up to some dumb ass ape of a president who decided he was going to attack. For gods sake please don't say somthing like you think the Bush administration is good. The removal of bush and the administration would probably the biggest advance in world peace we could see for decades...

Oh, that's right, the UK government wasn't backing the war, even in the first days it was brought up in the UN.  Wait, yes they were.  Oh my, you seem to get it wrong again.  Of course, the UK's involvement in Iraq was all Bush's fault, they have no blame at all.  Fucking ignorant little piss-ant.  And you say Americans have attitude?  Fuck you.

My history class? Lol. no it certainly didn't. Nor did my history teachers sit there and shpeel some shit about how wonderfully fucking brilliant americ is and how americans are the best in the world etc etc. Lets all go on a crusade to fight the muslims. Funny how about learning from the mistakes made in the past (Yes I am more than happy to say that The English/British made many many many huge and horrible mistakes). But no. Its time for a crusade against the axix of evil? don't make me laugh please.

Wow, you sure can make up the bullshit, can't you?  Anyone here have a history class talk about how wonderfully brilliant America is?  Anyone here have a history class talking about going on a crusade to fight the Muslims (funny, your history class should have included that one though, idiot)?  

Even more, anyone here ever hear me say a good word about GWB?

No, you are just an opinionated little fucktard that groups everyone into these stereotypes to fit your universal good and evils.  

Whats most amusing is I know so many americans who are intellegent, polite, knowledgeable, people, who are capable at looking beyond their own nose and are able to dicuss and talk about stuff without talking crap chucking insults.

Wow, this coming from the little bastard that started the insults, right?  Or didn't your first post bash Americans?  Fuck you.  You get what you deserve.  How many times do you bring up friendly fire incidents?  Tell me, is that because it strengthens your point, or because you are just being an insulting prick?  Well, we all know that answer, don't we.  So, as you have found out, I don't hide my insults, nor hide behind intentions.  I'm open and up front about calling a little ignorant kid, just what he is.

Amazing how you think you know so much about me... very inpressive. And exactly where did i say anything about the UK not being involved in any conflict? erm nowhere. So it would be nice if in several of these replys you hadn't talked rubbish. I won't even think to ask about your 'education'.

My education includes a Masters Degree you little fuck.  So bring it on.  You asked where you could look up 10's of thousands of innocents being killed, then when I said look to the British Empire, you spouted something about you only meant the last 60 years, so I pointed out places over the last 60 years that you can look to your own country's history.  Get it yet?

If you notice, you haven't been able to say shit about any of my counter points.  You say I duck Israel, I ask where you asked about it.  You talk about running roadblocks, I counter with who's really to blame.  Now, we get to your one, wrong, attempt at it.

I am not aware of what a Pow is or a non combatant? right ok. well. maybe i should do this in nice and easy words.
 let me explain:

In very particular circumstances, civilians may become combatants and obtain prisoner of war status if captured by the enemy. This exception is called  lev?e en masse  and concerns inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who take up arms spontaneously to resist invading forces as they approach.  As combatants, they may be attacked until they surrender. To satisfy this exception, they must:
 
  -        not have had the time to form regular armed units;
 -        carry their arms openly; and
 -        respect the laws and customs of war. (Third Geneva Convention ).

 These particular combatants do not need to distinguish themselves from civilians, apart from carrying their weapons openly. It should be noted that the term  lev?e en masse  denotes a collective movement against an invading party and cannot be applied to isolated individuals taking up arms.

There, that's the important part.  Now, let's look at the terrorists being held in Cuba.  First of all, did they "spontaneously take up arms to resist an invasion"?  No, they were terrorists.  They had arms already, and were not defending against invasion.  That would be true of most of the Taliban fighters, but they aren't interned in Cuba.

Let's look further, shall we?  Did they respect the laws and customs of war, these terrorists?  Are you suggesting that they have?

Did they have time to form regular armed units?  Why yes, yes they did.  

And, more, half of them weren't captured in Afghanistan, but in other countries after fleeing (there goes the carry arms openly, along with the fact that a terrorist doesn't carry them open, soldiers do).

Wow, they didn't fit one, and they have to fit them all.  You know, looking this stuff up is only half the job.  You do have to read it and apply it too.  

One final thought.  You also bring up bullshit about arresting those unpatriotic.  I've never felt like that at all.  I don't even mind the people against the war that put thought into it.  But you are a different story.  You don't put much of any real thought into things, and you are insulting while pretending not to be, which is loathsome.  I'm all for people speaking out against the war (just not against the soldiers), as long as it's done with intelligence.  Something that obviously fails you.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

While I enjoy this kind of stuff, I must put a halt to it...maybe you guys can continue the war on GameRanger.