Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

[Cutter]

oh, and just this week the cops here in miami used a tazer on a man and he died from it. they found no drugs or alcohol in his system and no pacemaker. of coarse it's still early but they know that much so far. so use on a child would not be recommended i believe. jk.
but anyway when we have kids, any gun, pepper spray, stun gun, or even my knives would be far out of childrens reach. oh shit...i just remembered what was out of my reach when i was a kid. NOTHING! i'm gonna need a safe...a big one.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Yeah, i have a safe for my hand guns, but I need to get one for the rifles.  They are just locked in a closet now.  I figure I have until she's at least 2 before I have to worry about her being able to pick up the shotguns, or pick a lock for that matter.  =D

I hadn't heard about the guy from Miami, keep me informed if you could.

[Acri]

Hathcock: That was a disgusting remark and I hope you've noticed no one is really crawling to america lately. People dont really like asking america much of anything right now. That kinda remark would have gotten you beaten up pretty bad by most europeans.ex-ranger or no...

Fah: Yes, it is about capital punishment. It sickens me. And the scenario showed in the first posts doesnt really point out that the guy would haunt you after jail. He is just a random gun-toting stranger (dont have those in europe, because we dont really allow guns to that extension).

In a country where guns are hard to get, the criminals have less guns too. You americans are making it easy for people to get guns.Too easy. It is your own bloody fault.
I hope the next generation of americans wont be as fucked up as you are.

[Acri]

True Spike, the world doesn't like the US much right now.  But guess who the world will come crawling back to the next time it has a problem?

This is the disgusting remark, ghostsniper. I don't really see how it was you who said it?

[Cutter]

"I hope the next generation of americans wont be as fucked up as you are."
 
that's a rather unnecessary comment acri.

bucc i found an article on that case, also look up stun gun deaths on google. seems (many different circumstances considered) that it's not such an uncommon thing.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/7264088.htm

[c| Hathcock]

Well Acri, ghostsniper was partiallly right since he is the Ranger.  And if you would look at my remark a little closer I said the NEXT time.  Most of Europe doesn't consider Iraq much of a threat.  I mean hell, why would Sadaam hurt his biggest buyers of oil?  Now for the US, Sadaam allready tried to kill Bush Sr, so why would he not give terrorists weapons once he got them.  It was not a decision this administation felt it could live with nor the British and Italians either.  Just clarifying my comments a little more for you.  Enjoy.

[Aramarth]

Hathcock: That was a disgusting remark and I hope you've noticed no one is really crawling to america lately. People dont really like asking america much of anything right now. That kinda remark would have gotten you beaten up pretty bad by most europeans.ex-ranger or no...

Fuss and beat on him all you want, the truth speaks for itself.  And here is why:  several years ago Europe was experiencing "ethnic cleansing" in its own back yard.  The european community was powerless to stop it.  The world cried for our involvement, and we gave it, stopping the nightmare and restoring order.  This is reality Acri.  It is nothing against Europe, but the fact is that the US military is now the army of the free world, and that is why we fought in the former Yugoslavia instead of Europeans dealing with their own.

I mean really, doesn't it make more sense for the nearby countries to ship their troops there instead of us from across the Atlantic?  There's a reason it was our troops.  I don't like it, it is a bad thing for the US to fight everyone's battles, but it isn't my call.  This is the reality of post World War II Europe.

This is the essence of the recent issues in the UN about Iraq.  One major arguement against our action was that we would destabalize the region.  Look at us, the French and others cried, we have peace and we maintain it without force!  But guys, that's just not true.  European nations do have an army protecting them- it just doesn't march under their flags.

Here it comes, the firestorm.  Go ahead, flame me.  I don't need your approval to use my eyes and mind to analyze current events.  Again, I'm not saying I like things this way.  But liking it has nothing to do with the facts.

[Cutter]

no firestorm here.
great example, well spoken, and the truth!

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I liked that last line Cutter:

"Perper said his office will also look at the number of times O'Brien was Tasered."

I did a google search, and only found one new item.  The manufacturer (of course) still says that no deaths have actually been blamed on the Taser, and I only found one true case otherwise.  In most cases a preexisting condition or drugs in conjunction with the Taser have done it, but the one other case was that of a fetus in a pregnant woman.  I can understand how that would be a danger.

But, if any of those had been normal hand-guns, they all would have been dead anyway from lead poisoning.  So, while I wouldn't want my kid to be accidentally shot with a taser, better that then accidentally with the S&W .45.  Plus, I'm all for the police using less then lethal weapons in most cases.  Some punk with a knife trying to rob a liquor store can rot in prison for 10 years before he rots in hell anyway.  (but please note the word "most", I have no problem with them pulling the trigger on some assholes).

[Acri]

I disagree, though, Aramarth. I don't really think America is the army of the free world but YES, thank you for helping out on balkan. I never bad mouthed that nor would I ever.
That was a thoroughly good deed, imo.

[BTs_FahQ2]

I again must intervene.  I think the misunderstanding here is that UN is actually the army of the free world.  

Not since the Korean war has the UN actually participated in any "World" conflict.  This institution has proved time and time again that it is basically useless.  The 5 charter members with Veto power rarely agree on anything and creates havoc on coming to any legitimate decision.

Another misconception is that this is truly a "World" entity. Without US funding the UN would actually just go bankrupt and cease to exist. So I guess you can say this gives us more power, but can you blame us for this.  The world would have to pay more to put an end to this and I don't see anyone offering up more sums of cash.

One example would be Somalia.  We asked numerous times for UN intervention and had to go it alone. Take it, the UN was there, but they took no active participation in the country.  They mainly just stayed to protect their interests and personnel. The only other institution with the balls to do anything was the Red Cross and they can't even protect themselves. We payed dearly for this decision, but it only made us rethink the way we do things, it didn't make us abandon the rest of the world.

So, for the majority of America, we feel that many countries just hide behind the UN so they can just sit on the fence and complain. We all know no action will be taken from this standpoint and to say you are waiting for there involvement is just another joke.

So in essence we have been forced to take on the role of the UN. Not by choice.  It is really not in America's interest to waste money and lives.

I know this has gotten off topic, but just a little clarification.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The UN is a tail that trys to wag the dog.

Only a small group of countries can really get the UN off it's collective asses to do something, and then it's rare.

I will correct FahQ2 on one thing.  Desert Storm was the last time the UN did, but it was just a "get on the bandwagon" thing because the US was all behind it.

The UN also showed how it's peacekeeping efforts fail in Somalia and Bosnia.  In both cases, the UN didn't get shit done without American forces.

I will say that the US is reluctant to actually go under UN command, but I can't say as I blame them either, given the track record.  

One point to Arci, you condemn the US for getting involved so quickly and without UN support, but you didn't really address why more European countries didn't go in and correct the crap in Bosnia.  I'm interested in your opinion on that.  

Because maybe we get involved to easy, but maybe most European nations take too long.  War should be the last resort, but when it's time to bring it, it's time.  Think how many innocent lives would have been saved if the Europeans had banded together (because, lets face it, it would take quite a few to put as many resources to bare as the US did), and gotten involved months and even years earlier.  I know the Brits, Italians and a few other countries had peacekeepers there, but I'm specifically talking about going above and beyond what the UN was doing.  

One more point, I haven't heard anyone disagree with the US going into Bosnia.  But, that was not following the UN edicts either.  They didn't go in as peacekeepers.  So anyone that condemns them for not following the UN in Iraq, answer me this: should they have followed the UN in Bosnia?  If so, would it have turned out better?  Or worse?

I'm all for democracy, but let's face it, in large scale societies (and they don't get bigger then the UN) pure democracy doesn't work.  It only ever worked in small communities.  And the current organization of the UN is just absurd to me.  It's time for it to be swept away in favor of a new republic, one with more fair checks and balances.  One where the majority doesn't always win when it's oppressing.  

Just my off topic thoughts =D

[c| Hathcock]

But good thoughts Bucc  The UN is turning into the League of Nations.  Just a showpiece that had no real power.  The only difference right now is that the US is currently in the UN and we were not in the League of Nations.  Might be interesting to see the UN without the US to back its every play.  Things have not come that far yet but there are many Americans that are extremely frustrated with the complete beraucracy that is the UN.  Even in Korea the only reason it was a "UN" mission was because the Russian ambasador left and then the security held their war vote w/o him.  So what has the actualy UN done by itself.  Virtually nothing I'm afraid and it really does not frighten anybody that would like to take that little neighbor next door.

[BFG]

Bucc i think its fair to say that the US has been guilty of Undermining the power of the US. Regarding Iraq and the arguments leading up to the invasion the US gave the UN and its councill no option. The US would go ahead and attack Iraq and make the UN look like nothing, or the UN could back down to US pressure and show how week it was.. they didn't have much in the way of options.

The US CLAIMED that action needed to be taken against Iraq as it was breaking UN resolutions....

SO WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL? WHAT ABOUT SHARON?

[c| Hathcock]

Well Israel happens to be losing hundreds of its citizens a month to suicide bombers which does tend to complicate things.  I'm in no way supporting every move they make but, you have to see their viewpoint a bit.  The palestinians make any other terrorist look lazy in the ammount of bombings they have done.  I'm is not saying all Palestinians are bad but that area has been attacking Israel since day one.  And how many mandates has Israel broken.  Because it takes all your fingers and some toes to count Iraq's violations.

["Sixhits"]

I think after 9/11 we can all begin to see the Isreali side of the war.

The real problem isn't, however, with the Isreali side. It lies within the complex social issues of Palistine and Palistinians.

The Isrealis have tried, to their credit, to make peace. And having failed to make peace now make war. My personal trouble with what's going on these days in Isreal is that the sort of war being fought looks more and more like a war of genocide than a war of conquest.

Isreal could very easily overrun what little remains of the Palistine army. But Isreal will never be able to stop the people of Palistine, who have suffered more death and loss than the Isrealis give them credit for, from fighting a war of terrorism. Indeed, rarely can a nation combat insurgents or terrorists with conventional arms and tatics and win. It because conventional arms and tactics are supposed to be used against a logical enemy - and a logical enemy doesn't want to die and he gets scares when big guns get shot at him.

Terrorists and terrorists of the palistinian sort especially are more than willing to die in order to kill. What makes the Palistinian sort of terrorism really frighting is that Palistinians see terrorism more and more as a commonly accepted method of fighting war. This means terrorism has moved from the fringe of society into the mainstream. Just like Americans celebrate our soldiers as heroes so too do Palistinians, only their celebrate Martyrs. Isreal can never overcome this with War alone ... unless it kills all Palistinians.

And I fear that, with the walls being put up, the soldiers shooting children, and so on, we are seeing the first steps towards a strategy as fundamentally frighting as the Palistinian one: kill them all.

So what it comes down to is this: that one side is already extremist - that's the Palistinians. The other side is becoming more extreme - that's the Isreali side. International organizations are the only forces that are strong enough to step the tide of blood. But, those organizations require American support and they require it for the simple reason that we are the strongest most important country in the world and thus without our support and effort will be immeadiatly undermined.

The US has effectively nuetered the UN. To our shame.

I've got nothing but glee at Saddam's fall from power, but our timing on enforcing those resolutions - namely in the middle of a fucking important conflict, the defining conflict of our generation, should have been smarter. The great irony of our using the UN resolution as a causi belli in Iraq was that we were discrediting the viablity of the UN at THE SAME TIME. Which meant we called into quesiton our own validation for war. Pretty stupid. We also blew to bits any international moral credit we had. I guess it's a good thing we're so rich, that way we can buy allies ... but money goes only so far.  

* just a quick retort to Buccs comments on Bosnia and how no one complained about that. Two points:

First, let me co-opt your own question and use it to make a point: People did complain about US involvment in Bosnia. Those people were mostly elected Republicans. I have fond memories of the Republican party arguing that nation building wasn't our job to do. I remember Bush making it a cornerstone of his foreign policy agenda during the election. I believe Bush used the word "humble" in that speach.

Second, I'm greatly pleased we went into Bosnia. I was and still am even more pleased that not a single American died in combat during that war. Further, we had clear objectives that were then achieved - such as removing a war crimminal from power  and putting him in jail as well as freeing a people who were being eleminated. We also had the support of our allies via the international organization NATO. We worked hard for their support and it was given, to their credit and President Clinton's. All told, Bosnia has been a resounding success. In comparision to Iraq, Bosnia literally was a perfectly executely modern combat operation.

In Iraq we had two clear objectives: remove Saddam from power and find the weapons of mass destruction. We've removed the vile Saddam, but cannot, for the lives of 400+ Americans, find him. He continues to be a ghost that haunts the country (oh, and where is Osama, a man who has actually engaged in war with us, who has the blood of 3000 Americans on his hands? I guess we have more important things to do than actually fight the war on terrorism - namely, piss off our allies and alienate the world's populace). We have occupied the country, but cannot find the WMDs. Meanwhile, Iraqi nuke scientists are moving to Iran and who knows were else, thus making our objective to stop WMDs look like a hollow claim. All the while local guerillas blow up more Americans. We've insulted our allies, who have historically supported the United States when it came to military matters, (see Bosnia for a modern reference) and offended the very people we are supposedly trying to save. We have also delibrately attempted to dismantle the UN by discrediting it. Remember, we used the UN resolutions as a lead up to this whooooooole endeavor. All told, Iraq is a dismal failure. Btw, you may soon be able to vote for the man who subjugated Serbia during the Bosnian conflict. I suggest if you like America to win wars AND end them you vote for him, or someone like him.

Oh and Hath, it's not hundreds of isreali citizens a month. Things are bad enough that you don't need to grossly over estimate the numbers killed.

["Sixhits"]

And yes, yes I like to write.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Regarding Iraq and the arguments leading up to the invasion the US gave the UN and its councill no option. The US would go ahead and attack Iraq and make the UN look like nothing, or the UN could back down to US pressure and show how week it was.. they didn't have much in the way of options.

That's one good example of what I meant about the tail wagging the dog.  But remember, you aren't questioning when they did it in Bosnia, why?

As for the others, what about them?  There's not a government on the security counsel that really wants to remove Isreal.  And that's the tail.

If you are asking why the US doesn't get involved, I would just ask the same of your government.  Or any other European nation that brings it up.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The US has effectively nuetered the UN. To our shame.

I don't agree.  I think the UN was doomed from the start.  The UN wasn't even effective in the Cuban Missile Crisis, except for swaying public opinion.  The US just realizes that, and refuses to be handcuffed because of it.

First, let me co-opt your own question and use it to make a point: People did complain about US involvment in Bosnia. Those people were mostly elected Republicans. I have fond memories of the Republican party arguing that nation building wasn't our job to do. I remember Bush making it a cornerstone of his foreign policy agenda during the election. I believe Bush used the word "humble" in that speach.

Actually, I was referring to the people that are complaining loudly, from other countries, especially in Europe.

And bringing up which political parties here at home doesn't really say anything at all.  It's not often that you see both sides of our political aisle united on such issues.  It's the nature of our government to be adversarial amongst itself.  This isn't a contest of who's party said what.  I'm talking about the world stage here.  How the same people that blast us for invading Iraq were all cheers and grins about it in Bosnia.  And how their own governments lacked the initiative to get off their own asses and do something in their own back yards.

Further, we had clear objectives that were then achieved - such as removing a war crimminal from power  and putting him in jail as well as freeing a people who were being eleminated. We also had the support of our allies via the international organization NATO.

Hmm, strike out the word NATO there and you could be talking about Iraq too.  And not all of NATO supported Bosnia either.

In Iraq we had two clear objectives: remove Saddam from power and find the weapons of mass destruction.

I would disagree that finding weapons of mass destruction was a clear objective.  I think that objective was thrust in there by the nay-sayers more then anything else.  Making it not so clear.  I agree, it became an objective.  But just like objectives in Viet Nam, things change and good intentions pave the road to hell.

We've removed the vile Saddam, but cannot, for the lives of 400+ Americans, find him. He continues to be a ghost that haunts the country (oh, and where is Osama, a man who has actually engaged in war with us, who has the blood of 3000 Americans on his hands? I guess we have more important things to do than actually fight the war on terrorism - namely, piss off our allies and alienate the world's populace).

Two things here.  First, are you saying that because we aren't as successful at finding him that we are in the wrong for attempting?  Because that makes no sense at all.

Second, the US is still fighting / involved in Afghanistan.  Just because the media doesn't focus on it, doesn't mean that you can't find the information if you look.  

On a final note, you see to let the lack of success color your views on if we should have gone.  I think that they are two separate issues.  Yes, I'm frustrated in the lack of success, and I don't think we should have split our attention between the two before getting a better handle on Bin Laden.  I'm frustrated that we let world opinion keep us from sending in more troops to actually make Iraq more secure for our soldiers.  That's the kind of bullshit that really hurt US Soldiers in Viet Nam too.  

I believe that when you commit that you really have to commit.  Do what it takes to hunt him down and achieve your goals.  If the goals are worth it, then you do it.  If they aren't worth the price, you don't.  Because when you do it half-hassed, you lose on both accounts.

And don't make the mistake of confusing me with a Bush fan, I'm not (or Clinton for that matter).  The purpose of my post was just to point out that many Europeans like to point at America's flaws, and I find it insulting.  Especially when nobody is perfect, and there are governments out there that have done worse then ours.

[Acri]

Bucc, when the US was in Bosnia, I was way younger and more gullibe. Therefor I only hear good things. Good good things. *3 x monkeys*

However, this whole Iraq thing is not wrong as such, it is just handled badly. I could care less about the UN.

Fah: The UN would die without US funding? Funny... I thought the US didn't pay anything to the UN until Bush came along. Maybe I'm wrong...

I think american motives in iraq are questionable and they werent in bosnia. This is why i dont mind bosnia. It was never about stealing the resources of the oh-so-prosperous bosnians. I hope that clears it bucc.

I am not in any way saying that the only motive is greed, but I fear it is part of it. The US are doing good things in iraq but I always thought the motives were rotten. Never looked good from my side of the atlantic.

I dont consider the US to be the bad guys.
I consider the US to be ignorant and proud.
I consider the US to exaggerate themselves and others
I consider the US to shoulder too much credit for world affairs
I consider the US to take too little blame for their mistakes.