Server Help

Trash Talk - Um...

Mr Ekted - Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:17 pm
Post subject: Um...

http://www.halturnershow.com/KeystrokeLoggersInAllNewComputers.html

Cerium - Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:49 pm
Post subject:

Oh fantastic... and I just got a new laptop.

Guess it wont hurt to rip it apart and look for one of those buggers...

==Edit==
Aparently someone tried this same thing with Dell previously:
http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/dellbug.asp

The article you linked is identical except that 'Dell' has been replaced by 'Manufacture'.

Whew.

==Edit #2==
Thanks for replying before I hit 'refresh' Sam.

SamHughes - Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:04 am
Post subject:

http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/dellbug.asp

wEaViL - Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:09 am
Post subject:

Considering them things run around 100 bucks no wonder a laptop is so expensive lol but in regards to this its BS and it shouldn't be allowed... my guess is it is a way for them to crack down on hackers since they can use a laptop anywhere at anytime.

Solid_Fire - Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:37 am
Post subject:

Looks like i'll be lookin in my new laptop when i get it. I dont feel comfortable when the goverment is watching everything i do, its invading my privacy as a computer user. And invading others privacy also.

SpecShip - Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:44 am
Post subject:

I hope the US Government enjoyed wasting the tax payer's money in all the time they invest in reviewing the globe's cyber-sex chat logs.

They just keep pushing and pushing...

Solid_Fire - Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:54 am
Post subject:

I hope they push it too far, and then they won't be allowed to do what they're doing under our noses now.

Confess - Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:40 am
Post subject:

That is very interesting...It would be wise to submit this to a news station, IE Fox news/O'reilly/Shawn Hannity, and see what they think of it.

wEaViL - Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:54 am
Post subject:

Doesn't Fox do a thing called FOX on your side? If i remember you can complain about a company or whatever to them and they will research it and make a story out of it if its true

Solo Ace - Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:03 am
Post subject:

Who cares? Google is watching us already.

SpecShip - Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:48 am
Post subject:

Solo Ace wrote:

Who cares? Google is watching us already.

Good point.

However still, if they push too far, I'm not concerned with supposed so-called citizen uproar and restricting them from doing so.
I hope for a catalyst of creating wide technical awareness in the ignorant public.
Nowdays, over half the userbase doesn't know how to properly maintain a box with MS OS.
Hopefuly, with enough pushing, the hunger for privacy and control over your own machine dwell enough to raise the masses onto a mediocre linux administrators, which in itself would only serve as a jumping board base towards further technical expertese.
Then, one day, the government, any of them, will end up waking onto a new dawn where the single citizen isn't so digitaly-alone nor unaware anymore.
And trying to pull any government, RIAA or otherwise tricks will simply bring a backlashing onslaught of hacker-level general users.

Ignore the ramblings of an ol' coot...

Quote:

Netizens of the world, unite!

BDwinsAlt - Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:52 am
Post subject:

Switch to Linux and make an anti-keylogger.

i88gerbils - Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:19 am
Post subject:

You could always buy a Canadian laptop if it were true.

Cyan~Fire - Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:22 am
Post subject:

I trust Google more than I do the government.

Donkano - Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:07 pm
Post subject:

i88gerbils wrote:

You could always buy a Canadian laptop if it were true.

When will Americans ever learn.....

Why is Canada better than America?
1) Canada has a tax-payed health system where everyone is equal.
2) Canada doesn't have it's government looking down everyone's backs because they know what the people want.
3) Canada is fully democratic and they look for the best because if they screw up then it costs them the next election.
4) Peace is greater than war.
5) Welfare for poor people.
6) Canada protects it's Citizens.

Bak - Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:14 pm
Post subject:

higher taxes

and I've heard the health care is poorer, but I think that's a political lie

Purge - Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:38 pm
Post subject:

America also has welfare.

Donkano - Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:00 pm
Post subject:

Bak wrote:

higher taxes

and I've heard the health care is poorer, but I think that's a political lie

Higher taxes because money is pooled together on a lot of things.

The health care is poorer because it is a system that if 1 person falls, everyone falls with.

BDwinsAlt - Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:08 pm
Post subject:

So what, you have to be black to be on welfare in the US.

Err if your black you ARE on welfare in the US.

Bak - Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:17 pm
Post subject:

awful

Gus. - Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:06 pm
Post subject:

agreed.

Solid_Fire - Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:18 pm
Post subject:

Donkano wrote:

[..]

When will Americans ever learn.....

Why is Canada better than America?
1) Canada has a tax-payed health system where everyone is equal.
2) Canada doesn't have it's government looking down everyone's backs because they know what the people want.
3) Canada is fully democratic and they look for the best because if they screw up then it costs them the next election.
4) Peace is greater than war.
5) Welfare for poor people.
6) Canada protects it's Citizens.

Erm, If i get this correct, *When will BUSH ever learn?*

And not to be racist and whatnot. When will illegal aliens (Mexicans, Etc.) ever learn to come to the US Legal? We should really put that wall up on the mexican border with an electric fence and stuff. But wait, we americans prolly can't do that since bush started coming out of his shell telling the truth about falty explosions and stuff in iraq. And then giving money to re-build when they already have enough money. Fuck i hate bush. Stupid ass doesnt know what he's doing.

Muskrat - Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:33 pm
Post subject:

Holy shit, that question about putting up a wall was on my final exam in Comms.

wEaViL - Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:50 pm
Post subject:

BDwinsAlt... wrote:

So what, you have to be black to be on welfare in the US.

Err if your black you ARE on welfare in the US.

That is by far the most ignorant thing i've ever seen on this forum... Not all black people are poor and nor are all people on welfare black... I hope you burn in hell for that comment and some black guys beat your ass with your own arms...

Purge - Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:10 pm
Post subject:

wEaViL wrote:

[..]

That is by far the most ignorant thing i've ever seen on this forum... Not all black people are poor and nor are all people on welfare black... I hope you burn in hell for that comment and some black guys beat your ass with your own arms...

Yeah, BD. Come to NYC and see what happens.

LearJett+ - Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:48 pm
Post subject:

Quote:

Why is Canada better than America?
1) Canada has a tax-payed health system where everyone is equal.
2) Canada doesn't have it's government looking down everyone's backs because they know what the people want.
3) Canada is fully democratic and they look for the best because if they screw up then it costs them the next election.
4) Peace is greater than war.
5) Welfare for poor people.
6) Canada protects it's Citizens.

1.) Tax-payed healthcare is low quality and shitty compared to privatised. I've spoken to many Canadians who couldn't get a doctors appointment for weeks
2.) This phrase doesn't even make sense to me
3.) America looks for the best too... people have been cost the election before...
4.) Peace is greater than war when you're a bunch of pussies who can't fight
5.) America has welfare too, idiot
6.) No one cares enough to attack Canada, and the USA protects their citizens too

Quit bullshitting yourself, Donkano. At least know what you're talking about before you say something stupid.

Quote:

But wait, we americans prolly can't do that since bush started coming out of his shell telling the truth about falty explosions and stuff in iraq. And then giving money to re-build when they already have enough money. Fuck i hate bush. Stupid ass doesnt know what he's doing.

First of all, you sound very intelligent. Secondly, if America didn't rebuild then people would bitch. I'm interested to hear what you would do, Solid. You call Bush stupid but you don't say what should be done. Do tell!

There needs to be a politics forum here

Solid_Fire - Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:39 am
Post subject:

Well im not all political and stuff, but what bush is doing is completly stupid.

1) I'd fire cheney.
2) I'd Get our troops off the ground and have the iraqies use our helicopters for air attacks, since they have what, 200 battalions or something?
3) I would actualy make the "no child left behind" come true.
4) I would donate 3+ billion to the homeless all around the US (Or country) to build shelters and have clean enviroments.
5) If we didn't have this war, we could have osama bin laden caught already, and the US wouldnt be so much in debt, which could have helped new orleans and such when the hurricane hit.

Im sure theres more, but thats off the top of my head.

SamHughes - Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:09 am
Post subject:

Solid_Fire wrote:

3) I would actualy make the "no child left behind" come true.

How? Magic? Brainwashing of Congress?

Solid_Fire wrote:

4) I would donate 3+ billion to the homeless all around the US (Or country) to build shelters and have clean enviroments.

The government already does a lot more than that.

Solid_Fire wrote:

5) If we didn't have this war, we could have osama bin laden caught already,

Are you delusional? How can you claim this?

Solid_Fire wrote:

and the US wouldnt be so much in debt, which could have helped new orleans and such when the hurricane hit.

The problems in New Orleans had nothing to do with a limitation of money.

LearJett+ - Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:27 am
Post subject:

(In addition to what Sam said)

Why would you fire Cheney?

This war didn't put us in to debt. We were already in it. The expense of the war is merely a drop in the bucket. It did not effected New Orleans at all.

Sigh... war is more than just flying in with helicopters and blowing stuff up.

Dr Brain - Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:51 am
Post subject:

I fail to see how building more and better homeless shelters will reduce the homeless population.

Solid_Fire - Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:16 pm
Post subject:

SamHughes wrote:

[..]Solid_Fire wrote:
3) I would actualy make the "no child left behind" come true.

How? Magic? Brainwashing of Congress?

Solid_Fire wrote:
4) I would donate 3+ billion to the homeless all around the US (Or country) to build shelters and have clean enviroments.

The government already does a lot more than that.

Solid_Fire wrote:
5) If we didn't have this war, we could have osama bin laden caught already,

Are you delusional? How can you claim this?

Solid_Fire wrote:
and the US wouldnt be so much in debt, which could have helped new orleans and such when the hurricane hit.

The problems in New Orleans had nothing to do with a limitation of money.

The problems in New Orleans had nothing to do with a limitation of money.

Yea, we were in debt before cause of clinton, and whatever. But this war didnt have to happen, bush claimed they had shit they didnt even have and failed to proove it, and now hes saying it was falty inteligence.

New orleans would have been better prepared if we didn't have so many troops in iraq, it would have been "re-built" alot quicker since there would be people to get paid while helping in cleaning up the mess.

And about osama, well. We were getting closer and closer to catching him, then bush was like "ohh lets go attack iraq since they have nuclear shit!" - without this war, osama would most likely be caught.

About homeless people. Well, have you looked at the streets in LA, and so on lately? There is more people there then last year, those people don't deserve it. Its possible to fix up most homeless peoples life.

And i would fire cheney cause he sucks too.

Dr Brain - Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:06 pm
Post subject:

Solid_Fire wrote:

New orleans would have been better prepared if we didn't have so many troops in iraq, it would have been "re-built" alot quicker since there would be people to get paid while helping in cleaning up the mess.

It was a failure of the city and state governments, not the federal government. And how would having less troops overseas stop a hurricane?

Solid_Fire wrote:

And about osama, well. We were getting closer and closer to catching him, then bush was like "ohh lets go attack iraq since they have nuclear shit!" - without this war, osama would most likely be caught.

WTF? That's just BS.

Solid_Fire wrote:

About homeless people. Well, have you looked at the streets in LA, and so on lately? There is more people there then last year, those people don't deserve it. Its possible to fix up most homeless peoples life.

Fix it up so we get more homeless people? The goal isn't to make their lives easier, it's to get them so that they're not homeless any more.

Solid_Fire wrote:

And i would fire cheney cause he sucks too.

I see... Glad you've provided reasons to back it up.

Solid_Fire wrote:

Here's what Bush said before the war. Saying that he didn't have them just doesn't make sense. He obviously had them. Question is where are they now?

George W. Bush 2002 State of the Union Address wrote:

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Siaon - Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:12 pm
Post subject:

<sighs> Doc, you probably just wasted some good sense on someone that won't get it anyway ^^

Edit: And personally, like the thing about the butterfly in New York causing a storm in France, I think that having soldiers home can indeed stop hurricanes!

Dr Brain - Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:15 pm
Post subject:

That's the butterfly effect. It's a chaos theory phenomenon relating to long term systems having extreme sensitivity to their initial conditions. It's not something you can use to manipulate the weather.

newb - Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:20 pm
Post subject:

Solid_Fire wrote:

Durrh, they still haven't caught him. You have no idea what's happening in the real world do you?

Solid_Fire wrote:

And i would fire cheney cause he sucks too.

Why though?

LearJett+ - Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:30 pm
Post subject:

Solid_Fire wrote:

[..]

New orleans would have been better prepared if we didn't have so many troops in iraq, it would have been "re-built" alot quicker since there would be people to get paid while helping in cleaning up the mess.

Solid, again, a case where you don't know what you're talking about. There is no shortage of soldiers. We're not spread to thin in any way. My father was one of the people in charge at NorthCom for coordinating the troops being sent down there. Lack of numbers had nothing to do with it. The only problem that happened with Katrina was the speed of FEMA, and the head has already resigned. Quit trying to pull reasons out of your ass.

Solid_Fire - Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:25 pm
Post subject:

You guys must not understand then. Try watching the news, might help just a little. And dr brain, there IS and WASNT any materials in iraq.

LearJett+ - Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:53 pm
Post subject:

Solid, you're the one that mustn't understand.

PS - I do watch the news, just not CNN.

Solid_Fire - Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:05 pm
Post subject:

I understand quite well.

Dr Brain - Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:10 pm
Post subject:

Solid_Fire wrote:

And dr brain, there IS and WASNT any materials in iraq.

IS and WASNT? So there are now, but there weren't before? Assuming you mean't ISN'T, then how could you possibly know that? You think you know more than the CIA, British Intelligence, and the UN?

Saying CNN said so doesn't count as a reason, btw.

Solid_Fire - Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:59 pm
Post subject:

Did i say "Cnn is my resources"? No. Did i say "i outsmart the federal goverment" and so on? No.

Let me know when YOU can prove to ME that there WAS materials in iraq prior to the war. If you dont understand what i said, it means there isnt shit in there fuckin country but a shitload of suicidal car bombers who should seek therapy.

Dr Brain - Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:42 pm
Post subject:

I will direct your attention to a year and a half ago:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Think those just fell from the sky? Sent by Allah, perhaps? Because there's no way Saddam could have had them, no, God sent them and Bush is a lair. That's a much better explanation.

Solid_Fire - Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:51 pm
Post subject:

Dr Brain wrote:

Hey you finally relized bush is a liar? Wow, congratulations buddy.

Muskrat - Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:25 am
Post subject:

Did you know that G B lives across the street from Ted Nugent and they go hunting together?

LearJett+ - Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:19 am
Post subject:

Did you know that Solid used to live near Saddam and they used to go gassing Kurds together?

Spyed - Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:08 am
Post subject:

[quote="LearJett+"]Did you know that Solid used to live near Saddam and they used to go gassing Kurds together?[/quote]

No that's not true and it could also be very offensive in alot of people's eyes.

newb - Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:29 am
Post subject:

LearJett+ wrote:

Did you know that Solid used to live near Saddam and they used to go gassing Kurds together?

LOL

Dr Brain - Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:21 am
Post subject:

I found a picture of Solid Fire:

Spyed - Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:24 am
Post subject:

Hillarious!

Cyan~Fire - Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:40 am
Post subject:

Brain wrote:

It was a failure of the city and state governments, not the federal government. And how would having less troops overseas stop a hurricane?

No, it was definitely a failure of the federal government, but doesn't have to do with troops.

Since the Bush Administration is so pro-business and anti-regulatory, he allows industry to pollute the earth far more than is necessary. This in turn raises the temperature of the earth (yet, global warming does occur, only Republican-financed independent scientists disclaim it), which also raises the temperature of the oceans. Naturally, this leads to more frequent and stronger hurricanes.

Tada!

And FOX NEWS, LOL. I don't trust a single word that comes out from that company. Find a legitimate news source and I may believe it.

Dr Brain - Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:24 pm
Post subject:

Cyan~Fire wrote:

No, it was definitely a failure of the federal government, but doesn't have to do with troops.

It's not the federal government's job to evacuate cities, it's the city's and the state's job. They failed miserably.

Cyan~Fire wrote:

Since the Bush Administration is so pro-business and anti-regulatory, he allows industry to pollute the earth far more than is necessary. This in turn raises the temperature of the earth (yet, global warming does occur, only Republican-financed independent scientists disclaim it), which also raises the temperature of the oceans. Naturally, this leads to more frequent and stronger hurricanes.

Uh huh... I'm sure. It's all Bush's fault. He made that hurricane happen. Do you know how loony you sound? Because it's seriously scary that you'd believe that.

Cyan~Fire wrote:

And FOX NEWS, LOL. I don't trust a single word that comes out from that company. Find a legitimate news source and I may believe it.

They're the most popular cable news provider, and hence, they came out on top when I did a google search for the story. Don't you think all the liberal news sources would have had a field day if they had made ANYTHING up? We'd still be hearing about it ten years later if they had.

Cyan~Fire - Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:29 pm
Post subject:

Dr Brain wrote:

Because it's seriously scary that you'd believe that.

Too bad I don't. I was just joking around, then only serious part of my post was about fox news.

Dr Brain wrote:

Don't you think all the liberal news sources would have had a field day if they had made ANYTHING up? We'd still be hearing about it ten years later if they had.

Yes, if they made something up that was too unbelievable or had too much counter-evidence. Not if it was just some report which might be true. Then the other news sources wouldn't want to question it because they risk looking stupid if Fox has reasonable evidence.

Edit: Try this:

Quote:

However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained.

Dr Brain - Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:27 pm
Post subject:

The Washington Post has no love of Bush, and they've got a story on it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html

Quote:

WMDs are any weapons that use Atomic, Biological or Chemical means to kill people. This surely fits into the last category.

The date doesn't matter. Saddam said he didn't have any, which was a lie. They know what's in them now. And they know where they found that one.

Solid_Fire - Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:47 pm
Post subject:

[quote="Dr Brain"]The Washington Post has no love of Bush, and they've got a story on it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html

Quote:

The date doesn't matter. Saddam said he didn't have any, which was a lie. They know what's in them now. And they know where they found that one.

Let me know when you can proove it that Saddam had those materials, and i just might believe you. Oh, and don't get it off of news fox, theyre only number one because its on at 10:00pm instead of 11:00pm. Try CNN? or MSNBC?

Cyan~Fire - Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:01 pm
Post subject:

Shut up Solid, you're making a point that has already been brought up and then countered.

Brain wrote:

The Washington Post has no love of Bush, and they've got a story on it here

Yeah, I already mentioned BBC, which doesn't have a love of bush either. But both the BBC and Washington Post stories go out of their way to mention that this weapon was probably not part of a stockpile.

One old weapon whose existence BBC said was probably just a mistake. Doesn't mean the Saddam had WMDs (to the extent that Bush said he did). It's like saying Hitler saved the Jews because he missed a few.

Dr Brain - Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:15 pm
Post subject:

Q: If he didn't have them, why was he a pain in the ass before the war? It's not like we didn't give him a thousand ways out.

Also, I believe that we were talking about homeless people, not WMDs. Problem with WMDs is they have no definitive answer as of yet. Give 'em ten years and that'll have changed.

Solid_Fire - Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:36 am
Post subject: Re: Um...

Mr Ekted wrote:

http://www.halturnershow.com/KeystrokeLoggersInAllNewComputers.html

Is what this whole topic started off in, then it rapidly changed into diffrent subjects.

Dr Brain - Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:50 am
Post subject:

Everyone agreed that it was a hoax though.

SpecShip - Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:58 am
Post subject:

Saddam was a bad man.
Removing him of power was a good thing.
Fox News and BBC are notoriously biased in their broadcasts.

The End.

Dr Brain - Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:55 am
Post subject:

Well, I'd have to say this is the second time I'm forced to agree with Grav.

Agurus - Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:27 am
Post subject:

SpecShip wrote:

Saddam was a bad man.

That can be agreed upon.

Also I think the war in Iraq was mainly for the oil (they got loads of that shit), and was covered up by saying it was "Weapons of mass destruction", our troops have been there for about 2 years? And I don't see ANY kinds of dangerous weapons found. And if they havn't found any why the hell are they still there? Waiting to wipe out the rest of our toops and cause a draft?

From my view I think Bush Jr. is probably trying to finishing off his fathers mission. Well atleast there is two more years with this dude, and maybe we can get a real president soon, instead of some redneck.

SpecShip - Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:02 pm
Post subject:

Behind every action, there's a motive.
99% of times, the motive is one of self gain and corruption.
It is best to focus on the results, and were they benneficial to society rather than dwell on the intentions behind the acts, which will most likely only lead to frustration and anger.

Dr Brain - Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:09 pm
Post subject:

Agurus wrote:

our troops have been there for about 2 years? And I don't see ANY kinds of dangerous weapons found. And if they havn't found any why the hell are they still there? Waiting to wipe out the rest of our toops and cause a draft?

Our troops are still in Germany from WWII.

LearJett+ - Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:29 pm
Post subject:

Agurus wrote:

[..]

And if they havn't found any why the hell are they still there? Waiting to wipe out the rest of our toops and cause a draft?

From my view I think Bush Jr. is probably trying to finishing off his fathers mission. Well atleast there is two more years with this dude, and maybe we can get a real president soon, instead of some redneck.

Ignorant people like you shouldn't be allowed to think about politics. We're still there because if we left now Iraq couldn't defend itself from... well... itself. There are so many warlords and just plain bad people waiting to take power that if we left it would be like the end of WWI where we set the stage for Hitler to take over. We're handing it back, yes, but it needs to be gradual for any of this war to be effective.

Solid_Fire - Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:04 pm
Post subject:

Iraq can't defend themselves yet they have over 200 battalions. Sorry but I agree with agurus, we need a new fuckin president who knows what the hell he is doing instead of invading a country and saying they have WMDs when they dont.

D1st0rt - Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:12 pm
Post subject:

HEY GENIUS, WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND THIS ONE!

Saddam probably had WMDs. We struggled with for months him to let inspectors in and around. We took several months before we were even committed to attacking him, then it was another couple of months before we were set up over there, and then some more time before we got to where they might have been before HE MOVED THEM BECAUSE HE HAD MONTHS TO GET RID OF THEM BEFORE WE COULD HAVE FOUND THEM.

LearJett+ - Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:30 pm
Post subject:

Wow Solid. You really are retarded.

Do you know how big a battalion is, first of all? And secondly, did you know that what you said has no factual basis and is untrue? How about you think before you say something...

Cyan~Fire - Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:45 pm
Post subject:

There is a logical reason Saddam "struggled" with us before the war. It is not good to appear to be sucking up to the US in the Arab world.

Either way, if Iraq needed to be invaded, it should have been a UN effort. Naturally, your reply will be "but the UN is corrupt and inneffectual!" and so I'll say "then fix it first!". It's not like there was actually a time crunch regarding Iraq. They were definitely not about to attack us or anything.

Solid_Fire - Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:37 pm
Post subject:

LearJett+ wrote:

part of a regiment; about 1000 men and made up of companies.

LearJett+ - Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:44 pm
Post subject:

So... where do you see that Iraq has 200 of them...?

Solid_Fire - Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:24 pm
Post subject:

My bad, typo above. Not 200, but they are capable of fighting for themselves now.

LearJett+ - Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:29 pm
Post subject:

Yeah, your fingers slipped and you accidentilly typed that they have 200 battallions.

Are you some sort of professional that knows that they can support themselves? No. Stop bullshitting us

Agurus - Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:32 pm
Post subject:

LearJett+ wrote:

[..]
We're still there because if we left now Iraq couldn't defend itself from... well... itself. There are so many warlords and just plain bad people waiting to take power that if we left it would be like the end of WWI where we set the stage for Hitler to take over.

Who the hell are we to leave our troops to die in Iraq for? Let the people in Iraq to rot, our marines are not doing anything but killing and risking their lives over there. And I bet over in Iraq, this is why there is frequent explosions/suicidal attacks, because of our marines being over them, and I bet they want them out.

As well it seems you are ignorant here, the only reason how Hitler raised to power because 90% of the people just sat and watched not bother to do anything. And if you think the only solution to get rid of bad warlords is for our marines to stay there, your dead wrong, because there will always be someone bad, and it is not possible to get rid of them all.

D1st0rt wrote:

[..]
Saddam probably had WMDs. We struggled with for months him to let inspectors in and around. We took several months before we were even committed to attacking him, then it was another couple of months before we were set up over there, and then some more time before we got to where they might have been before HE MOVED THEM BECAUSE HE HAD MONTHS TO GET RID OF THEM BEFORE WE COULD HAVE FOUND THEM.

He was found in a freaking hole, I seriously doubt he was able to smuggle out WMD's when our marines surrounded the entire country, no he was probably able to leave with tanks patrolling the streets everywhere

Solid_Fire - Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:54 pm
Post subject:

Solid_Fire wrote:

Well im not all political and stuff, but what bush is doing is completly stupid.

.

Read what i said Mr.smartass. I said im not all political, meaning i dont base my life and read about politics 24/7 like you.

Are you some professional who knows whats right for every problem? Hell no, so stick up your ass.

Agurus has a point, Saddam was found in a fucking hole...alone...if he wanted to smuggle shit out then he wuold of smuggled himself out.

Donkano - Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:22 pm
Post subject:

LearJett+ wrote:

Quote:

1. It is lower quality I will give you that (I personally havn't had a huge delay for things though).
2. The whole subject here about Bush spying on all the American citizens without a warrant.
3. Obviously not, why else does everyone in the world label USA as a war-country? War isn't the answer to ANYTHING.
4. It is obvious that you have no conscience to guide you to better descision making.
5. Their welfare is for food only, nothing else. Canada's is cash that you can spend on whatever you want.
6. USA can't protect squat, how else do you think 9/11 happened? Why do you think the pentagon was attacked? Why do you think the majority of Americans are scared?

Also, why are you persistant in flaming people?

Dr Brain - Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:49 pm
Post subject:

Solid_Fire wrote:

Agurus has a point, Saddam was found in a fucking hole...alone...if he wanted to smuggle shit out then he wuold of smuggled himself out.

There's a large difference between smuggling out before the start of the war and after.

He didn't think we'd attack. He thought were were all wishy-washy liberals that never actually do anything. He was wrong, thank God.

As for the UN... yes, it's a joke, like you said. Problem is that it's more or less impossible to fix the UN from the inside. They mandated that Saddam stop doing what he was doing, but they don't have any willpower to back up their statements. Easier for us to just ignore the UN and let it die on its own. We have 35 countries supporting us with 22,000 troops. I'd count that as a multinational group, regardless of what the UN says about it.

Spyed - Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:37 am
Post subject:

Dr Brain wrote:

[..]

There's a large difference between smuggling out before the start of the war and after.

He didn't think we'd attack. He thought were were all wishy-washy liberals that never actually do anything. He was wrong, thank God.

As for the UN... yes, it's a joke, like you said. Problem is that it's more or less impossible to fix the UN from the inside. They mandated that Saddam stop doing what he was doing, but they don't have any willpower to back up their statements. Easier for us to just ignore the UN and let it die on its own. We have 35 countries supporting us with 22,000 troops. I'd count that as a multinational group, regardless of what the UN says about it.

I don't think the UN is a joke. It's very easy for everyone to sit around comfortabley and say it is. It's a step in the right direction towards achieving peace around the globe, of course it has had successes and failures. By no means should the failures be forgotten but should be learnt so that the same mistakes cannot be repeated.

Plus the UN is a huge leap from the predecessor (The League of Nations). The league of Nations was by no means useless either. Heck, it whiped out a typhus epidemic spreading from Russia!

LearJett+ - Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:28 am
Post subject:

Donkano wrote:

[..]

1. It is lower quality I will give you that (I personally havn't had a huge delay for things though).
2. The whole subject here about Bush spying on all the American citizens without a warrant.
3. Obviously not, why else does everyone in the world label USA as a war-country? War isn't the answer to ANYTHING.
4. It is obvious that you have no conscience to guide you to better descision making.
5. Their welfare is for food only, nothing else. Canada's is cash that you can spend on whatever you want.
6. USA can't protect squat, how else do you think 9/11 happened? Why do you think the pentagon was attacked? Why do you think the majority of Americans are scared?

Also, why are you persistant in flaming people?

Sigh... another round...

2. The government doesn't want to spy on people for no reason. The Patriot Act is to only spy on people while they're in public anyway - and big news - when you're in public, people can see you anyways.
3. The world labels us as a war country because they hate us. Everyone hates more powerful things.
4. What would have been a better decision for Iraq?
5. Our welfare is money, too...
6. No one has attacked Canada because no one cares about Canada.

You're so contradictory in saying that we can't protect ourselves but then you also get mad because of the Patriot Act which is meant to protect us more. Typical Liberal.

Dr Brain - Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:29 am
Post subject:

What exactly do you mean by peace, Spyed? The absence of war?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/breck/astounding_kerry_vfw_speech_3.guest.html wrote:

You know, Kim Jong ll has his desire of peace, too. Do you know what his definition of peace is? Enough nukes to wipe out anybody that might want to feed his people. You know what peace was to the Soviet Union? Peace was the absence of threat and a tyranny over its own population so they couldn't uprise against them. What's peace to us? Peace is the absence of threat, the presence of justice. There's a whole bunch of different definitions of peace.

A global government cannot provide justice. Only asteroids hitting the earth scare me more than a single world order.

Dr Brain - Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:30 am
Post subject:

LearJett+ wrote:

6. No one has attacked Canada because no one cares about Canada.

Clarification: No one has attacked Canada because they know we're next door. If they were in the middle of Asia or the Middle East, things would be different.

Bak - Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:03 am
Post subject:

ha, Canada couldn't put a dent in the US

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig

Cyan~Fire - Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:08 am
Post subject:

I'm so glad that you are so unbiased, Brain, as to quote Rush Limbaugh in a political discussion. I mean, I have Republican friends that laugh at how extreme he is.

No world leader intelligent enough to establish a "world order" is dumb enough to use nukes to get it. It's not like it would be "launch, hit all US military bases, US dies". It would be far more like the End of the World flash video.

Also, try looking at the US from a different perspective. So we think Iraq was an aggressive country, and were frightened that they might have had WMDs. So we think the North Korea is an aggressive country, and are frightened that they have nukes. How does the Arab world see us?! A country with more nukes that is actively invading their countries!

WTF, mate?

Bak - Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:52 am
Post subject:

Iraq wasn't obeying UN resolutions to let weapons inspectors in.

Without power, the UN is nothing more than the League of Nations all over again, pre ww2 style.

Spyed - Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:07 pm
Post subject:

Bak wrote:

ha, Canada couldn't put a dent in the US

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig

This is useless. Of course the US is going to have more money considering it has a population about 15 times the size of canada.

Bak - Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:55 pm
Post subject:

My point was that Canada wouldn't make a dent in the US, as brain suggested the reason for us not invading Canada was geography. But let's do it your way...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap

Spyed - Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:59 pm
Post subject:

See, If you do it my way, it looks alot worse :D

Dr Brain - Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:14 pm
Post subject:

Cyan~Fire wrote:

I'm so glad that you are so unbiased, Brain, as to quote Rush Limbaugh in a political discussion. I mean, I have Republican friends that laugh at how extreme he is.

I've never claimed to be unbiased, because I know I am. And I have absolutely no problem with liberals that know they're liberal. Problem is that most liberals won't admit it.

Also, using the fact that I listen to the most popular radio program as an insult doesn't quite work. Being republican doesn't mean that they're conservative, which is what I am first and foremost. I don't always vote Republican, rather I always vote conservative.

Cyan~Fire wrote:

No world leader intelligent enough to establish a "world order" is dumb enough to use nukes to get it. It's not like it would be "launch, hit all US military bases, US dies". It would be far more like the End of the World flash video.

Niether intelligence nor nukes are needed to create a world government. All that a country has to do is surrender their sovereignty to a body like the UN. That was the one thing John Kerry's didn't ever flip flop on, by the way.

Cyan~Fire wrote:

Also, try looking at the US from a different perspective. So we think Iraq was an aggressive country, and were frightened that they might have had WMDs. So we think the North Korea is an aggressive country, and are frightened that they have nukes. How does the Arab world see us?! A country with more nukes that is actively invading their countries!

You're leaving out context. We were provoked into action. We gave Iraq too many chances (in my mind) to back out of war and they still thumbed their noses at us. I doubt the Arab people think badly of us (in general, I'm sure you can find plenty of individuals that do). I'm sure the Arab Goverments are freaking out though.

Cyan~Fire wrote:

WTF, mate?

Indeed.

newb - Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:24 pm
Post subject:

Bak wrote:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap

Are you sure that's real? I'm sure it was forged by them damn Israel fucks.

Bak - Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:09 pm
Post subject:

don't be a racist

Cyan~Fire - Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:12 pm
Post subject:

Brain wrote:

Also, using the fact that I listen to the most popular radio program as an insult doesn't quite work. Being republican doesn't mean that they're conservative, which is what I am first and foremost. I don't always vote Republican, rather I always vote conservative.

Actually, I don't have too much of a problem with conservatives in general. I excessively dislike Republicans, though, and the Iraq war is a Republican war.

Brain wrote:

Niether intelligence nor nukes are needed to create a world government.

Well, I guess I was replying to Rush and not you then.

Brain wrote:

We were provoked into action. We gave Iraq too many chances (in my mind) to back out of war and they still thumbed their noses at us.

If the ultimatum had been a UN ultimatum, of course it would have been justified. But it wasn't. In fact, whenever I hear "ultimatum" I always think of the one Austria-Hungary presented Serbia way back when...

And Bak, stop restricting free speech you stupid Jew.

Dr Brain - Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:37 pm
Post subject:

Cyan~Fire wrote:

Would a UN ultimatum be anything like a French military victory?

Spyed - Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:36 am
Post subject:

newb wrote:

[..]

Are you sure that's real? I'm sure it was forged by them damn Israel fucks.

... Bad!

Cyan~Fire - Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:57 am
Post subject:

Hahaha. I would say no, but it was the only justified option. I'm guessing you're a war "realist", but there's some component of just war theory that mandates support from an international organization for a war to be just.

Dr Brain - Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:27 pm
Post subject:

Refresh my memory, was WWII a just war?

Gus. - Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:01 pm
Post subject:

what do you guys think of Bush's new unconstitutional action?

President Bush, Dec. 19, 2005 wrote:

As President and Commander-in-Chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article II of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it. And after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda.

Wtf? Implied presidential powers "implied" but saying that Arcticle 2 allows this taking away the 1st ammendment is way out of line. He is going too far with the Patriot Act. This is opening the door to presidents to come. And i say, do we americans want this? Speech here.

Dr Brain - Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:17 pm
Post subject:

Uh, he does have the responsibility to protect the country. And the Congress did give him the thumbs up to take out terrorists.

The legislature enacted the Patriot Act, not the President.

Gus. - Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:36 pm
Post subject:

well. i personally care about a little thing called privacy. i dont want some pig tapping my phones or searching my home (without a warrant ("legal" with the patriot act)) because i chose to make a call to a country outside of the states.

Dr Brain - Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:03 am
Post subject:

I don't believe it lets them do that. I belive it sets up a special channel for them to get very quick access to a Judge so they can get a warrant.

Do you know how many abuses of the Patriot Act there have been? Exactly zero.

Please don't mistake this post as meaning that I dislike privacy. I'm simply playing devil's advocate here.

Spyed - Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:43 am
Post subject:

Does anyone else get scared by Dr Brain?

Bak - Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:23 am
Post subject:

I don't want to live in a country where it's possible to wire tap a citizen without a warrent, then designate him as a enemy combatant, which takes away his right to due process, then ship him out to a black site, which removes our responsibility to follow the Geneva Conventions while interagating him. Just because abuses aren't happening now is not enough.

We could live in a benevolent dictatorship too, where our three brances of government are not existant and abuses don't occur. However, the reason we haven't had too much widespread abuse with any president in our short history is because of checks and balances. Bush has a duty to protect the Consititution too.

And if you suspenct someone of being a terrorist, show the evidence to a judge and get a warrent. Warrentless searches can only be targeted at people who they don't have enough evidence to suggest they are dealing with terrorists (99% of residents fall into this catagory).

Dr Brain - Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:54 am
Post subject:

Bak wrote:

then ship him out to a black site, which removes our responsibility to follow the Geneva Conventions while interagating him.

Geneva Convention only applies to POWs of countries that have signed it. Seeing as Al Queda has NOT signed it, we have absolutly no requirement to follow it. God knows they certaintly aren't. Beheading is frowned upon by the Geneva people, I believe.

LearJett+ - Sat Dec 24, 2005 10:44 am
Post subject:

Bak wrote:

And if you suspenct someone of being a terrorist, show the evidence to a judge and get a warrent. Warrentless searches can only be targeted at people who they don't have enough evidence to suggest they are dealing with terrorists (99% of residents fall into this catagory).

This would take too long. Think about how many terrorist suspects there are - this would stall so long and basically make any information they did have obsolete.

Cyan~Fire - Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:47 pm
Post subject:

Dr Brain wrote:

Seeing as Al Queda has NOT signed it, we have absolutly no requirement to follow it. God knows they certaintly aren't. Beheading is frowned upon by the Geneva people, I believe.

Ohhhh, so as long as the terrorists do it, we can do it too?

And no, WWII wasn't completely just, but its causes were, which is the most important part of the theory in my opinion.

Dr Brain - Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:01 pm
Post subject:

Cyan~Fire wrote:

Ohhhh, so as long as the terrorists do it, we can do it too?

I'm not suggesting we behead them, no. Treating them like Kings for commiting acts of terrorism isn't what I had in mind, either.

Cyan~Fire wrote:

And no, WWII wasn't completely just, but its causes were, which is the most important part of the theory in my opinion.

Liberating an oppressed people isn't a just cause? Bringing peace to the Middle East? Removing a major threat to Israel? Removing terrorist training grounds? It's not like we're making Iraq a colony of the great expanding American Empire or anything.

Muskrat - Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:09 pm
Post subject:

Yet it is becoming part of the spreading American Cultural/Political Imperialism.

LearJett+ - Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:15 pm
Post subject:

Muskrat wrote:

Yet it is becoming part of the spreading American Cultural/Political Imperialism.

Prove it.

Muskrat - Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:21 pm
Post subject:

I did a debate over this in my Comms class. I'd post my research if I were at home.

American culture is being imported by the vast majorities of countries. Besides, isn't everyone always talking about "spreading democracy"?

Dr Brain - Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:05 am
Post subject:

Muskrat wrote:

I did a debate over this in my Comms class. I'd post my research if I were at home.

American culture is being imported by the vast majorities of countries. Besides, isn't everyone always talking about "spreading democracy"?

In that case, Canada is already a colony.

Muskrat - Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:13 am
Post subject:

I didn't mean it as necessarily a bad thing, only that Americanization is indeed happening. To be taken however.

Cyan~Fire - Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:33 pm
Post subject:

Brian wrote:

I'm not suggesting we behead them, no. Treating them like Kings for commiting acts of terrorism isn't what I had in mind, either.

You don't have to be a king to have the right not to be tortured.

Brain wrote:

Yeah, the first is true, but the actual cause is debatable (and the rest are false). Either way, just cause is only one component of Jus Ad Bellum.

OutlawGene - Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:44 am
Post subject:

You know what This is all Stupid. I'm going to become the President Change all this.

I'll Actually Read up on History and War History that Proves Nothing.

Law, and Sites such as How to become a Great President.

^.^

War=Balance Power=Pointless=Currupt=And More

Bak - Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:27 am
Post subject:

BaK- wrote:

wire tap a citizen without a warrent... then ship him out to a black site

Dr Brain wrote:

Geneva Convention only applies to POWs of countries that have signed it. Seeing as Al Queda has NOT signed it

These are US citizens they can do this to! The USA has signed the Geneva Conventions, and they are POWs because Bush has designated them as enemy combatants in order to take away their rights in the first place.

And even if they were from a country that didn't sign the conventions, we still have to treat them humanely and not do things such as hold them indefinitely without charging them with anything. I really dislike when people like Rush claim us "libs" want to give them the same rights as citizens and this is a terrible thing. We just want to treat them like humans, even if they wouldn't do the same from us. It's what separates us from them.

Dr Brain - Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:10 am
Post subject:

Bak wrote:

Enemy combatants implies a charge already. They're actually being treated quite well down there. It's a hell of a lot better there than in some cave in the middle east.

My defintion of humanely is enough food, clothing, a warm place to sleep. Your definition of humanely seems to be a lawer. Call me old fashioned, but that seems just a tad weird.

P.S. I appologize for the lack of spellcheck. Haven't reinstalled a spellchecker after my most recent computer disaster.

Bak - Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:45 am
Post subject:

As stated before, just because abuses aren't happening right now is no reason to eliminate checks and balances.

They are being help captive for no official reason. Although it would seem that calling them enemy combatants is like charging them, there is no way they can defend themselves of this charge; they are held without chance of justice. You may be content with food and a bed, but I bet you would be pretty pissed if you were relocated to an undisclosed location and held against your will, unable to see your family or friends and unable to defend yourself against the charge.

And if they ARE being treated as you say, what's so terrible about passing a law to prevent torture?