russell jones

Christo... I wouldn't bother, unless you are interested in the silly entertainment value of it. In the first ten minutes: Politicians use the phrase New World Order! Oh My! It must be true... except that are using the phrase in an entirely different historical context than conspiracy theorists. Almost all of them are referring to post-Cold War balance of power changes. Hitler was on the cover of Time magazine! With the implication that they were somehow supporting him. Seriously? Really? Do people believe this shit?

Started to watch it... don't know why, just want to be open minded and all that. The Kevin Smith quote was taken completely out of context and made it seem like he took Loose Change seriously, which of course he didn't. Doesn't bode well for the rest of the flick.

If one is concerned about weakness or strength, then they are afraid of not being strong enough. With true strength there is no concern.

weakness and strength are concerns of the fearful.

word

One note: if there is an afterlife, we will not necessarily find out if God exists. Why would we?

Paul hasn't been properly vetted. If he was, and people find out his views mean no public schools, no student loans, no environmental laws, no government regulation of any kind of industry, gold based currency, no workplace laws, no minimum wage, no overtime for 40 hour work weeks, no social security, medicare, no federal disaster assistance, etc.... I could go on and on. Once people find that out, his numbers would drop to the floor.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. sure sounds like it.

I made a post up there christo if you have a minute.

The few successes you mentioned seem to be a matter of luck and cultural/economic factors as much as a result of policy. I still fail to see how ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan can bring about the conclusion you hope for. My biggest problem with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, beside the moral one, is the difficulty in determining when the goals of the United States have been reached closely enough to withdrawal combat troops. Defining those goals clearly seems to be necessary. Insurgents always have the advantage of time and endurance, especially in the hostile political/religious climate of Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the motivation for Iraq and Afghanistan becoming friendly with the United States? How can that be sold to the people of those nations? How does military action accomplish this goal? How does it hurt this goal? BTW, I didn't mention Japan, or Germany for that matter, since those were total wars, that are not as related to the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan as my other examples. Japan and Germany were also very advanced technologically, which allowed them to slot into post WWII economies with little effort. I don't see similar resources in Iraq and Afghanistan.

certainly, post it if you can.

Sorry, I forgot to address the last sentence directly. I believe that you said that keeping Iraq and Afghanistan in a week position would benefit the United States. It would difficult to do with Iraq, given its oil reserves and US dependence on it. It seems to me that working on energy policy would be a better way to neutralize the threat of Iraq (and Iran) than military action.

My point is that the United States has been involved in operations in foreign countries for most of the 20th century, and none of those countries (with the notable exception of South Korea, at the loss of the North) have been to be beneficial to the United States. The US got involved with the Philippines in 1898, lost about 4000 troops in action there, and they are still an unstable regime whose only use to the United States is providing us with cheap sneakers. Nicaragua has been invaded several times, going back to the teens, continuing through the 20's, and then ending with almost secret operations against the Sandinistas in the 80's, with little success or benefit to the United States. Cuba is an obvious failure, and again involvement there goes back to 1898. Iran has become a pretty serious threat, and I wouldn't doubt if blow back from the support of the Shah has a little something to do with that. I could go on, but I don't see much of a chance for success in Iraq or Afghanistan given the history of similar operations. If the goal is to simply prevent an Islamic caliphate from forming, how can that goal be accomplished without a permanent commitment of troops to those areas, involving casualties over decades? It will not happen. Eventually the United States will tire of it, leave, and they will determine their own destiny either way. What's the point in putting it off? What does the US have to gain? It seems that the best possible outcome for the United States could come from using far less oil, so why not put our resources there? I'm not naive, I wouldn't think this could be accomplished quickly, but I don't see how US military operations in the area could accomplish beneficial goals for the United States any more quickly.

Perhaps it is too obvious that the stated goal and intended goals were different. However, you did not address the rest of my post. What makes you think that the US will be successful in their intended goal in Iraq?

If the goal is to keep others weak so that the United States can keep its position of prominence, then the US has been very successful. That is not the stated goal though. This has happened in US history many times, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Cuba... etc. Creating democracy or helping those countries be better has never happened, even though it was always the stated goal. Keeping them weak though has been a strong point for the United States. Obviously Iraq has far more resources than those countries though. Which may mean that keeping them weak would be unsuccessful.

America will have to leave Iraq to its own devices eventually, whether it's now or later, I don't see a difference.

That's what I was thinking too christo... It still seems a little harsh, to fire on the already wounded. Is the point to neutralize or to kill? The soldiers seem to be reveling in the kill, which is unsurprising, but still disturbing.

Not the Internet, but net neutrality. It makes what we are doing now possible.

What's the deal with firing on the van that came to help the wounded? Is that standard practice? Excuse my ignorance of military procedures.

hopefully this isn't the beginning of the end for net neutrality.

Let's cut through the straw man arguments and get to the heart of the issue AOD: there is no free market solution for global warming. Discuss.

So you're saying that the company that did the renovations, for which there are no surviving records, planted explosives in the towers?

do you have a source for this? just wondering

The WTC did not close... people were there 24/7. Get it... World Trade Center... ie. open when Japan's markets are open... open when London's markets are open. This whole theory is so retarded, I don't know why I bother with it... other than it is so retarded. Show me some evidence, not it coulda, woulda, shoulda.

The WTC closed down... for 2 weeks? Show me the proof. I doubt they could do it in that time anyway...