LowerCaseRepublican

President Uribe fumagates the peasant's crops, on average 8 out of 10 labor activists are assassinated. Columbia is a military dictatorship and much of the Columbian military is trained at the School of the Americas (now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). Then again, the U.S. never met a dictator they didn't like. The FARC, I do condemn what they do. I actually got to meet some people this past November that have lost family members to the FARC and to the Colombian paramilitary dictatorial regime. The Columbian government is also quite proficient in cocaine smuggling, OldRoman. But as long as the government is anti-communist, it doesn't matter how oppressive it is. We learned that with the Pinochet regime amongst tons of others. The FARC and the Columbian military dictatorship are just about equally as evil...that's not my opinion. That was the concensus of the people I talked to that had lost family and friends to the FARC/Columbian military. If the Columbian military wasn't so incredibly s***ty in human rights (and even the UN Truth Commission says that Columbia is one of the worst countries in human rights violations) and dealt so many drugs to the US then the FARC wouldn't be in existance. The repression of their human rights caused the FARC to go whacko...and the FARC got out of control.

Hey Cubkilla, firstly the correct spelling is "Then" not "Than" and also, 3rd grade called. They want their insult back.

Stupidity should be a capital offense. Those who work for peace will always trump those who merely hunger for sovereignty.

I though that was the 15th? That's when ours is I'm pretty sure. I'm not at school, I mean in the central park in our city. Whoops, the 14th is our action and a few other groups, but the 15th is gonna be the huge day of action.

Are they going these peace cookies going to have any secret sauce in them No, they are just going to be vegan cookies cuz everybody who is making them is vegan, haha.

Yeah the price of action is becoming international criminals no better than the Nazis (The Nazis used a pre-emptive attack as their defense in the Nuremburg Tribunals)

They haven't even tested the warhead and highly doubt that it would even detonate or be active if it was fired. But I guess we still need to worry about Iraq, right? We got George W. Bush who thinks he is John f***ing Wayne. Anyway, I am out to go bake cookies for our Peace Action action on campus (remember everybody, tomorrow is a national day of action with protests in Chicago, NYC, London, etc. to name a few).

he is gonna lose his own kids if he dont watch out...thats probably a good thing in this case...this guy is way the hell out there...wouldnt be surprised if he ends up committing suicide soon Holy s***, stop the presses. Me and Baggio actually agree on something.

Michael Jackson is a f***ing scary pedophilic f***. He's a 44 year old man inviting young boys to spend the night in his house. Sick disturbing and disgusting. :puke

Free argumentation and dissemination of ideas is what democracy is about. Dissent is democratic.

Wow, you can lie to a professor. Good for you! Treasure the moment, kiddo. It'll probably be the first and last time that you'll be able to outsmart somebody. It's really hysterical that somebody makes such a dramatic 180 in such a short period of time....from an anti-war feminist to a pro-war fan of Phyllis Schlafly and the Eagle Forum.

And oh yeah Heather....you never did tell me how you could be such a hardcore feminist against oppression but then be for oppression of others. I'd love to hear that explanation. K thx.

Yeah, Jim Baker & Paul Wolfowitz have already come out and said that to the media....We may be international criminals, but hey.....at least our leaders are open about it.

NATO is essentially run by the US and UK. They are the only ones who send forces when NATO enforces anything most of the time. If you get a chance, "What's So Great About America?" by Dinesh D'Souza is a very good read. It's a conservative view about....what's great about America. Actually, about the genocide. One could take Madeline Albright to the World Court because when she was asked about the sanctions and the death of Iraqi children because of them....she said "The U.S. government has and will continue to think that they are worth it." If we want to be legalist and technical, the US could be brought up on "intent to commit genocide" charges in the World Court, so I am right in my assertion that it is a genocide. And Baggs, don't you love democracy? This country is great because we can get out and freely disseminate ideas like this. This is how democracy is supposed to work. I just think that I don't need to pledge allegiance to the "never ending war" in order to love my country. I also think that I value the military and troops most because I don't want them to be there so they are safe....especially when our "Thief in Chief" is a goddamn chickenhawk. ::sings:: It's beginning to look a lot like 1984...endless endless war...

"I may hate what you say, but I'll do anything to keep your right to say it." But I fail to see the logic or good argument yet for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. How many people know that George W. Chickenhawk's own church is against a war in Iraq? I can swallow the arguments of Baggio because he actually backs up his argumentation. I cannot be behind this regime because: 1) Bush didn't win the election in Florida 2) "Faith Based Initiatives"....the separation of church and state, anyone? 3) The fact that he went AWOL in Vietnam protecting the hotly contested borders of Texas in the Texas Air National Guard. (He's a chickenhawk, he escaped from serving in 'Nam because his family was rich...then he just deserted! And somehow he can unapologetically send other people off to die? I guess it's easy to wage war when you're not the one dying, eh George W. Chickenhawk? 4) The USA Patriot Act which has caused searches without warrants, preventative arrestings of people without sufficient evidence, the bugging of attorney client meetings, etc. 5) The War on Terror...why aren't the groups like the Army of God on the terrorist list? We can't go out and wage a bunch of wars and be like "Everybody who hates us is dead. Everybody loves us again." That just isn't going to happen and it's a justification for an increased arms race. It pisses me off that more federal funds are going to the military and there are record budget cuts in education...which means record tuition hikes at my university. 6) The fact that if we have a unilateral attack in Iraq, we would be international criminals. I just want to know to all the people who served in the military here can be behind a f***ing hypocritical chickenhawk like Bush. He got out of serving in 'Nam and then unapologetically sends people to their graves! Impeach Bush! www.impeach-bush-now.org ! And I've helped to start the National Student Campaign to Impeach Bush Cheney Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

Haha, sure thing. I went to high school with the kid.

Like move to France I am doing something about it. I, and MANY others, are exercising our Constitutional rights to petition our government to not wage an illegal war. I've also helped to start a food drive to get food to Voices in the Wilderness (since they make constant efforts to get food to Iraqi families) I can work here to stop US foreign policy which causes mass murder. I can do, and am doing, many things here. Those who work for peace will always trump those who hunger for sovereignty.

Be careful, it is ORANGE out there

I agree that Saddam is evil. However, if he is so incredibly evil, then the UN & NATO can step in for the good of the world community and get rid of his lame ass. However, a unilateral pre-emptive attack by the US breaks international law. We'd break UN resolutions, Nuremburg Tribunal verdicts, and numerous other international laws. Jim Baker has been quoted as saying that this "war is about oil." & Paul Wolfowitz has said that this war is about "re-making states". (Both those men have great influence in the current administration) Who are the United States to choose states that we don't like and go destabilize their countries? (i.e. Chile in 1973 and the tons of others that Congress made the CIA admit to) Do me a favor, Baggio. Read the book "It's a Free Country: Personal Freedom In America After September 11". The book is a conglomoration of articles from conservatives and liberals discussing the rape of our civil liberties and how the Bush administration is s***ting all over us. And the rest of the world coming on board? That's a good one...That's why a majority of countries are asking for the inspections to still work. Simply because they all found out that a bunch of the US/UK dossier that Powell used in his UN speech was PLAGIARIZED FROM A GRAD SCHOOL STUDENT'S WORK IN 1992! It's been covered in CNN, the Guardian, the BBC and numerous other sources. If we are gonna wage urban warfare and risk the lives of tons of people, how about giving us credible info, eh George W Chickenhawk? The UK media is now starting anti-Blair stories because of this plagiarism. They are saying that Bush and Blair are attempting to manipulate the world. And it's difficult to not believe that when they use plagiarized material that is 11 years old.

The CIA is quite proficient at taking down governments (Hell, they did it throughout the 1940s to the current time all over the world) The U.N. Resolution of 1990 prevents invasion of Baghdad (It was the reason that Daddy Bush gave that he couldn't go into Iraq in GW I) The Treaty of Westphalia prevents us from going into countries with the purpose of "regime change". The Nuremburg Tribunal prevents "crimes against peace". The Nazis used the defense of pre-emptive attacks to justify their militaristic expansion. They were condemned saying that pre-emptive wars were not justifiable. So are we going to sink to the level of the Nazis? Well, we've already started the genocide of over a 1/2 million Iraqi children. The liberals aren't with it because the U.S. sold him the weapons in the 1980s. The liberals aren't with it because Bush has yet to give evidence that war is our only option. Bush has yet to justify the fact that a unilateral attack would break international law and make us world criminals. I mean, we have a President who didn't win the election and a regime who is s***ting all over civil rights in the Constution....so we should get another country to invade us and take us out? Saddam cannot be compared to Hitler because he has no navy, a SMALL negligable air force and his army is 1/5 the size of when it was in GW I. HSC said it right saying that "Who is guarding us?" The U.S. hasn't went after the people who perpetrated 9/11. They are going after some 3rd world dictator who had nothing to do with the terror attacks. If the US/UK case against Saddam is so airtight then how come most of the world community thinks it is bulls***? I just think it's a lame attempt at 'wagging the dog' because the Bush regime is failing so badly at catching Al Qaeda and it is also preventing the media from discussing things like our s***ty economy, etc.

More correct words have never been spoken!!! And how exactly do we establish peace in a land when we've slaughtered their people ?(innocents die in every war) And the fact that the U.S. ordered 77,000 body bags (over 5 times the amount from Gulf War I) because the new war plans call for urban warfare. Citing an Osama bin Laden speech, he states that he supports Iraq solely because of the continual bombings the U.S. and UK have committed since the end of GW I (Gulf War I). After GW I, we have had continual bombings in Iraq (due to this condemned action, there have been more UN resignations in protest of the US/UK bombing action & the sanctions than any other topic in UN history). And did it dawn on anybody that bin Laden wants war in Iraq for his own purposes? If you have read any of his speeches, you'd know that he is desperately trying to polarize the world into Islam vs the West. So far, he's only been able to get a couple thousand. If the U.S. invades with an attack (unilateral, pre-emptive, whatever) this only reinforces the claim of Islam vs the West. bin Laden doesn't give a f*** about Saddam and Saddam and bin Laden actually hate each other (Saddam and his party are very secular and not religious). If the U.S. invades Iraq, we play right into the hands of bin Laden and just create even more terrorists willing to put their lives on the line to fight the "Great Satan". If we use the French/German peace plan they developed, we not only disarm Saddam but we deny bin Laden the power to use a war against Iraq as a "war against the East". Bush has already said he wants to help develop a Palestinian state (if you read a bin Laden speech from 2001, it states and I quote "America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine.") So, obviously Bush is catering to some terrorist demands. A war with Iraq can easily be manufactured by bin Laden to polarize more martyrs for the cause against the international bully. And that is counterproductive to TWAT (The War Against Terror)....but maybe that's what they want, an endless war to justify increased military spending. I don't condone the actions of Hussein's domestic policy & I don't condone the al Qaeda network for using terror and violence tactics to prove a point. But how can we claim a moral high road when we are arresting people w/ no warrants via the USA Patriot Act, having "preventative detention" of Middle Easterners (don't give me the "well, Al Qaeda is Middle Eastern......a lot of black people play in the NBA, it doesn't make all black people basketball players", the suspension of our civil liberties being told to "watch what we say and watch what we do" by Ari Fleischer. How can we claim a moral high road when we killed civilians in Afghanistan? How can we claim a moral high ground when our UN sanctions have killed over a half million Iraqi CHILDREN? Like Bill Maher said before he got canned "The terrorists from 9/11 are not cowardly. They are not cowards flying a plane into a building at 500+ MPH. What's cowardly is lobbing cruise missiles from miles away."

Just go up to her and say "I like you. Would you like to go to the dance?" Why do people consistantly and constantly have to over-dramaticize stupid s*** like asking a girl out? It's really not all that complicated. You just walk up, say your peace, get an answer, then go on with the rest of your day. Just go as friends and go with the flow and just chill & have some motherf***ing fun, dude. Calm the f*** down, yo.

Dude, you're getting a cell! I am so very happy. No more incredibly annoying and bad Dell commerials with that little smartass.

I found this @ the This Modern World web page run by cartoonist Tom Tomorrow. He used Lexis Nexus and found a transcript of the Not In Our Name episode. Let's have a fun look see at the end of it, shall we? Bill telling the guy to shut up and to have his mic cut? Sounds like Bill lost to me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I caught a bit of the O'Reilly Factor during dinner last night, during which Bill berated Jeremy Glick, a signatory of the Not in Our Name ad whose father died in the 9/11 attacks. I couldn't find a transcript on the Fox site, but happily, one came in over the transom (probably pulled off Lexis, so no link available). This is how Bill O'Reilly behaves when faced with genuine disagreement: O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to. GLICK: It's marginal -- right. O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even --I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this. GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate. O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but... GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush... O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are. GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that. O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed... GLICK: What I'm saying is... O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that. GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government. O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to... GLICK: Maybe... O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you. GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics. O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think. GLICK: Well, OK. O'REILLY: You're -- I want to... GLICK: But you do care because you... O'REILLY: No, no. Look... GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11... O'REILLY: Here's why I care. GLICK: ... to rationalize... O'REILLY: Here's why I care... GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide. O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch... GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families. O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people. GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me. O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why? GLICK: Why? O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country. GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel... O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right. GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14... O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the... GLICK: On September 14... O'REILLY: Here's the record. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK. GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan... O'REILLY: Who killed your father! GLICK: The people in Afghanistan... O'REILLY: Who killed your father. GLICK: ... didn't kill my father. O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there. GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people? O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are! GLICK: So what about George Bush? O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it. GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA. O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it. GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were... O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this. GLICK: Well, I hope she is. O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: In respect for your father... GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing? O'REILLY: Shut up! Shut up! GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up. O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians... GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government... O'REILLY: Out of respect for him... GLICK: ... not the people of America. O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to... GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority. O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR. GLICK: That means we're done? O'REILLY: We're done. The last few seconds of that exchange were really something to watch. I don't think I've ever seen a shouting head actually tell his guest to "Shut up! Shut up!" or to tell his producer to "cut his mic."

I don't feel a need to die for a country when they are asking me to fight a pre-emptive unilateral war that breaks international law. I don't see the need or want to put people out to die, especially in a war like the one that will be fought in Iraq. I respect your choice that you wanted to serve. I respect Nuke's choice. A close childhood friend of mine is in Saudi Arabia with his girlfriend right now serving as well. I'd hate to have to go to funerals for bulls***. Especially when our president is a chickenhawk. A f***ing "pussy" (to use your language) while people were serving in Vietnam....Mr. Bush was guarding the highly contested borders of Texas in the Texas Air National Guard. He then went AWOL for over a year and when he got back, refused to take a physical & was thusly dismissed. During his campaign he said that he was dismissed because the type of plane he flew was retired. Or take Dick Cheney who said he had "better things to do" on his exemption form from Vietnam. Or Rush Limbaugh and his anal cysts which got him out of serving in war. So, if you are going to be pissed at me for not serving my country....how about being pissed at your President and Vice President for being chickenhawks who didn't serve their country and were unwilling to die as well?