2013-03-21, 13:41 | Link #681 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
You are rejecting something from my post, but I am not sure which. Is it that America won't invade Iran, or that America can make up an excuse for Iran like what was done 10 years ago?
__________________
|
|
2013-03-21, 15:03 | Link #682 | |
Me, An Intellectual
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Age: 33
|
Quote:
He then goes on about a miscommunication between the US and Saddam that could've possibly been a factor into Saddam believing the US would not be harsh on Iraq if they invaded, but it's not the one Ledgem describes. It's the meeting between April Glaspie and Saddam that Lawrence talks about. He describes it as a communication error brought about due to knowledge of particular developments, not because of any cultural miscommunication.
__________________
|
|
2013-03-21, 16:14 | Link #684 |
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
The U.S. should have attached clear instructions to the presentbox of weapons they gave to Saddam.
Instead, it must have been something more like 'Dear Saddam, Please accept this small token of friendship and go have some fun. P.S. We really don't like Iran.' He even did them that favor. Not his fault it didn't work out so well. They got help, which is unfair. And then the remaining weapons were just sitting there... to not use them would have been impolite. I bet he was pretty surprised when the U.S. suddenly went all TsunTsun on him after all his efforts. |
2013-03-21, 16:21 | Link #685 | |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Quote:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/anale...president-life -He lost Korea to the Japanese (In the sense of influence) -Betrayed reformers within the Qing Government. -Trigger the Qing's collapse -Failed to suppress the boxer rebellion, triggered an massive foreign invasion. -Murdered first and last democratic elected president. -And the army he created degenerate into warlord ism after his death. |
|
2013-03-21, 16:28 | Link #686 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Frankly, when you talk like that, you don't sound pissed that the heads of the USA act like the Lords and Masters of the world, answering to no one - you sound like you completely accept them as such, but are pissed that they don't use their totalitarian powers the way you want them to. |
|
2013-03-22, 10:05 | Link #688 | |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-03-29, 13:15 | Link #689 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...han-i-thought/
I wish I could say I was surprised how some of the conservative justices are handling this case but I really can't.
__________________
|
2013-03-29, 13:28 | Link #691 |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Yea, yea. Gun issue...
But I have a question: What is the big deal behind opposing universal criminal background checks? Most people support it - across the board: by party, by ownership (or lack of), by anyone. Sure, many of the other proposed measures -- such as limits on gun ammunition clips and bans on "assault rifles" -- are being views are deemed as unpalatable. But universal criminal background checks -- this measure is a no-brainer. All it is -- just a few minutes of a gun buyer's time to fill in information that can be checked later on. An extremely minor inconvenience. Yet, it is still not done. Anyone opposing universal criminal background checks -- I accuse them of wanting criminals and the mentally ill to have access to guns in the first place.
__________________
|
2013-03-29, 14:37 | Link #693 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
background checks are a mix of potential good and potential evil.
good: IF PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED WITH A GOOD DATABASE ... you can circumvent illegal purchases of weapons by domestically violent, felons, mental patients, etc. It is easier to track gun history as part of criminal investigations. bad: The decisions on who should not have a gun can get "1984ish". What if you have a spouse who is lying that you are abusing her? Divorces can get ugly. What if you're ADHD? What if your political or religious beliefs seem crazy to the deciders? I'm fine with moderate reasoned gun regulation that has actual results (feel-good laws are not only ineffective but actually often create more havoc) - but for every "gun nut" out there who wants to own weapons they could take on a pack of terrorists with, there's an extremist on the other side who DOES want to take every gun away from everyone known to have one. They're there. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise. We have Senators, Reps, and city officials who say it out loud. In a way, they have parallels to officials who carve out little squares under the freeway as the only place they will let you can protest, miles from where you need to protest. They prefer "harmony" over freedom - just like the folks who are "harmonizing" Tibet and any part of China where people get pissed off when schools collapse or food is made of poison.
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2013-03-30 at 18:51. |
2013-03-29, 22:18 | Link #694 |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Roe v. Everyone: States take on abortion
http://blogs.reuters.com/events/2013...e-on-abortion/
__________________
|
2013-03-30, 12:13 | Link #695 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
|
Just to chime in on the gun thing.
Here in Illinois, we've had background checks since the Brady thing, and yous get chafed a $2 fee for a phone call to da State Police and they do the check. Then wait 72 hours fer a handgun or 24 for a l |
2013-03-30, 12:17 | Link #696 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
|
Long gun.
Plus your required to have a state ID to purchase called a FOID. So Lincoln's home state has enough checks in its systems. As for a national background thing, why not let the states do it themselves, no need for Zippy and his minions to get involved. |
2013-03-30, 13:04 | Link #698 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
|
Quote:
Dis whole hoopla over "national background checks" is redundant nonsense! There's plenty of laws on da books already that need enforcin. And why is it nobody is asking said alphabet outfit why they didn't catch these mental misfits befores the heinous acts were done? We don't need more laws, we needs to have a gov't that will enforce dose on the books already! |
|
2013-03-30, 13:34 | Link #699 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-03-30, 13:45 | Link #700 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
|
Quote:
So lets make all mental cases a a part if the NCIS database and we can keep the weapons out of there hands. Why we coddle dese people is beyond me, if they're a danger to society they needs to be "in the system". We do the same wit convicted pedophiles, sexual predators and such, so why not the mental ones to? Last edited by Badkarma 1; 2013-03-30 at 14:03. |
|
|
|