New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#26 Re: Not So Free Chat » North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . . » 2003-01-03 01:27:47
I do believe we have seen clarck float to a new point of view, lately.
#27 Re: Not So Free Chat » God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything. » 2003-01-02 23:25:03
Most westerners abhore canabalism- yet there are many cultures that have celebrated this ritual. Neither point of view is wrong, or correct.
just for the record, there have been a few people who have claimed thatmost cases of reported canibalism by indiginous peoples were actually hearsay by rival tribes.
#28 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-01-02 23:07:07
See? You already have decided that Iraq has WMDs... ?he used the months when bush was blustering around to hide the weapons somewhere else,? and you clearly can't take another position, or at least a middle of the road position, even when you've been given common sense arguments. You pretend like you can't trust media sources, yet you clearly trust the mainstream, because that's the drivel that's being fed to you.
Cheney did ?have a beer? with Saddam, though (not literally). Which I'm sure we'd find funny. In fact, I bet we can show that Cheney actually had connections with Iraqi weapon deals back in the day (which could explain why the recent Iraq weapon admission was dumbed down from 10k pages to some 3k if I recall correctly).
There is a lot of talk, especially in Israel by Isaelies, that the accusation that saddam hid his WMD in Lebanon was nothing more that Israel tring to encite the US towards it's enemies.
#29 Re: Not So Free Chat » Leaglize drugs - say what u want » 2003-01-02 19:34:38
the will of the state IS subordinate to the federal government, by the very structure. and war was never declared. in fact, the south fired the first shot. was still was never declared. i know my civil war history...go ahead, quiz me
bush has the right to invade peoples privacy like never before, and other powers, i would have to look up specifics. sorry, too tired from last night to dig that far into my brain ???
with the patriot act, the homeland security bill, and the new interpritation of 'enemy combatant' by the executive powers; america now has a secondary judicial system.
Bush can now declare anyone as an 'enemy combatant' and that person can be detained indefinately without council or trial or killed on the spot.
There is no oversight (except for the presidential election) on this power.
The president needs not provide any evidence to any body to activate this order.
The acts described above can be forever hidden from the Freedom of Information act.
The homeland security bill gutted the FOIA. In the midwest there was a huge train derailment. Information gathered by the FOIA brought to light that many of the train rails in the midwest were defective, and there was a coverup to hide this fact.
An unaccountable government will always be a corrupt one.
#30 Re: Not So Free Chat » Leaglize drugs - say what u want » 2003-01-02 19:26:29
but is it wise to unleash yet another set of damaging vices into our society?
Those vices are already here and in high use.
The question is do we treat use as a crime?
Do we treat abuse as a crime?
#31 Re: Not So Free Chat » God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything. » 2003-01-02 18:33:01
Perhaps you misunderstood me. Those testaments are the fundamentals parts of salvation. The rest are important teachings that are not to be quickly discarded; in fact, most people like the teaching of the other books, even if they don't accept the parts about Jesus, salvation, etc. But being a Christian, I find those books a bit more important that the philosophical and moral parts of the bible. But only a little more important.
You're not Catholic, so you have no real appreciation for how inflamatory your idle comment is.
I have friends who are Catholic, and we can talk about this stuff just fine. Protestants are just Catholics without Popes or Saints. The fact is, and you are free to disagree with it, that I don't accept the pope as being my middle man to God. That's all. I don't see why you're so hurt.
the book of St. Matthew was written 70 years after the birth of christ.
I cant remember what I did last weekend.
#32 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-01-02 06:07:56
oh, im sure they have something. and ill laugh if and when it comes out.
of course, everybody will say we framed them.
1: If they find "Somthing" that does not instantly justify a war.
2: The administration has made false claims in the very recient past about Iraq.
#33 Re: Not So Free Chat » God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything. » 2003-01-02 03:44:32
I think the creator of the universe isn't too picky about when we celebrate the birthday of our Savior
I always wondered... do other alien civilizations have a Savior, or do you believe that we are the only living civilization in the universe?
Jesus went to all the other aliens after he died on the cross. He rode on a sled with 8 tiny raindeer. This was all after he visited the Native Americans, and the Chineese.
I suggest the Mars Society attempt to reverse engineer this jesus technology. Also, it would be nice to turn water into wine.
#34 Re: Not So Free Chat » What do you think of this? » 2003-01-02 03:37:01
I know if I was living in this country with a visa, I'd be sure to have it renewed AHEAD of time, and not waiting until the last minute to renew it.
you'll have to wait in line behind all the other people backlogged by the overburdened system.
#35 Re: Not So Free Chat » Leaglize drugs - say what u want » 2003-01-02 03:33:34
The first thing Anarchists do is form a commitee.
#36 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-01-02 03:28:51
So what exactly is our justification for the current attack? What has saddam done lately? be sure to omit things done a decade a go and see how far you get.
Do you have ADD? Can you focus on the news for 10 minutes? We're going to go to war if we find that Saddam started his nuclear weapons program again. We're going to go to war if he shoots down one of our patrol aircraft over the no-fly zone. This war isn't about the Kurds, or the Iranians back in the 1980's; it's about keeping Iraq out of the nuclear arena and protecting our troops that are enforcing a cease-fire treaty.
On previous comments (pg. 24,25)
Soph:
Maybe the government actually does know something we dont.Echus_Chasma:
They know much more than they care to tell us.El scorcho:
The government does know more than they tell us. I admire Israel for the way they handle things. They tend to not take crap off of anyone. If I had my way, this war on terrorism would have been going on in '93 after the first WTC bombing.el scorcho, thank you. I'm speechless. I've tried to express my sentiment about the Clinton administration and terrorism before, but you hit the nail on the head. God bless you...
And yes, I told you before, the government has WAY more information about Iraq than any media outlet does. I'll trust their information on this one.
I bet you $100 that we go to war mid febuary at the latest, no matter what the UN says.
The UN has turned up nothing. Saddam has practically rolled over onto his belly and asked the CIA to come in and show the UN where the weapons are.
With the troop buildup we have in the gulf, it would take bigger cahonies to pull out and admit we were wrong than bush has.
There is no evidence of a Nuke program in Iraq. Not one shred of evidence has been produced. We have no real justification for going to Iraq that can be backed up with solid evidence.
#37 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-01-01 21:55:04
no, the invasion a decade ago was a justification for our action.
So what exactly is our justification for the current attack? What has saddam done lately? be sure to omit things done a decade a go and see how far you get.
#38 Re: Not So Free Chat » What do you think of this? » 2003-01-01 17:27:10
few if any of these people were here 'Illegally'.
Those detained were here with expired visas with their green card status pending.
#39 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-01-01 17:20:00
because the atrocities we are claiming as rationale for invasion happened over a decade ago.
#40 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-01-01 16:44:29
we are not completely responsible, but we must foot some of the blame. we did not know that he was going to use them for such atrocities, which is not true in the case of hezbollah. giving missles to an organization who has pledged to push israel into the sea is pretty much aligning with the cause. telling reporters he wants to exterminate israel is a pretty good indicator too.
Iraq gasses kuds in the north. Us continues to supply iraq with weapons and means by which to develop WMD.
This is fact.
There was a movement in congress to condemn Iraq for using gas on it's own peoplwe, but it went nowhere. US arms were continually shipped to Iraq.
Nations sell arms to other nations. It's a great way to make cash. I think it's not right, but I also think it's hypocritical to condemn one nation for selling arms to bad guys, but lend a blind eye when your own is doing much more of the same.
#41 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-01-01 16:40:02
the argument is, if UN Resolution Violations are just cause for a US invasion, why are states like Israel, and palistine for that matter, not looking down the barrel of an A-1 Abrams tank right now?
#42 Re: Not So Free Chat » North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . . » 2003-01-01 16:28:22
japan is allowed defensive force, as I recall.
#44 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-01-01 15:10:00
its more reliable than the guardian.
oh, and what was that tiny little explosion cnn reported in lebanon the same day? oops, they screwed up.
and why is it that UN inspectors have suddenly become more bold...hmmm it all ties together...but no, bush is going to be wrong no matter what in many people's eyes.
If selling arms to a nasty group of people makes you aligned with their cause, (and I dont doubt that this is true), then the US is to blame for Saddams 1980's atrocities.
#45 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-01-01 15:07:07
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca … ...ocument
1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ? . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return.
#46 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2003-01-01 14:56:58
Maybe Bush is onto something:
http://www.debka.com/article_print.php?aid=232]Article about Hezbellah use of Iraqi missles
http://www.debka.com/article_print.php?aid=214]Article about Al Qaeda plans for terror attack against Israel
After reading the Iraqi missle article, I'm a little more in support of a war. Maybe the government actually does know something we dont.
Don't believe everything you read.
#47 Re: Not So Free Chat » God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything. » 2003-01-01 14:35:45
My family has traced my geneology back all the way to Charlamain.
That makes me a direct descendant of jesus christ.
#48 Re: Not So Free Chat » God, Creation, and the Universe Explained! - Life, the Universe, and Everything. » 2003-01-01 14:34:00
for the record, modrn Paganism is more closely related to jewish mysticism than it is to any ancient pagan religion.
the real practices and stories of the pre-christion pegans are long lost.
#49 Re: Not So Free Chat » President Bush - about bush » 2002-12-31 00:02:19
Forgive me if this has been brought up already, but I didn't feel like reading all 23 previous pages. Throughout the following post, keep in mind that I have an open disdain for all things UN. But if they're going to be around, they should at least make themselves useful.
Iraq (or rather the Hussein regime), has consistently disobeyed UN resolutions (and yes, I know that the US has, too; something should have been done about it). The UN was established in order to keep these punk dictators like Saddam in check. If the UN is to be a relevant body with any chance of enforcing international law, they need to step up and show some backbone.
When Saddam threw out the inspectors in 1998, what did Clinton do? Nothing. He was too busy meddling in a Yugoslavian civil war in order to his latest sexual escapades out of the headlines.
What did the international community do about Saddam's little stunt four years ago? Nothing.
Coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq have been fired upon over 500 times since the beginning of 2002 alone. That in itself should have been enough justification to blow Iraq's current regime to smithereens. What has the UN done? Nothing.
This same pattern of appeasement took place during the late 1930's when Hitler kept breaking international agreements. That should be a lesson to us. If memory serves me correctly there is some form of a UN army. When ANY country violates international law, they should get one warning. After that, they get the wrath of God. If we want a peaceful free world in this century, that will be the only way.
I don't agree with everything the Bush administration does (*cough Patriot Act cough*), but at least the President is showing some cajones in dealing with Iraq.
Misinformation alert.
Iraq (or rather the Hussein regime), has consistently disobeyed UN resolutions (and yes, I know that the US has, too; something should have been done about it). The UN was established in order to keep these punk dictators like Saddam in check. If the UN is to be a relevant body with any chance of enforcing international law, they need to step up and show some backbone.
So has Isreal. Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions than Iraq. Do you suppose this is just cause to invade Israel.
When Saddam threw out the inspectors in 1998, what did Clinton do?
Misinfo:
The UN inspectors were recalled, not thrown out. The were recalled because of the impending air strike.
Coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq have been fired upon over 500 times since the beginning of 2002 alone.
The 'No Fly Zone' has nothing to do with the UN. It was put into place on the pretense of protectiong the Kurds and (if I recall) the Sheites.
We have consistanty attacked Communications, anti-air, and radar sites all across Iraq.
Is Iraq still a soverin nation? If it is, does it still not have the right to defend itself?
Our planes are not there to enforce any UN Resolution. We are there to aggressively contain Iraq, along with the goal of preparing for eventual war.
This same pattern of appeasement took place during the late 1930's when Hitler kept breaking international agreements.
Pre-emptive war was what we had eliminated with the end of World War II. Respect for a nations soveringty is what the world gained from WWII. A great majority of all wars since WWII have been Civil wars, not inter-nation ones.
The world has learned that nations that invade on country are likely to invade another. They know that they or their allies and partners might be next.
Violation of another nations soverignty by Iraq without emmenent threat, no matter what the intentions or motivation, is what brought the world behind the US in the first invasion of Iraq.
Violation of another nations soverignty by the US without emmenent threat, no matter what the intentions or motivation, is what currently divides the world.
I don't agree with everything the Bush administration does (*cough Patriot Act cough*), but at least the President is showing some cajones in dealing with Iraq.
His warmongering has not made the world a safer place. Indeed the world is much more dangerous now than it was before 9/11
#50 Re: Not So Free Chat » North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . . » 2002-12-30 23:33:17
You can't just take out the nuke plants.
Seoul, in S. Korea, is in Artillary range of N. Korea. IN addition, N Korea has a 1 Million man standing army.
To take out the bomb plants without some arrurance from N Korea that they will not invade or shell S Korea woul be putting the last nail in the Coffin for S Korea.
S Korea wants us to just stay out of it. N and S Korea have reciently made some big steps towards peace. (I have doubts as to N Koreas intentions, the timing of these concessions by N Korea were too convenient. I wonder if it's part of their smoke screen.)
It would be fallicy to believe that america has unlimited military might. The US has made an art-form of stratigic bmbing, but we do not have the numbers or logistic capability to fight a war with both Iraq and move in with a ground war with N Korea's 1,000,000 troops.
This is the trouble we get into for beating the war drum. If I were a third world dictator, and were just called "The Axis of Evil" by the most powerful nation in the world, I would be looking to beef up my defenses as well.
In My humble opinion, we let the nations who have the most to lose deal with the issue. Japan, Russia, China, and S Korea.