No, John is right on the money there. If people spent less time waving
in the White House.
> Your interpretation of the Patriot Act is completely wrong.
> Mitch
>>>>>Should it be any surprise that*** Cheney stated the war on terror
>>>could last fifty years or more?>>
>>>I wasn't aware that*** Cheney launched the attacks on 9/11 (or is
>>>that a *** you also hold?)
>>Sorry, Randy, straw man argument.
>>Cheney said it - do you agree or disagree? I made no allegation about him
>>and 9/11, so why are you trying to put down an argument I never made?
>>>I realize you don't live in the USA, but I'm wondering just what civil
>>>liberties you claim we've lost? Can you name even a single case where
>>>some innocent American has lost any civil rights because of this
>>>administration?
>>Well, far be it from me to comment on your laws, but Amendment IV says;
>>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>>and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>>violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
>>by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
>>searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
>>The Patriot Act (LOL, well named) allows the police to come into your
>>home, search, leave without telling you. The Federal Intelligence
>>Surveillance Act allows warrants from special courts, looking into such
>>ridiculous items as what library books were read, again without
>>notification.
>>Just a couple of example of new laws ***ling all over just one amendment
>>to your bill of rights. We're no better off over here unfortunately.
>> >>>Our own corporations kill more every year in the name of profit,
>>>peddling tobacco and fat/sugar laden ***for the populace to later die
>>>from.
>>>And undboutedly they are over here forcing our mouths open and making
>>>us eat every bite. They are just coming into our homes at dinner times
>>>and prying open our mouths and ***ing us. Every seller needs a
>>>buyer. Not sure why you remove free choice from the equation. You're
>>>not one of those victim mentality types who think that we aren't
>>>responsible for anything we do, that we're all just victims of
>>>corporations? Sounds kinda like you are...
>>I have no victim mentality - I make sure I'm not a victim. The point is
>>that "free choice" is a myth for the most part.
>>Okay, let's take just an example. I show you succulent chicken, couple of
>>bucks, "special offer" tasty chicken ***. You might buy it. If I told
>>you the chicken came from Indonesia, was shipped via Holland where it was
>>injected with 50% water to make it bigger, injected with collagen to hold
>>the water, injected with pig DNA to retain the collagen, and processed in
>>*** water to remove feathers etc, and had a high probability to be
>>infected with campylobacter....would you still buy it? How about if you
>>were moslem, and hadn't been given the information you were actually
>>eating pig?
>>Fact is that it probably is (more than 80% of the world's chicken comes
>>from three companies, much of it processed in this way). You have the
>>"free choice" to buy this, but you are usually not furnished with the full
>>facts with which to properly exercise that free choice.
>>>What left wing web site did you get those figures from? And what did
>>>you do to ensure that the figures were indeed accurate?
>>The "left wing" website of the United Nations. From your government. From
>>my government. From journalist reports. From news. It's almost 11 million
>>children per year, and a very widely known statistic. I suggest you
>>contact those organisations and let them know you dispute it.
>>>>>Iraqi children are dying from cancers caused by OUR depleted uranium
>>>shells
>>>I'll be looking for your objective citation backing this up as well.
>>I know you can use Google....
>>http://www.racesimcentral.net/+children+canc...
>>>Hey Saddam managed to buy weaponry from the French and Russians during
>>>the embargo...why didn't he buy medicine if the 'evil' US and Britain
>>>were stopping him.
>>You may say he bought weapons, but since we failed to find any I don't
>>think we can say this with any certainty. Or do you think he just let his
>>children die to teach us a lesson? Or to boost his popularity?
>>>I'm sure the French and Russians would have happily
>>>sold some to him for the proper oil-for-food profits to corrupt
>>>individuals (why is it that the left never acknowledges that the
>>>French, Russians and Germans were on the take from Saddam, and that
>>>Saddam's oil-for-food money was not getting to his own population - but
>>>I suppose you'll just deny that, too).
>>The oil-for-food "profits" went first of all to Kuwait (one of the richest
>>countries in the world) as compensation for war damage. A third of the
>>money went to pay UN "expenses" (I thought we paid out of tax, but there
>>you go), further money goes to Kuwait as mentioned, further money goes as
>>compensation to oil and other companies. and with the remainder Iraq would
>>tender on the international markets for food, medical supplies etc - every
>>contract then had to be approved by the UN sanctions committee. From
>>August 1990, for eight months, ALL IMPORTS were banned, including food and
>>medicine, despite these being explicitly allowed under resolution 661.
>>Have you heard of Denis Halliday? He was the Assistant Secretary-General
>>of the UN, and resigned over the sanctions. He said "I had been instructed
>>to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a
>>deliberate policy that has deliberately killed over a million
>>individuals".
>>His successor, Hans von Spooneck, calculated the oil-for-food money, and
>>after paying Kuwait, the UN, oil companies etc, Iraq was left with $100
>>for each citizen....per YEAR. That money has to pay also for
>>infrastructure including oil, water, electricity etc. After that he also
>>called the sanctions "genocide".
>>But hey, it's a million Iraqis dying, so it doesn't matter...right?
