Guard Dog

Wow. I actually agree with Yushaa on something. He's right Mes. The thing about free speech is it does work two ways. The newspaper was perfectly within it's rights to print whatever it wanted about Muhammed. And any offended muslim would be perfectly right to be angry and express such in the form of boycotts or protests. However, the moment they resorted to violence or even threats of violence they flushed the moral high ground right down the toilet. Nobody deserves to die or risk bodily harm over words or pictures. That is a lesson the more violent practioners of Islam has not yet learned. As I posted earlier, God/Allah/Jesus/Muhammed (henceforth referred to collectively as God) is not some helpless figure that requires us mere mortals to stand up for His honor. If someone issues an insult to God, that is between them and God. It is not for us to mete out justice for an offence aginst the divine. Killing a human we are able to adjudicate because we are humans. Besides, I somehow doubt God would be offended.

We are going OT a little here.... but, what do you mean there? Clicky!!! Ok one last OT post. This article you linked was an opinion piece that, irritatingly, did not cite the cases it was complaining about. But a quick Lexis Nexus search as solved that. So after a lot of reading (you've given me a real homework assignment here Teeth ) I think I've got a pretty good grip on the subject. And I think it's worthy of it's own thread, which I'll put up when I get back tonight. But this is an pretty interesting topic, thanks for bringing it up. For the record, after reading 4 of the opinions, I find I'm in agreement with Kennedy for a change.

I would never do a thing like that... Believe it or not you were not the one I was worried about.

We are going OT a little here.... but, what do you mean there?

Two points you should consider Gorgon. The original target on Aug 6 was Yokohama, much less populated. The target there was the Misubishi factories where the Zeros and Bettys were made. Hiroshima was chosen for it's fuel dumps. The other thing to consider is the USCINCPAC did everything to let the Japanese know Nagasaki was next. They announced it on Radio Saipan and even dropped leaflets telling the citizens to evacuate. Most did not because the Japanese high command would not let them. Plus, as I understand it, they did a good job of suppressing the news of the full extent of damage to Hiroshima. On top of that, Truman gave a "surrender or else" ultimatum on Aug 3, another on Aug 7, and of course the above mentioned radio/leaflet messages. As for casualties resulting from an invasion of the Japanese home islands. Come on. You are not dumb and it does not become you to play the part. I will agree with Stew, this was not a highpoint in American history. But I will point out that unlike Germany, the Japanese military was largely intact in 1945. Most of it was on the the home islands. Their naval losses took them out of the fight by 1943 but they still had consideble power. And I would point out that it was also considered by George Marshall that rather than invade they could blockade and try to force the Japanese to capitulate by starving them off. That was rejected the moment it was discovered the Japanese were also working on an atomic weapon. One last thing. if the British had atomic weapons when the Battle of Britan was going on, do you think Churchill would have hesitated to use it? Would Stalin, Tojo, or Hitler?

Just bought Galactic Civilizations II w/expansion. I've been a little leery of Space 4X games since its been so long since there was a good one. MOO2 was the last one I liked. I've heard good things about this one though.

The first indication we had that the NWN modding group CODI had gone belly up was their website disappearing. I'd have been worried too.

My personal opinion is...... let them live and do what they like. If they want to get married, let them get married. It does not effect my life at all. Freedom is all about doing whatever you please so long as it does not bring harm to or endanger the same for anyone else. As for Gay adoption, they can be screened like anyone else. Very Libertarian, yes?

Gorgon wins this thread! I'll have that image in my head all day today. I can see a couple of teenagers running away with that thing under their arms. Or worse, the soldier comes to get it and finds it on blocks, gun, treads, and cameras missing. Too funny.

Yushaa, you my friend are a one-trick-pony.

Link: Armed Robots Patrol Iraq Be sure to check out the video. This thing is like Asimov's worst nightmare come to life. From an engineering standpoint I am fascinated. I'd be curious to know what the lag time on command execution is. What it's current usage is while running full out, firing and panning it's cameras simultaneously? Do the treads have separate drive trains? But that of course is proprietary. We have all heard that eventually wars will be fought using robot proxies. But I would bet, like me, no one believed it. Until now. I have one request. Can we please limit this discussion to the technology and leave out the politics of the Iraq war itself. Everyone knows how everyone feels already. But the morality of the use of weapons like this is certainly fair game. Now all those years of playing Doom will pay off.

Well, I was initially pretty psyched about the Beowulf movie coming out this winter. But now that I've seen the trailer I'm a little leery. The cinematics look...wrong. Almost cartoonish. Maybe it's just my screen. Chrck it out if you haven't already: Beowulf Movie

If you are referring to Iraq you will need to look hard around this forum to find someone in favor of that particular fight. although I will admit I was not so opposed to it in the beginning as I am now. But in my own defense I believed it was a step in a grand strategy towards militarily defeating the more violent islamic terror groups. It seems it was now there is no "grand strategy". However, the attack on Afghanistan was justified and necassary. Al-Qaeda was there, and the Taliban would not give them up. If they had, the invasion would not have happened. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed by muslims. The US made no response. In 1996 the Khobar towers are bombed by Muslims, 20 Americans killed, over 300 wounded. In 1998 two US embassies were bombed by Muslims, there were no survivors, over 200 dead in each. In 2000 the USS Cole was nearly sunk by Muslim terrorists. After all of these atrocities, the US did....nothing. Invaded no counties, toppled no governments. And this despite the obvious aid Al-Qaeda received from Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan in all of those events. Finally 9-11. Did you really expect the US to do nothing again? Obviously it was not working. I have made plain my views on what US Foreign Policy should be in other threads on this forum. But that is a discussion for another thread. If you wish to start one without mindlessley spouting propaganda and flame baiting hyperbole I'd be happy to debate the point with you. As to the debate on the atomic bombs, it is obvious we are not going to agree. I do not see your logic and you are rejecting mine so I'll drop it. The Danes made no mistake. It was a newspaper cartoon printed in a non muslim newspaper in a non muslim country for non muslim readers. If muslims are caused "pain and anger" by the editorial opinions of a newspaper half a world away you guys really need to get over yourselves. Especially since the reaction was a violent one. I am a Christian and I do not kille people or blow things up when someone insults my religion. God/Allah is not some helpless waif depending on me, you, or bomb wearing lunatics to defend His honor. He is quite capable of that own. If someone insults God that is between them and God. But that example does serve to debunk your point that the US is hated only for it's foreign policy. And bolsters mine that radical islam hates everything that is not islam. It proves that your assertion that Canada is not the target of muslim hate and terror is, like most of the things you say, wrong.

For the sake of my sanity I'm am going to try and ignore your rhetoric and address the few salient points you seem to be trying to make. But first I must attack some of the "facts" you are throwing out that you are presenting out of context, starting with this one. Since you are recycling things you've already posted I guess I can do the same. Yushaa, all of those quotes you are throwing up regarding the use of atomic weapons were made after the war. In some cases 15 years after. On Aug 6 1945 all the US knew was that Japan was prepared to fight to the last man/woman/child. So Truman is looking at the casualty and cost estimates of an invasion on one hand, and the Atomic Bomb on the other. What other choice could he make? It is more than a little silly to castigate him after the fact on things he could not have known. Hindsight is always 20/20. To suggest that employing a weapon of war, in a declared war against a nation state (who I might add STARTED said war) is an act of terrorism is more than a little silly. And Eisenhower made no objections to the weapons use before hand. Indeed, he had very little knowledge of it since he was not in the Pacific Theater. By throwing out comments he made years later and suggesting that means he was against is from the start is false on it's face. I do understand that it is your opinion the use of atomic weapons was not justified and you are entitled to it. But based on your posting history I doubt you would find anything the US has ever done to be acceptable. Is that so? Allow me to resurrect a post from you last thread that you may not have read: Besides, it's not like the followers of the "jihad" hate doctrine only target the US. In Bali it was just non Muslims in a night club. Australians mainly. England has been hit several times now. Spain has been hit three times in the last four years. And the terrorists there cited the reconquista as a reason. That was like 1491 for crying out loud (by the way the US had nothing to do with that one either). Germany and France have had violent riots when Muslims there did not get their way over something stupidly trivial. They hate the Danes over a newspaper cartoon. The Taliban hated the Chinese and there were a number of "border incidents" mainly consisting of Chinese being attacked. The Russians have been hit many times even back during the days of the USSR. India and Pakistan are mortal enemies. In the Philippines (particularly Mindanao) the Muslim guerrillas there kill non Muslims on sight. Sounds to me like Muslim hate is not reserved for America alone. It is directed at anything not Muslim. Wrong: Toronto Terrorism Canada And Terrorism Home Grown Jihadis: Terrorism a Rising Threat to Canada ISLAMIC TERRORISM, SEPTEMBER 11 AND MISS WORLD 2002 MAYHEM IN NIGERIA: CONNECTING THE DOTS That last article is long and tedious, but there is one VERY relevant paragraph I'd like you to read and comment on. I will quote it below:

Actually Kaftan you are not far off. Clinton fired everyone because they were all Republican appointees. That did set a precedent because to my knowledge, prior to that the US Attorneys Office was pretty apolitical. One thing about the US, once precedent is set, it never goes back to the old way again. Can you elaborate on this? My presumptions was that Alberto Gonzales' firing where unprecedented. Also how can Clinton Fire the attorney general lawyers for individual states? I thought the President couldn't do that, the attorney general is the boss not the president. No it has happened before on a much larger scale even. And my saying Clinton fired them is not technically accurate because Janet Reno actually did that. She was the AG at the time. Just as Gonzalez did the firing now, not Bush. But I am quite certain both Presidents either had a hand in the decision or at the very least knew about it ahead of time and did not object. And the attorneys fired were in charge of prosecuting Federal crimes, or representing Federal interests for whatever region they were in. As I poster earlier, this is all fine and good. The position of US Attorney is a political appointment and those that fill it serve at the pleasure of the AG in office. The AGs and District Attorneys for the individual States are elected officials and can only be fired by the voters, or in some States can be dismissed by the Governor. But only for misconduct. The US AG can not do a thing to them.

Actually Kaftan you are not far off. Clinton fired everyone because they were all Republican appointees. That did set a precedent because to my knowledge, prior to that the US Attorneys Office was pretty apolitical. One thing about the US, once precedent is set, it never goes back to the old way again.

What happened in N.O. came to light after Katrina. The Governor mustered all of the N.O. police then noticed about 30-40 had not showed up. So much to do was made in the media about the missing officers. Then suddenly no one was talking about it any more. It turns out that those "officers" were actually fictitious city employees whose salaries were being paid into funds that certain city officials had access to. I know at least one was indicted but I never heard what happened from it. The Mayor who presided over this debacle was just recently re-elected too. Once again proving Homer Simpson is not so dumb.

He represents New Orleans. As corruption goes in Louisiana, that is little league. Look at hat happened to the New Orleans Police. Over 40 police officers drawing paychecks who only existed on paper?

No joke there. This whole thing would be over. Or just said "We did it because we wanted to. It's our perrogative" If the give the appearance of a cover up then people will get curious and start turning over rocks to see whats hiding under them. But then, does the Bush admin making a PR screw up really come as a surprise anyone?

Or they could just outright bribe them. Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) was just arrested for accepting bribes from a company wanting a contract to set up business in Africa. They wanted him to use his influence to arrange eveything. When the FBI arrested him he had $90,000 in cash wrapped up in plasic, hidden in his freezer. He was indicted and is awaiting trial. Ironicly enough he was reelected last year despite all that. I am reminded of a quote by the great American, Homer Simpson "When are people going to lean? Democracy does not work!"

A special prosecutor would be appointed by the Attorney General, approved by the Senate, and he would be independant of(as in not report to) the Excecutive. I think in the end he reports to the House Judiciary Comittee. Not sure on that point. Enoch would be the one to ask. This is right up his alley.

There's nothing wrong with firing people using an executive discretion explicitly stated as a power of the office. However, if it's being used for the reasons reported that it might be used for, I think it important for the public to know it. I agree. The public does deserve to know the reason whatever it is. But they cannot be legally compelled to provide it. And Yes Wals it is perfectly legal and proper. As long as they were not fired for reasons stemming from age, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That would be discrimination and obvioulsy was not the case. Janet Reno fired 93 of them because they were Republican apointees. No other reason. Its a rotten thing to do to someone but it is an executive perrogative. As I said, this whole "scandal" in nothing more than politcs. Once again, look at the hipocrisy. Clinton fires 93, not a word said. Bush fires 8 and it's the end of the world. Clinton pardons over 200 mainly on drug charges, not a word said. Bush commutes 1 and it's the end of the world.

But seriously, i would not get too worked up over this one folks. It is simply political theatre. In 7 years the Bush Admin has fired 8 attorneys and pressured 3 others to retire. I am absolutely certain the reasons were political (aren't they always). Over Clintons term Reno fired 93 and no one said a word. The reason is Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General. If he/she want to fire them, that is his/her perrogative. The dems are simply putting on a show in the hopes that the mere hint of impropriety will win a few votes in 2008. Link to source: Bush 8, Clinton 93

now thats multi tasking

both, probably. taks I've never met him. But based on the two career politicians I do know, I would bet he really does not understand.