marks2065

Your historical premise - that Iran "has not fired one bullet towards Israel" - is incorrect. Hezbollah in Lebanon was concieved, funded and organized by the government of Iran in the 1970s and 80s, operating through the Iranian Ministry of Information. The connection between Iran and Hezbollah has been proven in numerous court cases in the US and elsewhere, and I personally happen to have very close professional familiarity with the trial evidence and witnesses in those cases. Hostages kidnapped and held in captivity by Hezbollah in Lebanon in the 80s have obtained numerous court judgments against the government of Iran for being directly involved in their captivity. The principal mission of Hezbollah is armed conflict against Israel with the aim of its destruction. Accordingly, every act of armed conflict by Hezbollah against Israel is actually an act of war, as defined by international law, by Iran against Israel. Everything else...well, flows directly from that. AGAIN hypocrisy? So I guess according to your logic the US government has declared war in the US considering we have and still do support people like Sadam, and Osama binladin right? But let me guess that’s different because we are doing it. The fact that so many of you are simply unable to look in the mirror is disturbing. How are you so easily capable of switching what’s wrong and right depending on only who is doing the action? I wish my ethics were so flexible, oh wait no I don’t the US needs to stop aiding the militant groups to overthrow governments. we seem to get bit by the dog we help. look what helping Sadam and the talaban got us. but we cannot sit by and let governments like Iran do what they are doing either. the whole middle east is to fucked up and splintered to badly to do much with without hurting us down the road. my feelings are that we should say our peace and back Israel in what they choose to do, but keep out of Irans internal structure until they choose what direction they want their country to go. then if they choose a path that is what we agree with, then help them.

just because it is ok today doesn't mean it will be ok tomorrow, once the government has the information they will keep it until they can use it, and generally they use it for their needs not yours.

Personally you have nothing at risk and it is irresponsible or at least in poor taste to hope a country attacks another one where it could very will lead to a war that will cost lives. But I am not surprised we always have people on here who seem to have a hard on for seeing other people die and think there are only two options. A. Bomb them and B. Bomb them. I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel did attempted an attack it would not be the 1st, 2nd, or 100th time they have violated international laws, or another nations borders. What do you think Iran should do if it is attacked? Say thank you or then would you understand if Iran does use all of its forces to strike back at Israel? I wonder if Iran would be viewed as just another nation that is protecting it’s sovereignty or would the lines of sheep try to make it about Anti-Semitism? I truly do wonder that as I have seen an unbelievable level of narcissism, and hypocrisy from the go to war we are always right crowd. I hope no lives are lost, but if Israel is the aggressor once again then they deserve what will come to them. I see no difference between a “Terrorist” who brakes all international laws or an Israeli pilot who brakes international law. They are both scum. i am glad you are not making the decisions. if people with your mind set were making the decisions in the past we could be speaking german or russian now. although war is never wanted and should be the last resort, there comes a time when you need to consider what langauge you want to speak. Israel has been threatened with another holocaust and that would be unacceptable. just remember the left has declared war at times also (wwII for one). war is an undesireable way to end a conflict but is needed from time to time. not only did FDR (dem) declare war but also autherized the use of the most leathal weapon ever used in the history of the earth.

Texas too? I thought it was Tennessee where you can divorce your wife but she's still your sister. be carefull talking about Tennessee, they will shoot you, insert a dead rooster in your ass, and throw you down in the woods so nobody will ever find you for making fun of their significant other. (significant other is sister mother aunt daughter or any combination of the above)

do you remember the floods a few years back in north Dakota? there was no $2000 visa card and other fed gov welfare. The people there took in their nieghbors, helped them cope, gave them food, and the community helped rebuild for those that lost everything. with the distruction from Katrina and the workforce available, there should have been no unemployment. Everyone could have helped themselves by getting a job helping to clean and rebuild the area instead they stood around griping that the fed gov was to slow, to inefficient, and didn't care for them. sorry but even uneduacated idiots knew that if you live 20 feet below sea level and a cat 5 huricane is coming there might be a problem headed your way.

Yeah, fuck em. We'll just turn a blind eye, I guess. History has proven isolationism and appeasement work, right? Let's do that again. Your only measure of success contiues to be cumulative death numbers, which will always, in any case, be worse than the previous day. There are more people dead today because of AIDS than there were in 2004. Do you think no progress has been made? We lost roughly 250,000 military members in WWII. How do you classify our success in that war? there is always a price to pay for any advancement in any area of life, the Iraq war is no different.

why not put it on the residents? why do people always want to blame everyone but themselves? these people elected the local government that screwed them and they were to stupid to leave. when a tornado hits people have only minutes to prtect themselves but this was a cat 5 huricane with days of warning, these people put themselves at danger and deserve what happened to them for not leaving. also they could have done more to help themselves, like help each other out and clean up after themselves. did anyone one here see the pictures and hear the stories about how lazy and ungratefull these people were? see the mess they left in the shelters? use the $2000 credit card they got for vacations instead of putting their lives back together? they could have bought clothes and food.

Has it been long enough that we now can lie about the incompetence of FEMA and it's leader, in handling that event? Apparently. why do people insist on blaming the 2nd 3rd or 4th person down the line? lets put the blame on the first person, like the fucktard that didn't order the evacuation, or the liar that said the levees were ok? I'd rather blame the freakin' retards that built, and the retards today that rebuild, cities that are below sea level and sinking by the minute. now you are really digging to the real cause and the liberals will have nothing to do with that. this would divert the blame from Bush and that couldn't possibly be the right thing to do.

You missed several - try again. Question: If guns prevent violent crime, why are there more gun homicides in states and nations that make access to guns easier? Your answer suggests that more deterrence is the answer, but the highest homicide rate states already have the toughest deterrents, so your answer is clearly WRONG. Question: If law abiding citizens with guns are good for society, how do you reconcile that with over 300,000 guns going from law abiding citizens into the hands of criminals every year? Question: If guns are good for us, why are there more gun accidents in places with more guns? Question: If guns are good for us, why are there more suicides in places with more guns? Question: If guns prevent crime and theft is a crime, how come over 300,000 guns are stolen every year? You answered none of these

i think the jury is still out in Iraq and wont know the true results for years to come. NONSENSE - the war was started under false pretenses, there is absolutely no doubt about that. i don't think i was commenting on the cause of the war but the end result. Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler was nice to dogs, but that didn't excuse their behavior either. ? this is a new spin, to where i have no idea, but it is new.

the problem is not the law abiding citizen. the problem is the lack of penalty given those that commit a violent crime. Avoiding answering the questions! The penalties in low homicide rate states are not higher than in high homicide rate states like Texas or Florida. In fact the reverse is the case, so your "explanation" simply doesn't work. i did answer the question maybe not to your satisfaction but i did answer it. the reason some areas have a higher or lower crime has alot of variables, but a good deterant WOULD lower those numbers across the board.

Kallend says that a lot too, but it still is false. Not all weapons come into being as legal purchased ones. And not all illegal weapons stay so. . Source? Numbers? We KNOW (according to the DoJ) that over 300,000 legal weapons become illegal every year. what difference do the numbers make? are people getting shot with illegal guns? yes. are the gun bans helping this situation? no. what are the cops doing to curtail the illegal guns and murders? not much.

Because the mayor and gov. were dems. That exempts them from blame from the left. sorry my fault, i guess i just can't covert to stupid thinking.

Has it been long enough that we now can lie about the incompetence of FEMA and it's leader, in handling that event? Apparently. why do people insist on blaming the 2nd 3rd or 4th person down the line? lets put the blame on the first person, like the fucktard that didn't order the evacuation, or the liar that said the levees were ok?

i think the jury is still out in Iraq and wont know the true results for years to come. NONSENSE - the war was started under false pretenses, there is absolutely no doubt about that. i don't think i was commenting on the cause of the war but the end result.

o come on now, stampeding a defenseless person and saving $20 is the american way. then not holding the people that stomped on this person liable priceless. remember, it is not the one responsible that pays but the one that is closest to the situation with money.

the problem is not the law abiding citizen. the problem is the lack of penalty given those that commit a violent crime. there is little or no deterant to not commit a crime. even very serious crimes commited by criminals have very little penalty. If a criminal new that using a gun to commit a crime was going to get him 20 years to life without parole or even a death sentance they would probably not commit the crime, or if it was legal to shoot anyone that attacked you, they would think twice. But as of right now, the criminal mind doesn't think the penalty they could get outways the results of the crime. Even if they get caught, they know that they will possibly get off on a technicality or get a short easy sentance in one of our "all incluisive club meds" that we call a jail. Just like kids, criminals want to find the limits they can get away with, therefore we need to greatly reduce what they can get away with and greatly increase the penalty for doing the crime.

How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? The meaning of words IS important. well i have a few questions for you Mr. Kallend. 1. If guns kill people why do they need a person to operate them? 2. why do cities that ban guns still have murders by the guns that are banned? 3. where do the guns that are banned go? 4. Why does Nancy Polosi carry a gun but supports banning them? 5. if illegally held guns cause most of the murders, how does banning guns take them out of the criminals hands since they are only braking 1 more law. do these gun ban laws affect the criminal in anyway?

i think the jury is still out in Iraq and wont know the true results for years to come. yes there were mistakes but it can stioll have a positive outcome. As far as Katrina goes, laying a natural disaster or the incompitence of the local government on Bush is definately wrong. the federal government saved more people and transported more supplies in a shorter amount of time than in any other natural disaster. how can you blame Bush for the local government not evacuating when they had been told they should? or not reporting the levee brakes to the federal government and asking for help?

I have an acquaintance that works at the MB plant in Alabama. They've been able to deflect UAW by increasing wages, but now it's getting to the point they won't be able to do it. At some point, they'll have to level off pay raises, or, cut back. If UAW gets in there, I have no doubt that MB would close the plant. this is what can happen in the US if they could get rid of unions. http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

honest, hard working, motivated people rarely have problems making a living in any economy. lazy unmotivated people are usually the first to get laid off, unless the union is involved, then you have to lay off several good employees to get to the shitty one.

Obama knows that he can't "just ban guns" so he will chip maway at them 1 or 2 at a time. people are usually stupid enough to let this happen.

it is not a question about wehter or not we want good health care, we do and most will have no problem telling the doctor what he needs to know until now, now that what you say could come back at a later time and either disqualify you or make your rates skyrocket. remember what is stored on the computer will always stay somewhere that can be retrieved.

Has anyone thought of what the implications might be if the insurance companies get ahold of these records? maybe you'll have general health insurance because of socialized health care, but what about dissability, life, and other insurances? you could probably count those out if 5 years ago you did this or that and your new life insurance agent found out. Then your 250k policy will cost $500 a month instead of $50 a month because you told the doctor you smoked pot a couple times 8 years ago.

i am holding judgement until about 2 years into his presidency, that is when the changes Obama puts in actually start to affect us. there are some things that Obama can make effective shortly after he is sworn in but most things need to go through congress first. No matter who he puts in his cabinet the final descision is his to make so that will determine the outcome.