Aileron

I've repeatedly said that I'm a moderate and not a real right-winger, and here's a case where I am actually taking a left-wing side on an issue. After watching the British reactions to the recent terrorist bombings, it seems that they are overreacting a bit. They seem to have gunned down a suspect who turned out not to be a terrorist, and are coming out with a bunch of resolutions, including making it illegal to make statements condoning terrorism, or banning any religious structures with ties to terrorists. (I do hope that the IRA is smart enough to pay attention to this and stay low for a while.) I mean, its good to finally see a nation in Europe finally recognize that the western world is in the middle of a war, but some of this damages ordinary civilians instead of terrorists. Atleast these policies will likely succeed in stopping terrorists though. I guess its mostly the frustration that the terrorists were welcomed into the country and given so much. The British probably feel betrayed. I'd say that the terrorists are choosing targets in response to the Iraq war...they are choosing the nations that are supporting the war but are divided politically. Basically, they aren't attacking the US because we are committed to action and that any attack on us would probably get us to strick back faster and harder. However, nations like Spain, Egypt, and Britain were in the position where they might have given up. That's not to say that going into Iraq was a bad decision for Britain...it was a responsable one, because if noone went into Iraq, all that there is over there would probably be in Europe right now. Basically SOMEONE has to fight these guys. Nations like France correctly !@#$%^&*umed that since other nations are fighting the War on Terror, that they can just stay out of it and not be attacked. It is on their conscience the fact that they are buying their security with British blood. I'm glad that Britain made the decision to commit to rather than shrink from the war against terrorists, though I am concerned that they are taking this out on their own civilians rather than the true criminals.

Well, the US probably would never attack China with a nuclear weapon in order to defend Taiwan...it would be downright illogical, because the fallout might destroy the country we are trying to defend. The situation between Taiwan and China is hardly a civil war. It is infact the Taiwanese Government who truly has legal rights to rule China, because the Chinese monarchy fled there at the communist revolution. Thus, Taiwan is a threat to the Communist, because it might re!@#$%^&*urt its right to rule. China would never commit to a nuclear attack on Taiwan, it would do too much damage to their foreign policy and international trade. Especially since the only thing China would have to do is a group of !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inations, eliminating only the officials that have legal rights to China. Still, it would definitely be foolish to assume that China would not use nukes, you never know. This just seems like an issue that is never going to be resolved, but just cool down over the years until eventually no one will care about it. We survived this long without any fighting, so I doubt anything will develop.

*gets kicked in balls* *falls over on ground* OW! *gets up* *runs into dojo* *sees Paine respawn inside* ????? "Aren't you DEAD?" *slice's Paine's head off with saber*

[Pirate] Aileron the Red lept out of the boats just as the pirates were coming aground, his trusty sabre in one hand and his not-so-trusty flintlock in the other. A round of cannon fire from the Gonnasackyatowna hit the villiage, sending firey debris everywhere. Ail noticed a stick on fire and picked it up, using it as a makeshift torch, he set several huts on fire on the way to the dojo. When he arrived, he attempted to light the dojo itself on fire, but the building would for some reason not catch fire and his torch fizzled out. By this time a group of pirates were already surrounding the dojo. Ail shouted into the building..."Alright ye ninja s!@#$%^&*! Come out here and fight, or are you too cowardly?"

Japan, 1500ish AD The fishing villiage of Podunkiawa is a small quite coastal villiage. The economy of this villiage mostly consists of catching fish and selling to larger towns. Other than a pretty good view of Mt. Fuji, the only other attraction is the Podunkiawa Dojo of !@#$%^&*kickingness, trainer of the finest ninjas, !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*ins, and lawyers in the area. Until, one day, the pirate ship Gonnasackyatowna set anchor in the harbor. She was bound for the Caribbean but had gotten lost. After throwing the navigator overboard, the Captain spyed in his spygl!@#$%^&* and noticed that there wasn't anything in this villiage worth sacking, until he spyed the ninja dojo. Frenzied by the potential of sacking valuble ninja loot as well as fighting their enternal enemies, the pirates went to the boats and attacked the villiage. Alright, the rules of this game are simple: 1) You must either be a pirate or a ninja...to make it easier on ppl to keep track, start each post with whichever side you are on. 2) Pirates and Ninjas fight each other exclusively...no backstabbing allowed. Also, no peacefull discussion either. 3) Stay somewhat in line with your class...for example, ninjas aren't known for pulling out death rays and blowing up buildings. 4) Subspace rules on death apply here...you don't really die, you just respawn back at the pirate ship or ninja dojo. 5) As such, the ship and dojo are both indestructible.

I think they voted to increase aide. I personally think they are too generous on this. Most of the time when we give money out, it ends up being "protection fees" to the local warlords who just use them to buy guns. What we really should do is figure out who stole the money and "reposses" that capital...then we should help the poor again.

I have serious doubts that they attacked London for Iraq...half the reason as announced by Bin Laden for the Madrid train bombings was the expulsion of the Muslims from Andalucia. (When Spain kicked the Moors out of their country in 1490) If that's what motivates these people, I doubt any rational line of thought will make them stop. The worst part of this bombing is that there probably was no goal for this. London will bury their dead and maybe come back on the terrorists harder. The terrorists did this for no reason but only because of their reckless hate and thirst for innocent blood.

Monte, of the persons detained in Guantanimo Bay, how many of them have been decapitated by rusty machetes? They are on a third country because it would be stupid to bring them to the mainland. They haven't been brought up on charges because terrorists are neither military nor civilian personelle. They haven't been released because that would be insane. This a fabricated issue concocted by Democrats who, lacking a plan to deal with Social Security, Terrorism, or Health Care, need to create an issue they can actually fight in, and foreigners, who are so angry about the US taking matters in our own hands after we were attacked that they need to take whatever shot at the US they can come up with. Generally, if either of these groups really gave a hoot about human rights, they would be backing the US's and Bush's efforts to stop terrorism. If you haven't noticed, the treatment Al Queda gives to their prisoners hasn't followed Geneva yet. I remember you one time saying that everyone is a racist at heart. I think your subliminal racism comes in the form of !@#$%^&*igning different codes of conduct to races. You think that caucasian people can be expected to live to one standard and that muslims can only be expected to live to another. Thus, when an Al Queda pig saws off a civilian's head, it doesn't occur to you that that is a far worse crime then when an American splashes a book, because you hold Al Queda to a different standard than the US. I on the other hand do not...to me there is no reason Al Queda's treatment of prisoners cannot be mostly civil with the occasional instance of Bible splashing, other than the fact the the organization is full of fanatical s!@#$%^&*. My interpretations of the War on Terror is gradually turning into the classical good vs. evil view because Al Queda never makes all attempts to be as brutal and uncivilised as possible. If the Al Queda standard of treating prisoners ever rose above they way the US treats our prisoners, I would indeed have a problem with this, but as things currently are, the prisoners in Guananimo Bay could rot in there for all I care.

[Attempts to post, but post is edited by Manus]

Maur...check the dates of these posts Manus...hurry up plz

Blind does not equal senseless. The doctors obviously couldn't open up her skull and look at her brain when they still thought she was alive. They function on giving treatment when there is POSSIBILITY of life. Suppose a plane flying over the remote artic ran into a storm and crashed. A rescue is organized and a helicopter is sent to the scene of the crash, but upon their arrival they find that all persons aboard the plane died in the crash. Would that imply that the rescue efforts themselves were a 'tragidy' (spelled 'tragedy') as Worthless put it and that they shouldn't have attempted the rescue? The rescue organizers did not know how many survivers there would be, and until they knew it would be best for them to assume survivors. Similarly, medical staff usually functions !@#$%^&*uming life in many cases. That is especially true for the general case. It would also be insane if physicians attempted to apply the Schiavo case to a general case, and merely removed feeding tubes every time the patient appeared braindead. There is no tragedy in this story...its just one woman dying. The tragedy would be using this case as an excuse not to apply medical treatment to future patients.

No longer necessary? *shoots 1,000 squirrels* *throws shotgun into Manus' hand* *calls PETA* [A mob of crazed PETA fanatics emerge from the shadows and try to kick the crap out of Manus] [Manus laughs at the PETA n00bs and shoots them with Ailerons shotgun]

I am somewhat concerned about the effectiveness of hunting rifles against a modern military. 5 shots bolt action versus 50 shots automatic doesn't seem like a fair fight...then again, hunting has taught me that I only need one shot. However, paintball has taught me that the ability to spray ammo in someone's general direction trumps accurate shooting, so it might be good to remove the ban on assault weapons. I wouldn't worry about cops either....training is more effective than a more powerfull weapon.

Answer: Every time a larger country harr!@#$%^&*es a government such as this one the international media portrays that country as imperialistic.

*throws DOA on to the big red button* *DOA sets off the machine gun trap* *gets out squirrel hunting shotgun*

Yes it does...police can only respond so fast....especially in rural areas. Where I currently live gun ownership is essential...the police response time here is ten minutes for the nearest local police (technically we live out of their juristiction) and 30 for the state. If criminals could count on the house owners not having guns, they would be able to rob anybody in my township and be out of the state before the police showed up. In order for a gun ban to even affect the situation, we would need to stop drug smuggling. If drugs can be smuggled, so can guns...and smuggled guns would not be registered, making it that much harder to track down the owner if any crime was commited.

Realise that Newsweek's only goal in life is to sell you things...they are about as much on your side as Microsoft. I will cite the one and only lie of the Bush administration...on September 12th 2001 he said that we would never forget Sept. 11th. Apparently the left has already forgotten the terrorist attacks that occurred that day. These people are not our guests, they are our enemies. We shouldn't bend over backwards to make them comfortable. I'm not going to pretend to believe that life is pleasurable for the prisoners...but it really SHOULDN'T be...and we certainly shouldn't be rushing to the defense of persons who if they had it their way would kill every single one of us.

Actually Manus there is repeated historical proof of democracies being better than functional monarchies. (The UK doesn't count as a functional monarchy because the royal family has no official power). Throughout Europe's history, Great Britain was almost always one step more democratic than their mainland peers, and have always been better off economically. Similarly throughout Russia's history they were always less democratic then western Europe and always worse off economically. North America was settled by democratic Britain and France. South America was settled by fuedal Spain and Portugal. In the Napoleonic Wars, a democratic France defeated all of Europe put together. This was mostly because French officers were chosen and promoted on merit, whereas everyone else was doing so on family ties. The important differences between democracy, monarchies, and dictatorships are in the organization of the group of people in charge, not the one man on the top. Dictators cannot run a country all by their lonesome. A dictator needs cronies to impose his will on people, and thus he needs to keep his cronies happy. I use "cronies" incorrectly here...the word implies about two dozen or so, but in reality the group is usually an entire race or a political party. To do this, dictatorships generally rob the rest of the country and give that money to the cronies. These countries are worse off economically because the dictatorship requires wealth to be unevenly distributed. These countries are worse off militarly because the only people willing and capable of defending the country are the cronies, and what's worse...if too many cronies die in war the rest of the populace might slip out from under their controll. Monarchies are generally non-functional in modern times. Like the dictator a monarch couldn't run his country all by his lonesome. However, the method to a monarchy was to have a group of independent nobles who competed with each other. The monarch would controll the nobles by routinely rewarding the most loyal nobles at the expense of the less loyal nobles. The nobles in turn would run their underlings in a similar manner. The advantage this has over the dictatorship is that in monarchy, the monarch has a relationship with all of his people, whereas in the dictatorship the dictator serves only the cronies. Monarchies are worse off than democracies economically because they create strict limits on how certain individuals advance in society. They are worse off than democracies militarily because in a monarchy, it is really the nobles who determine the size of the army, and they may or may not be willing to fight, even if the country is being invaded. Theocracies are a suprisingly powerfull government. Like the democracy, the theocracy survives by mimicing the will and beliefs of the people. The only flaw with the theocracy is that it only mimics the will of the majority religion only. Its fundimental weakness is that it disenfranchises minorities. Also, it is not an independant governmental system...there has to be another system that decides who is in charge. Of the three, theocracy CAN work...if the nation has no real minorities. Still democracy works just as fine with minorities, making it the superior system. Don't doubt everything Manus. There are times where "it just is" or "because I say so" is really all one should need, because every statement can be disected enough to reach an axiom. And thinking one self smarter than 40,000,000 people is usually nothing but shear arrogance.

Those who are still upset about the lack of WMDs should have paid more attention to Bush's stated reasons for the war. WMDs were a small part, but it was mostly the fact that removing the tyrant justified the loss of life (by the prevention of a slightly greater loss of life from Saddam's secret police), and that the presence of a secular democracy in the Middle East would eventually bring about the collapse of the theocracies...the first one is true and the second one we will only know with time. There's still enough to go to war on even without the WMDs. This is off topic so that is all I will say on this. No, the story wasn't censored, it was false...there never was any physical abuse done at Guantanimo Bay. There was a lot of supposed LEGAL abuse (mostly from the result of the lack of a good international definition of "terrorist") but no known physical or mental abuse from this particular prison as of yet. Physical abuse in a prison in Iraq is not an indicator of physical abuse in a prison in Cuba.

First it was CBS making up stuff about Bush's National Guard service. Now its Newsweek making up stuff about flushing the Quran down a toilet. Anyone who still thinks Bush has these guys in his pocket has to be kidding themselves. This behavior is not a right wing spin, not a left-wing spin, and its not even left wing propaganda...this is flat out lying to push a left-wing agenda. Newsweek went farther than any John Kerry advertisement did. Journalists are supposed to be impartial by the unwritten code of ethics that shows up in any professional career, similar to how a doctor is bound to do no harm or a lawyer is to best represent his client. Now, invariably one's opinion will sneak in to whatever one writes, but that is not an excuse not to attempt to produce impartial work. This case was clearly the opposite. Newsweek's goal was to push a left-wing agenda, and they sought stories which supported that agenda, whether true or not. There used to be a local restaurant franchise by the name of Chi Chi's...those who live in the US and Canada know of it well, though I'm not so sure about those who live oversees. Chi Chi's served pretty high quality and healthy mexican food. A couple years ago, there was an outbreak of hepi!@#$%^&*is from one of these restaurants. I don't remember if this was the fault of one of the restaurant employees or one of the suppliers in Mexico. Basically, at the end of it all, the entire franchise was put out of business. Similarly, the apology offerred by Newsweek should by no means be accepted. Newsweek should be brought up on charges until they are put out of business, and those who covered the story personally should be put in prison. With Chi Chi's accident an untrained minimum wage worker caused infection of a couple dozen people. With Newsweek's accident a trained and college educated professional caused several dozen to be killed and hundreds injured in rioting throughout the Middle East. Especially troubling is what they did to EVERYBODY's goal of getting a little peace. Al Queda was previously having big problems. There have even been a few incidents of Iraqi civilians firing on insurgents, because the populace was getting tired of the "us vs. them" at!@#$%^&*ude of terrorists. I mean, Al Queda was begining to have recruitment problems...who would join an organization devoted to advancing the opinions of a few select leaders, who run and hide in caves while ordering their underlings to suicide bomb, and who instead of solving the problems the middle east had, merely made things worse by declaring war on the world's only superpower. There are always a few fanatics here and there, but the continual pattern of Al Queda taking from the populace and the US making every effort to drop food, house refugees, etc. was really making it difficult for the Al Queda recruiter. Until Newsweek published that little article. They just managed to convince the Middle East that the west doesn't respect their beliefs. This false story is all an Al Queda recruiter needs. Previously, Al Queda was on their heels. Now, they are back into the fight. The damage Newsweek did both physically and to the foreign policy of not only the US but the entire western world is truly incalculable. The First Amendment protects free speech, but does not apply to libel. Newsweek definitely should be put up on charges and put out of business.

?????? ?????? ?????? .........wth? *just orders a tac nuke strike on whatever guest is*

Delic was pwned three weeks ago and you just now notice.

[OOC-you know ofcourse that Scourges are kinda like guided missiles that explode on impact, right?] *breaks out the electric whips to make the Starcraft fanatics work faster* *sends 50 zealots to take out what's left of Paine's mecha*

I think Japan obviously should get a UN security council seat...I can see no valid reason why someone would not want them to have one. As for the Japanese textbooks...rioting is certainly not a solution to that problem. As for the Chinese, they generally have a history of violating human rights that dates back all the way to Shang dynasty, but I wouldn't hold that against the current government. The people who committed the atrocities and the people who rule the current government are different people at different times whose only commonality is that they rule a certain speck of land.

Goering...intelligent? He's got to be on the top ten list of the most incompetent military leaders of all time!!! He screwed up in allowing the British army to get off France, he screwed up the Battle of Britain, and screwed up when the allies were landing on Normandy...the second two weren't particularly bad but the first he really didn't have an excuse for. During the entire war the Luftwaffe wasn't really that much of a factor despite the Germans having pretty good technology there....because Goering was a brown-nosing idiot. Now Rommel on the other hand I can respect. He rose in the ranks because he was simply that !@#$%^&* smart, and the only thing he did was fight for his country. What the Japanese teach in their schools is strictly their business. Japan is hardly covering it up. I'm not a conservative American...I'm only a moderate American. I have been on the left hand side of a few arguments too. Not that many - the conservatives seem to be closer to center at the moment. My family is all Democrats-turned-Republicans for the reasons that the Republicans started making more sense over the past couple decades...I probably will turn Democrat eventually if they get their act together. The social conditioning arguement only goes so far...in the end human beings are still sentient and still decide their own destiny. Nobody is raised to murder or steal, yet crime still occurs....and not solely from poor people who had rough childhoods. Crime occurs because ultimately people can make their own decisions whether to listen to their upbringing or not....and some decide not to listen to it. This is especially true since the nazi movement barely lasted a generation. Goering didn't grow up in a nazi environment...he grew up in a Germany that was tolerant enough of jews to allow them to have jobs and serve in the military. It was his decision to get caught up in the whole thing as much as he did. Human beings aren't robots that are programmed. We may learn certain things growing up, but at the end of the day the decision is ours. I have a different opinion on Iraq. September 11th proved that we couldn't just leave the Middle East on the path it was going. Taking out the Baathist regime changed the whole political landscape. The neighboring dictatorships have a lot harder time justifying themselves now, and their position will get even worse as the new Iraqi democracy gets stronger. Thus, I view it as more along the lines of Pearl Harbor causing entry into WWII than Vietnam. I'd DEFINITELY say that the American people weren't whipped up into a "frenzy"...there was no shortage of people on your side either. Thus, I wouldn't say that quote was right...it justs agrees with your opinion, and that's the sickening thing of it. You are using the quote to prove your opinion and using your opinion to prove the quote. That is a classic logical error.