<p>or those who didn't vote to stop him. Remember the voter turnout wasn't that high esp. in the age group 18-26.</p>
<p>Its pointless arguing with Hardstyleprep. All he ever does is spout rhetoric, spam the forums with the most ridiculous sites I've ever seen, and refuses to anwser questions. </p>
<p>P.S. Have fun in knowing that Bush won the election, and all that you can do about is whine, whine, and whine some more. Keep wasting your breath on trying to argue over the internet. No matter what you do, your party has lost, and if Hillary runs, they will definitely lose again. HAH!</p>
<p>Don't leave Daturtle. You have a right to your opinion. If everyone agreed on issues this site would be boring.</p>
<p>Hardstyleprep</p>
<p>Civilian casualties are an unfortunate part of war. Where the war is being waged, some civilians will die. It is unfortunate, but unavoidable. And, in case you didn't notice, the terrorists don't wear uniforms. THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION. Soldiers must wear uniforms. It's completely different when you can pick out an enemy soldier by their clothes, and worrying that any person on the street might be waiting to kill you.</p>
<p>Comparing the US to the Nazis doesn't give you much credibility either.</p>
<p>It's ironic how you stand on the soap box and think you deserved to be listened to, but in reality you're just spewing nonsense.</p>
<p>Is Abu Gharib American constructed Torture Chambers against the Geneva Convention? Do we not have mercenaires (Black Water Security) wearing civilian clothes killing Iraqi civilians? Did we not invade a Soverign Nation under false pretext purposefully from this Neo-Con Nazi Cabal in control of our Country? Is using depleted uranium shells amongst a civilian population against the Geneva Conventions? Is revealing the cover of a CIA operative against American Law, are not Dickhead Cheney and Dr. Evil Karl Rove treasonous scondrels? It kills me when I see my fellow citizens reduce the rest of humanity to 1/3 human and excuse all of our brutal excesses to " Unavoidable Civilian Casualties", "Collateral Damage", etc. Etc. </p>
<p>If your mother or baby brother were killed by a 5,000 lb Bomb dropped by an F15 or B52, would you casually say to the rest of your Family, "well guy's, they are unfortunate victims of war and we have to accept it", I doubt it. The Neo-Con Nazi's and their Fascist Corporate Slave Masters are ruining our great Democracy. This is the worse, most corrupt unamerican administration in the history of this Great Republic. God bless America and protect her from the C Student from Yale and his rabid Right Wing fanatical followers, a disgrace to the founding fathers, a pernicious manifestation of pure evil that America was created to prevent in human society.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Is Abu Gharib American constructed Torture Chambers against the Geneva Convention?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Actually, they aren't against the Geneva convention. The people we apprehend in Iraq are not soldiers, they are terrorists (for the most part). Therefore, the Geneva convention does not apply to them.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Did we not invade a Soverign Nation under false pretext purposefully from this Neo-Con Nazi Cabal in control of our Country?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Neo-Con Nazi Cabal? That is a new one. We were wrong. Plain and simple. But there is nothing we can do about that now except finish the job. We owe it to our troops and we owe it to the Iraqi people.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Is using depleted uranium shells amongst a civilian population against the Geneva Conventions?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Sure, if they are being used against a "civilian population." But they aren't. We are using them to kill terrorists, not massacre civilians. If we wanted to do that then we wouldn't have evacuated Fallujah and had dozens of our soldiers get killed in street to street fighting against an enemy that we allowed to escape; we would have leveled the city from the air (with probably no American casualties) and moved on. Our soldiers are dying in order to save Iraqi civilians.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
It kills me when I see my fellow citizens reduce the rest of humanity to 1/3 human and excuse all of our brutal excesses to " Unavoidable Civilian Casualties", "Collateral Damage", etc. Etc.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Good. But civilian casualties ARE unavoidable in war, you are just going to have to accept that. We try our best not to get them caught up in the crossfire (ex. Fallujah), but we can't avoid them entirely.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
If your mother or baby brother were killed by a 5,000 lb Bomb dropped by an F15 or B52, would you casually say to the rest of your Family, "well guy's, they are unfortunate victims of war and we have to accept it", I doubt it.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Well, using that logic if your mother or baby brother was gassed or killed by Saddam because a member of your family had an alternate viewpoint, one that <em>gasp</em> goes against Saddam Hussein, you wouldn't say anything. If you did, you would have your tongue ripped out, acid poured over your body, your friends and family thrown into plastic shredders and tossed from the tops of buildings, and you would be thrown into a cage barely big enough for a dog where you were forced to eat your flesh in order to survive before you were finally executed.</p>
<p>Sounds fun, doesn't it? At least a 5,000 lb bomb is quick.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
The Neo-Con Nazi's and their Fascist Corporate Slave Masters are ruining our great Democracy
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Well, if that is the way you see it, fine. But don't be surprised to find that your viewpoint is one of an incredibly ignorant person who has no historical knowledge. Do you even know what the Nazis were? Or what they did? And somehow you can compare that to America today? Go back to AP Euro for a sec, bud. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
This is the worse, most corrupt unamerican administration in the history of this Great Republic.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Well, that is your opinion, and unlike the rest of the post you give me no radical inaccurate comparisons to contest you on, so I'll just have to say that you are entitled to your opinion in this case, and I believe it is wrong.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
God bless America
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>The people we are holding are people fighting against a brutal American Occupation based on lies & deception for Oil Interest in Texas. Therefore, we are violating their rights and human dignity, and just like the treasonous Neo-Con Cabal, you describe legitimate opposition as Terrorism. Get real! Abu Gharib & Guantanamo bay soldiers are just like Terrorist, except they're more sexually perverted.</p>
<p>We were wrong to launch a brutal war based on lies but we have to finish the brutal war based on lies because of our Ego. Twisted logic my friend, another quote out of the Neo-Con pack of lies play book. We owe it to the Iraqi people to leave their Country and end the Brutal Racist bloody Oil Company inspired war Sherlock.</p>
<p>Funny you should mention Fallujah, because by all counts, the destruction & mayhem we committed against that city of peasants is appaling by all counts, witnesses and reporting. Our Fallujah adventure strengthened the insurgency because of the naked brutality of that operation literally leveling the city leaving thousands homeless. I'm not your kind of American that excuses the excesses of our corrupt lying Government by making others subhuman and marginalizing their pain & suffering because they're Arabs. By the way, our use of depleted uranium shells are falling on civilian populations, those innocent 1/3 human beings that patriotic so-called Americans reduce the rest of the world to in order that the pathetic rationalizations of brutality can take life.</p>
<p>At least a 5,000lb bomb is quick? You're just the kind of American, warped values & all, that the pathetic C Student from Yale counts on for his support.</p>
<p>The Nazi's used propaganda and lies to furhter their agenda just like the Fascist Neo Cons in this Administration do. History my friend, wait until this sad chapter under Bush is recorded for future generations. Hitler had his adoring ignorant crowd just like Bush does. Thank God I'm not one of his ignorant apologist supporters.</p>
<p>God Bless America and protect her from ignorant undemocratic citizens, who support and give us the worse leaders like George "The Dummy" Bush, and his treasonous CIA outing crooks in his Administration.</p>
<p>Did you know that some of the people we let go from Guantanamo get arrested again elsewhere in the world on terrorism charges? Yea, everyone there is innocent. That said, the people at Guantanamo are treated quite well. They are comfortable and are well fed. When the guys from Capitol Hill went to visit awhile ago, they were fed the same food that the people being held their eat. And they were impressed.</p>
<p>We aren't finishing the war because of Ego. If we leave the country now, it will be thrown into turmoil. Bottom line. We have to stay until stability is maintained. If you can't acknowledge that we need to finish what we started for the benefit of the people there, then I think you lose quite a bit of credibility and demonstrate your lack of understanding for the situation.</p>
<p>Keep comparing Bush to Nazis... it makes you look like an idiot.</p>
<p>Cuse0507, it scares me to see the nonchalance and calmness with which you say "we were wrong, deal with it". Our "plain and simple" mistake single-handedly destroyed a sovereign nation and killed thousands of people, American and Iraqi. It is NOT a simple mistake. It is a shameful screw-up that has landed America in a disastrous war that seems to have no end in sight. </p>
<p>It is your kind of thinking that leads American administrations to make one disastrous policy decision after the other without even a second's thought. After all, we are the US, what's one more bad decisions, and a few more thousand people dead? I guess we'll just have to get over this ****-up like we did others in the past.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
The people we are holding are people fighting against a brutal American Occupation based on lies & deception for Oil Interest in Texas. Therefore, we are violating their rights and human dignity, and just like the treasonous Neo-Con Cabal, you describe legitimate opposition as Terrorism. Get real! Abu Gharib & Guantanamo bay soldiers are just like Terrorist, except they're more sexually perverted.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Actually, they (the US soldiers) aren't terrorists. First of all, if an Iraqi fights against US and Iraqi soldiers and only the soldiers, then that Iraqi is not considered a terrorists. However, what happens is their jihad brothers from Saudi Arabia and Iran come in and decide to blow up as many innocent Iraqi men, women, and children as possible for the sole purpose of creating a higher civilian body count.</p>
<p>Our soldiers, on the other hand, go at great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. The soldiers at Abu Ghraib weren't terrorists, they were just perverts. And our treatment of terrorists on Abu Gharib and Gitmo is 10000% better than Saddam's treatment of his prisoners. We don't force them to eat their own flesh or toss them into plastic shredders. I'm sure that anyone would agree that being forced to be naked is a hell of a lot better than being thrown off of a 10 story building. And who were the people who sawed off prisoners heads on TV? None other than your beloved "freedom fighters."</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
We were wrong to launch a brutal war based on lies but we have to finish the brutal war based on lies because of our Ego. Twisted logic my friend, another quote out of the Neo-Con pack of lies play book. We owe it to the Iraqi people to leave their Country and end the Brutal Racist bloody Oil Company inspired war Sherlock.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>No, we owe it to the Iraqi people to finish the job. If we leave, someone just like your bud Saddam rises into power, and then we are back to the flesh eating and building tossing. That may sound good to you, but it isn't to the majority of the Iraqi population.</p>
<p>Plus, we need to rebuild everything that we knocked down. We as Americans have morals, unlike your bud al-Zarqawi.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Funny you should mention Fallujah, because by all counts, the destruction & mayhem we committed against that city of peasants is appaling by all counts, witnesses and reporting. Our Fallujah adventure strengthened the insurgency because of the naked brutality of that operation literally leveling the city leaving thousands homeless. I'm not your kind of American that excuses the excesses of our corrupt lying Government by making others subhuman and marginalizing their pain & suffering because they're Arabs. By the way, our use of depleted uranium shells are falling on civilian populations, those innocent 1/3 human beings that patriotic so-called Americans reduce the rest of the world to in order that the pathetic rationalizations of brutality can take life.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Bull*****. We let anyone and everyone who didn't want to be in Fallujah for the fighting leave. If the civilians didn't want to be killed, we gave them time to get out. If the terrorists didn't want to fight, we let them out too. We gave them their chance, but we can't wait forever. And we lost dozens of our own soldiers because we decided to play "nice guy" and evacuated the place before fighting instead of leveling it in a matter of minutes. We gave them the chance, anyone ignorant or crazed enough to be left in the city was fair game. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
At least a 5,000lb bomb is quick? You're just the kind of American, warped values & all, that the pathetic C Student from Yale counts on for his support.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Thank you. I'll be sure to keep up the good work. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
It is your kind of thinking that leads American administrations to make one disastrous policy decision after the other without even a second's thought. After all, we are the US, what's one more bad decisions, and a few more thousand people dead? I guess we'll just have to get over this ****-up like we did others in the past.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>There you go, you summed up my feelings exactly. I believe that it is better to fix the messes that we started than to let them become messes that we will have to deal with in the future again. For example, if we took out Saddam in '91, then this whole Iraq fiasco wouldn't be an issue right now. Like it or not, leaving Iraq in its present state is not a viable option. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
God Bless America
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>lol, funny that nobody didnt mention Iran. The president wants to wipe Israel from the map. I wonder what will be done about it. This will be interesting....</p>
<p>Because of some stupid unjustified war against Afghanistan, the country is worse off than it was with the Talibans. YES, I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT! I have enough knowledge over it and I can debate this if anyone disagrees (which many do i guess)</p>
<p>
[quote]
God Bless America
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed, but may God also bless the rest of the world and keep them from the infuences of this administration.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Because of some stupid unjustified war against Afghanistan, the country is worse off than it was with the Talibans. YES, I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT! I have enough knowledge over it and I can debate this if anyone disagrees (which many do i guess)
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see your point on this one. The war in Afghanistan is totally and undeniably justified. They harbored someone who attacked us and refused to give him up. And no, it isn't worse off than it was with the Taliban. Just ask any Afghan woman. It still has a long way to go, sure, but countries don't go from 14th century to 21st century overnight. It takes time. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
lol, funny that nobody didnt mention Iran. The president wants to wipe Israel from the map. I wonder what will be done about it. This will be interesting....
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Well, if the Iranian president tries anything he can rest assured that Israel and/or the United States will turn his country into a radioactive pile of sand faster than he can say "Death to Jews."</p>
<p>
[quote]
The war in Afghanistan is totally and undeniably justified. They harbored someone who attacked us and refused to give him up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And did we capture this person by invading? Sorry dude, no ways was it justifiable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, if the Iranian president tries anything he can rest assured that Israel and/or the United States will turn his country into a radioactive pile of sand faster than he can say "Death to Jews."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, if things were that easy, there wouldnt be threats and terrorism in the first place! And thanks for proving my point, the US and Israel can be bully nations at times.</p>
<p>are you seriously arguing the invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified. I acknowledge that Iraq is open for debate, but NO ONE was against the invasion of Afghanistan. I doubt you will find any respected scholar on foreign policy or government who supports your view.</p>
<p>Did we capture him? Not yet, we're still after him. His group that he runs has taken a lot of damage though. Just because you don't hear about Afghanistan on the news doesn't mean we aren't doing anything there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And no, it isn't worse off than it was with the Taliban. Just ask any Afghan woman.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The fact that the Talibans "mistreated" their women can not be answered in a "yes or no" manner in this case because it is a matter of opinion.Mistreatment of women in Afghanistan usually refers to the obligatory covering of body and hair in public. This is a Muslim custom, the purpose of which is to prevent sexual harassment of women and to restrict sexual relationships to married spouses only. It is a known fact that sexual promiscuity, that is sometimes advocated as freedom, has resulted in an AIDS crisis in many parts of the world, as well as to spread of other sexually transmitted diseases, break down of the traditional family and much suffering for women. IN CONCLUSION, Observance and even enforcement of a traditional custom is not a valid reason for war.</p>
<p>
[quote]
are you seriously arguing the invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified. I acknowledge that Iraq is open for debate, but NO ONE was against the invasion of Afghanistan. I doubt you will find any respected scholar on foreign policy or government who supports your view.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There was neither evidence, nor allegation, that Afghanistan either attacked or was about to attack the USA. The American demand was to hand over to them a suspect (Osama bin Laden), whom the Afghanis agreed to hand over to a neutral country subject to evidence. The most that can be said is that the USA were seeking extradition of a suspected criminal. A plea of self-defence can only be justified, if there exists either a current attack, or an imminent attack which cannot be averted except by use of violence. No such situation exited in this case.
The use of the plea of self defence in this case by the Americans was not justified, and could not justify the war.</p>
<p>
[quote]
adverse effects of the war
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Was the Taliban government a failure? Again, this is a matter of opinion.
The Taliban government came to power as a result of attempt to put an end to looting, raping and wanton violence in Afghanistan. The Taliban had succeeded in stopping the anarchy that preceded them. They have not succeeded to make Afghanistan into a prosperous country, but there are many other poor countries around the world. Creating prosperity needs more than stopping looting and raping and takes substantial time. Replacing the Taliban government with Hamid Karzai imposed by the Americans, has not made Afghanistan into a prosperous country, but the pre-Taliban looting and raping has returned, except in areas of Kabul which are patrolled by foreign peace keeping forces. Hamid Karzai could not find sufficient number of his compatriots for his own bodyguard, and has to be guarded by American soldiers. No other head of state in the World enjoys such popularity among his countrymen. Also, opium production in Afghanistan was at it highest after the Taliban government, who banned them as unislamic.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
The fact that the Talibans "mistreated" their women can not be answered in a "yes or no" manner in this case because it is a matter of opinion.Mistreatment of women in Afghanistan usually refers to the obligatory covering of body and hair in public. This is a Muslim custom, the purpose of which is to prevent sexual harassment of women and to restrict sexual relationships to married spouses only. It is a known fact that sexual promiscuity, that is sometimes advocated as freedom, has resulted in an AIDS crisis in many parts of the world, as well as to spread of other sexually transmitted diseases, break down of the traditional family and much suffering for women.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Sorry bud, but not allowing women or girls to go to school or hold jobs was not meant to restrict the flow of AIDS. They (Afghan women) were treated as property and not as human beings, and that is where the problem was.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
IN CONCLUSION, Observance and even enforcement of a traditional custom is not a valid reason for war.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>No one ever said it was. You just said that Afghans were no better off now than they were before the war, and I used the issue of women's rights (or the lack of them before our invasion) to prove you wrong. I never said that we invaded over women's rights.</p>
<p>Also, there is the whole issue over freedom of religion, but I don't think you want me to get into that...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
There was neither evidence, nor allegation, that Afghanistan either attacked or was about to attack the USA.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Right. But Osama Bin Laden DID attack the USA, and Afghanistan refused to turn him over to us when we asked for him. We stated that we would go to war against those who harbored terrorists before the invasion, and Afghanistan was one of the top sponsors of global terrorism, so their corrupt government and the terrorists training camps there had to go.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
The American demand was to hand over to them a suspect (Osama bin Laden), whom the Afghanis agreed to hand over to a neutral country subject to evidence.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>We asked them to hand OBL to US, they didn't. We warned them that if they didn't hand him over to the United States that there would be war, and they refused. It doesn't get much simpler than that.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
A plea of self-defence can only be justified, if there exists either a current attack, or an imminent attack which cannot be averted except by use of violence. No such situation exited in this case.
The use of the plea of self defence in this case by the Americans was not justified, and could not justify the war.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Osama had attacked America in the past. WTC 1993, US Embassy bombings in Africa, Somalia incident, USS Cole, each time we had done nothing. It is fair and accurate to assume that if we left him alone again after 9/11 that he would only use the opportunity to strike again. Therefore, self defence was justified as we were acting to remove a threat to our nation before it could hit us again.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Was the Taliban government a failure? Again, this is a matter of opinion.
The Taliban government came to power as a result of attempt to put an end to looting, raping and wanton violence in Afghanistan. The Taliban had succeeded in stopping the anarchy that preceded them. They have not succeeded to make Afghanistan into a prosperous country, but there are many other poor countries around the world. Creating prosperity needs more than stopping looting and raping and takes substantial time. Replacing the Taliban government with Hamid Karzai imposed by the Americans, has not made Afghanistan into a prosperous country, but the pre-Taliban looting and raping has returned, except in areas of Kabul which are patrolled by foreign peace keeping forces. Hamid Karzai could not find sufficient number of his compatriots for his own bodyguard, and has to be guarded by American soldiers. No other head of state in the World enjoys such popularity among his countrymen. Also, opium production in Afghanistan was at it highest after the Taliban government, who banned them as unislamic.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Yes, the Taliban was indeed a failure. Any country that bans freedom of religion, music, rights for women, and of all things balloons does not deserve consideration as a successful government. There is a lot more to being in charge than preventing looting, and the Taliban had shown that they were only interested in keeping Afghanistan at a medievel level, and that they were not going to allow Afghanistan to become a modern country.</p>
<p>But of course, that wasn't the reason that we invaded them...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorry bud, but not allowing women or girls to go to school or hold jobs was not meant to restrict the flow of AIDS. They (Afghan women) were treated as property and not as human beings, and that is where the problem was.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry dude, though I agree that women werent treated as they should be under the Taliban, the war didnt solve this problem at all. Not only has the crime rate increased, women's right havent changed with the fall of the Talibans. They are still mistreated under Karzai. Just google it and you'll see hundreds of articles by credible sources supporting this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We asked them to hand OBL to US, they didn't. We warned them that if they didn't hand him over to the United States that there would be war, and they refused. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, the Americans demanded was to hand over to them a suspect (Osama bin Laden), but the Afghans agreed to hand over to a neutral country subject to evidence. You explanation doesnt justify the war at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Osama had attacked America in the past. WTC 1993, US Embassy bombings in Africa, Somalia incident, USS Cole, each time we had done nothing. It is fair and accurate to assume that if we left him alone again after 9/11 that he would only use the opportunity to strike again. Therefore, self defence was justified as we were acting to remove a threat to our nation before it could hit us again.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True. But was he captured from Afghanistan yet? He's not even probably hiding in the country now! So much for a war looking for capturing one man!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, the Taliban was indeed a failure. Any country that bans freedom of religion, music, rights for women, and of all things balloons does not deserve consideration as a successful government. There is a lot more to being in charge than preventing looting, and the Taliban had shown that they were only interested in keeping Afghanistan at a medievel level, and that they were not going to allow Afghanistan to become a modern country.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm, I wouldnt define the success or failure based on freedom. I would rather base it on their improvement from the preceding government. A country can have all the freedom in the world and still be corrupt. And what do you define as a "modern" country? With your reasoning, Saudi Arabia obviously isnt one.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Sorry dude, though I agree that women werent treated as they should be under the Taliban, the war didnt solve this problem at all. Not only has the crime rate increased, women's right havent changed with the fall of the Talibans. They are still mistreated under Karzai. Just google it and you'll see hundreds of articles by credible sources supporting this.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Except for the fact that they can go to school now...and carry balloons...and listen to music...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
No, the Americans demanded was to hand over to them a suspect (Osama bin Laden), but the Afghans agreed to hand over to a neutral country subject to evidence. You explanation doesnt justify the war at all.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Sure it does. We didn't ask them to give OBL to a neutral country, we asked them to give him to US. They didn't. He was a threat to us and they wouldn't give him to us, so we took matters into our own hands. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
True. But was he captured from Afghanistan yet? He's not even probably hiding in the country now! So much for a war looking for capturing one man!
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Right. And we were supposed to look into the future and see that we weren't going to happen? I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone thought that he would have been captured by now. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Hmm, I wouldnt define the success or failure based on freedom. I would rather base it on their improvement from the preceding government. A country can have all the freedom in the world and still be corrupt. And what do you define as a "modern" country? With your reasoning, Saudi Arabia obviously isnt one.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>A government that can't guarantee basic rights to its citizens is a failure, </p>
<p>And a modern country in other words would be described as a first-world country, like the US, Europe, and yes, Saudi Arabia. Countries behind the rest like Afghanistan and Bangladesh would be considered third world.</p>
<p>Israeli clampdown amid rise in 'sonic bombs' </p>
<p>Chris McGreal in Erez
Tuesday November 1, 2005
The Guardian </p>
<p>The Israeli defence ministry has barred foreign journalists from entering the Gaza Strip in an apparent attempt to limit reporting on the killing of Palestinian civilians, the firing of artillery shells and the use of "sonic bombs" to terrify the local population.
Over the weekend, Israeli air force jets caused two dozen sonic booms, many at night, which human rights groups have described as "terrifying collective punishment".</p>
<p>The crossing post at Erez was closed after a suicide bomb last Wednesday in Hadera killed five Israelis. It was reopened yesterday to Palestinians with permits.</p>
<p>Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.</p>
<p>~George Washington</p>
<p>Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official...</p>
<p>~Theodore Roosevelt</p>
<p>I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.</p>
<p>~George McGovern</p>
<p>Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.</p>
<p>~A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God</p>
<p>I am not blaming those who are resolved to rule, only those who show an even greater readiness to submit.</p>
<p>~Thucydides</p>
<p>The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous.</p>
<p>~Frederick Douglass</p>
<p>Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</p>
<p>~Benjamin Franklin</p>
<p>War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. </p>
<p>~General Smedley Butler</p>
<p>Imperialism is an institution under which one nation asserts the right to seize the land or at least to control the government or resources of another people.</p>
<p>~John T. Flynn</p>
<p>I hate war for its consequences, for the lies it lives on and propagates, for the undying hatreds it arouses... </p>
<p>~Harry Emerson Fosdick</p>
<p>Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly.</p>
<p>~Senator Robert M. La Follette</p>
<p>After every ''victory'' you have more enemies. </p>
<p>~Jeanette Winterson</p>
<p>Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.</p>
<p>~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn</p>
<p>The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.</p>
<p>~Marie Beyle</p>
<p>Although tyranny...may successfully rule over foreign peoples, it can stay in power only if it destroys first of all the national institutions of its own people.</p>
<p>~Hannah Areddt</p>
<p>I hate those men who would send into war youth to fight and die for them; the pride and cowardice of those old men, making their wars that boys must die.</p>
<p>~Mary Roberts Rinehart</p>