ATTENTION ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS

[sgreger1]

I didn't say it's a Republican problem, it's a Republican SOUNDING problem.

You know, the wealthy CEO that approved laying off 500 people and bringing in an Indian call center.

The one that suspends bonuses for the year but goes on a $500,000 retreat.

The guy who drives the company into the ground and then demands a bailout and a pension plan.

The one who, instead of allowing their wealth to trickle down to the middle class, squanders their wealth, sets up hiring freezes, and gets rid of employees that cost too much. Cuts health plans, cuts retirement programs, hires out of country instead of in city.

Did you think those folks were liberals?

EDIT: You should move to VA. Looks like we got us a new Republican Governor, and this state is Republican as all hell. I live about a mile from Pat Robertson and within 50 miles of a Navy Base, Amphibious Base, Army Base, and Air Force Base. Oh, and PETA. They don't fit in so well. =D

Haha, I can see where you are coming from. It is a republican SOUNDING problem, but I can assure you the entire staff at UC Santa Cruz is overwhelmingly if not completely liberal. But the part lines tend to blur when you have big CEO's or chancelors or whatever who have ot either take a cut and help the little guy or instead just screw the little guy. The little guy always gets screwed.

[sgreger1]

Oh, you can't be serious.

You're complaining about a state government cutting a non-essential social program? As a self-proclaimed conservative, you should be jumping for joy and begging the idiots to cut other programs...

Also, we nasty little liberals did not magically make your tax dollars disappear down the proverbial rabbit hole. You want to know where the money went? Last time I checked, the Empire is currently engaged in 2 major wars. 2 VERY EXPENSIVE wars. It costs a lot of money to slaughter innocent civilians in distant lands, you know. Sure, we could have funded education (and healthcare, and social security, and any other number of worthy programs)... But your beloved Texan redneck wanted to play with all the shiny bombs and missiles, instead...

Oh, and the Bay Bridge is $4. One way (coming into San Francisco). Not $5 both ways.

Judge, where you been at???

Bay bridge is goign to be raised to $5 this next year, currently it is at $4. That is what I was referring to.


I have become more centerist as of late (mainly due to some corrections from VB).

I share your belief that the wars are needless and we should be coming back, however we are not over there slaughtering "innocent civilians", this is not vietnam and the US gov would rather sacrifice the life of a US soldier than take collateral damage to the civilian population. Which I think is a losing strategy.

We have to pay them up to 300$ when we shoot one of thier dogs that attacks us. We are wasting too much money trying to be nice.


But I agree we should end the wars, ther's no measurable victory. We should go back to being isolationists like we were in the past. We need the money here. We should be focusing on defense rather than offense.

I believe education to be an essential social program, more so than welfare. Unemployment assistance and money for those willing to obtain a higher education should be the foundation of our social programs. Making people learn new skills instead of living off the government teet forever.

Also, Bush started the wars yes, but Obama is as pro-war as Bush was and is only growing the effort, so your boy's gotta own it now. Either bring everyone home, or be judged the same as Bush.

[VBSnus]

Haha, I can see where you are coming from. It is a republican SOUNDING problem, but I can assure you the entire staff at UC Santa Cruz is overwhelmingly if not completely liberal. But the part lines tend to blur when you have big CEO's or chancelors or whatever who have ot either take a cut and help the little guy or instead just screw the little guy. The little guy always gets screwed.

If you haven't seen it, watch PCU. Great flick, you'd love it.

Also, Bush started the wars yes, but Obama is as pro-war as Bush was and is only growing the effort, so your boy's gotta own it now. Either bring everyone home, or be judged the same as Bush.

If the answer was as simple as stay in/pull out, I might agree with this. I'd like to think Obama is working towards a strategy of "win and pull out" or "stabilize and pull out". Time will tell.

I believe education to be an essential social program, more so than welfare. Unemployment assistance and money for those willing to obtain a higher education should be the foundation of our social programs. Making people learn new skills instead of living off the government teet forever.

I personally see health care and education to be the biggest social needs in our nation. Make it easy to get the care you need to live long, have kids, pay for their birth, give them care, then give them a killer education and the means to live a healthy life. Those two things are how we can be a productive, progressive society.

Hopefully this would lead to healthy educated people who would save for their retirement, start businesses, and have good jobs. If health and education are guaranteed to be available, I think poverty and homelessness would drop dramatically.

But I agree we should end the wars, ther's no measurable victory. We should go back to being isolationists like we were in the past. We need the money here. We should be focusing on defense rather than offense.

Agreed. I'm not knocking our military with this statement (everyone in my family is ex-military and I live in a huge military town), but soldiers nowadays aren't really fighting for our freedom, they're fighting for our "interests". The distinction is huge. What's the last war America has fought where our soldiers were truly sent to die for the freedom of our nation?

Being more isolationist would allow us to focus on defense, bring the National Guard back where they should be, help end stop-loss and other programs that destroy the minds of our soldiers, and ultimately lower the military budget which is huge in this country. Democrats would favor it and many Republicans would too...they're not ALL anti-peace, they just want a more guarded peace.

[Judge Faust]

Judge, where you been at???

Too much work and a wonderful new relationship have kept me occupied...

But I missed you guys too much to stay away for long. It feels good to be back!

I share your belief that the wars are needless and we should be coming back, however we are not over there slaughtering "innocent civilians", this is not vietnam and the US gov would rather sacrifice the life of a US soldier than take collateral damage to the civilian population. Which I think is a losing strategy.

Oh, come on. This is blatantly untrue; have you been watching the news these past couple of years?

The Imperial occupation forces have been indiscriminate in slaughtering civilians in both zones of conflict. Especially with the advent of armed drones, innocent individuals have been brutally murdered by the hundreds. Entire villages have been wiped out... Which of course has done little to win over the "hearts and minds" of the enslaved populations.

I believe education to be an essential social program, more so than welfare. Unemployment assistance and money for those willing to obtain a higher education should be the foundation of our social programs. Making people learn new skills instead of living off the government teet forever.

I disagree; welfare is essential because it keeps people, you know, alive. It doesn't get any more essential than that. Education, while nice, isn't edible.

Of course, I would fund both 100%, anyway. Education for those able to learn advanced skills; welfare for those unable to function at a basic level of employment. Any civilized state needs to take care of both sectors of its population.

Also, Bush started the wars yes, but Obama is as pro-war as Bush was and is only growing the effort, so your boy's gotta own it now. Either bring everyone home, or be judged the same as Bush.

True, true. Do not mistake me for an Obama supporter - Obama is only slightly less right-wing than the neocons were. Of course, this is to be expected in a single-party form of government. People change - the ideology does not.

[tom502]

We should get out of Iraq and Afganistan completely. We should secure our borders with the National Guard. We should keep jobs in America. We should reform "welfare" so it's not a cruch and a goal. We "should" have socialized medicine and education, but it won't work in our society like it does in say, Denmark, because Denmark does not have millions of homeless bums and large crime riddles ghettos. Socialism only works if everyone puts into it, so we all get out of it. Socialism imposed on current America would be just welfare state. We can't even fight and destroy the gangs and terror in our nation, how can we be expected to in a foreign nation, when we are seen as invaders. It's corporatism and special interests and greed that has ruined this nation, and bleeding hearts that have only kept the poor poor and dependent, and the dumb dumber.

Ron Paul '12!

[sgreger1]

[quote="VBSnus"]

If the answer was as simple as stay in/pull out, I might agree with this. I'd like to think Obama is working towards a strategy of "win and pull out" or "stabilize and pull out". Time will tell.

Your right, time will tell. But Bush's plan was stabilize and then get out. So unless Obama chooses some strategy or timetable other than what Bush decided to follow, I see it as just all the same.

I personally see health care and education to be the biggest social needs in our nation. Make it easy to get the care you need to live long, have kids, pay for their birth, give them care, then give them a killer education and the means to live a healthy life. Those two things are how we can be a productive, progressive society.

Hopefully this would lead to healthy educated people who would save for their retirement, start businesses, and have good jobs. If health and education are guaranteed to be available, I think poverty and homelessness would drop dramatically.

I agree, healthcare and education should be the staple of any successfull society. Drive down costs of getting fixed when your broken, and have the freedom to become something/someone great if you so choose. We need to be pumping out sicnetists and engineers at levels like we used to. right now Japan is ahead of us, as well as India. <--- Bad.

Agreed. I'm not knocking our military with this statement (everyone in my family is ex-military and I live in a huge military town), but soldiers nowadays aren't really fighting for our freedom, they're fighting for our "interests". The distinction is huge. What's the last war America has fought where our soldiers were truly sent to die for the freedom of our nation?

WW||, we were fighting to stop someone trying to take over the world. IMO, right now no one is actively trying to take over the world, or if they are, they arte not capable so not our problem. We waste too much money trying to fight off ideas like "war on X,Y,Z". All a wast eof time. I'm glad that after 9-11 we went in and kicked some ass, rpoved our point, but it should have stopped there. 8 years is just way to expensive, and even today the war effor tis growing and there is no sign of withdrawl in the near future. It is just to expensive, and I am before anything, a fiscal conservative. We need the money, fix our broken systems here before trying to build up iraq/afghanistan.

Being more isolationist would allow us to focus on defense, bring the National Guard back where they should be, help end stop-loss and other programs that destroy the minds of our soldiers, and ultimately lower the military budget which is huge in this country. Democrats would favor it and many Republicans would too...they're not ALL anti-peace, they just want a more guarded peace.

I agree, we did way better when we just kept to our little island and didn't intervene unless it directly affected us. We need to slow down the military industrial complex, it's gotten out of hand.

[sgreger1]

[quote="Judge Faust"]

Too much work and a wonderful new relationship have kept me occupied...

But I missed you guys too much to stay away for long. It feels good to be back!

Glad to see your still employed, and finding someone new is always nice. She must be special if she's taking you away from Snuson!!! lol, welcome back.

I share your belief that the wars are needless and we should be coming back, however we are not over there slaughtering "innocent civilians", this is not vietnam and the US gov would rather sacrifice the life of a US soldier than take collateral damage to the civilian population. Which I think is a losing strategy.

Oh, come on. This is blatantly untrue; have you been watching the news these past couple of years?

The Imperial occupation forces have been indiscriminate in slaughtering civilians in both zones of conflict. Especially with the advent of armed drones, innocent individuals have been brutally murdered by the hundreds. Entire villages have been wiped out... Which of course has done little to win over the "hearts and minds" of the enslaved populations.

Lol, while civilians are often times killed, the amount of effort we put into not harming the civilian populace is unpresidented. the numbers show that we have done a good job, as far as 8 year long wars are concerned.

Their own terrorists kill more civilians than we do. Also, Obama has increased the amount of Predator drone attacks. Like I said, I agree with you on the war thing, but you can only blame Bush for so long. Dems in congress authorized the war, and now dem controlled POTUS and SCOTUS are both funding and growing the thing. At some point Obama needs to be looked at to see if he is really that different than Bush when it comes to the wars.


He's still trying ot shut down Gitmo but all the prisoners are so comfertable, they are asking to stay there instead of goign to US jails, since at Gitmo they are treated excelent and are giving luxuries and accomodations that regular prisons would not afford them.

Only 3 people were water-boarded, the rest live like kings when compared to their usual standard of living. And even the gitmo prisoners are calling Obama a communist

I disagree; welfare is essential because it keeps people, you know, alive. It doesn't get any more essential than that. Education, while nice, isn't edible.

Im not saying do away with welfare all together. But put some damn limits on it, there are too many people who use it as a primary source of living forever and are never pushed on to go be productive members of society. Education will make the US richer and will in turn help everyone.

Of course, I would fund both 100%, anyway. Education for those able to learn advanced skills; welfare for those unable to function at a basic level of employment. Any civilized state needs to take care of both sectors of its population.

I agree. But welfare for someone who has a handicapp or something is one thing, but issuing 600$ a month to drug addicts and people who are able bodied and could work, that's somethign else. Its getting too expensive. Plus, they don't just give foodstamps anymore. these new EBT cards let you pull it out as cash, which goes right to the drug dealers all too often.

Then there's the war on drugs, which I won't even delve into. but money could be saved in any number of ways. Being dependant on the gov when you are able bodied is wrong, and is contrary to american values.

True, true. Do not mistake me for an Obama supporter - Obama is only slightly less right-wing than the neocons were. Of course, this is to be expected in a single-party form of government. People change - the ideology does not.

yes, it has very much become a single-party form of government. It looks like neither of the two parties adequately represent me anymore. And most american's are the same I believe, all the polls show that most americans are in the middle, with 36% being independant, 40% conservative, 20% liberal.


We need a third party that represents the rest of us.

[Judge Faust]

Lol, while civilians are often times killed, the amount of effort we put into not harming the civilian populace is unpresidented. the numbers show that we have done a good job, as far as 8 year long wars are concerned.

Their own terrorists kill more civilians than we do.

Eh... Really, now?

If you are going to discuss these issues, you may as well educate yourself as to the facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2% 80%93present)

Look at the totals:

Civilians killed by freedom fighters: 3,419 - 4,969
Civilians killed by occupation forces: 5,317 - 8,109

And, for the record, slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians does not count as a "good job" in my book. The fact that you see this atrocious mass-murder as perfectly acceptable is somewhat shocking and more than a little saddening.

He's still trying ot shut down Gitmo but all the prisoners are so comfertable, they are asking to stay there instead of goign to US jails, since at Gitmo they are treated excelent and are giving luxuries and accomodations that regular prisons would not afford them.

Only 3 people were water-boarded, the rest live like kings when compared to their usual standard of living. And even the gitmo prisoners are calling Obama a communist

This has got to be the most outrageous statement that I have heard in years...

So the prisoners live like kings? And they're all asking to stay in indefinite and illegal detention rather than being set free?

I suppose this explains why there have been hundreds of suicide attempts among the inmates, including 5 successful suicides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan...icide_attempts

And torture is a myth? Only 3 people got waterboarded? So I take it that those FBI FILES detailing dozens of cases of torture were... What - made up? Because the FBI was having a slow day and had nothing better to do?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...guantanamo.usa

[sgreger1]

[quote="Judge Faust"]

Lol, while civilians are often times killed, the amount of effort we put into not harming the civilian populace is unpresidented. the numbers show that we have done a good job, as far as 8 year long wars are concerned.

Their own terrorists kill more civilians than we do.

Eh... Really, now?

If you are going to discuss these issues, you may as well educate yourself as to the facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2% 80%93present)

Look at the totals:

Civilians killed by freedom fighters: 3,419 - 4,969
Civilians killed by occupation forces: 5,317 - 8,109

And, for the record, slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians does not count as a "good job" in my book. The fact that you see this atrocious mass-murder as perfectly acceptable is somewhat shocking and more than a little saddening.

I believe I have a pretty good "education" on this as the largest part of our training was emphasis on how to not hurt innocents. My unit has been boots on the ground since this whole thing started, and my brother, who is in the same unit, has had 5 combat tours split between Iraq AND Afghanistan. (Hey, it's more reliable than wikipedia entries)

The majority of civilian casualties came during the initial push in 03, when it was all out war and we were fighting against the nation's army. Nowadays however, the rules of engagement are so strict it has gotten to the point where soldiers are under stricter ROE than police officers in LA.

Such exchaustive lengths are taken to try and reduce civilian casualty rates it is unheard of.

We are not going through town just blasting people by any measure. If you talk to any deployed veteran they will tell you that for the most part, the US make s aserious attempt at reducing civilian casualty level.


The contractors like blackwater on the other hand are a bit more trigger happy and they subsequently have a much higher "killed some civilians, oops" rate. This is because they are not subject to the same rule sof engagement as combat troops are. I am highly against the privitization of ground forces and very against these civilian army's we have over there, which make up a large portion of all US troops we have in theatre at the moment.


In a war civilians get hurt, this war has been managed ina way to make it look good for the media and try to not paint us as the bad guys (didn't work too well). But to claim we are an evil empire over there with a mission to kill as many innocents as possible is completely false. Trust me, if we wanted to go in there and level the place, we have any number of methods to enforce that decision. Instead, our weak leaders chose to be pussies and try to help save innocents which has led to us consistently losing the war effort over the past several years.

This has got to be the most outrageous statement that I have heard in years...

So the prisoners live like kings? And they're all asking to stay in indefinite and illegal detention rather than being set free?

I suppose this explains why there have been hundreds of suicide attempts among the inmates, including 5 successful suicides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan...icide_attempts

I am not making this claim, the detainees are.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...officials.html


They have it way better than US prisoners have and this is why they would rather stay at gitmo than be transfered to US jails for a life sentence. Makes sense, our jails suck, in gitmo they get all the traditional islamic things they need to be model Muslims. Research it for yourself, the prisoners do not want to come here. (Read quotes below )

detainees embarrassed officials by staging a protest in front of visiting reporters, waving art pads asking if Mr Obama was a "communist or a Democrat".

Since 2005 an Arab American cultural adviser, who for security reasons is identified only by the name of Zak, has been employed at Guantánamo to liaise with detainees.

He said that some detainees would rather stay put than go on trial in the US, where they would probably receive a life sentence or could wait years for a death sentence to be carried out.

"They know there will not be the same privileges as here," he said. "Given the choice of being sentenced forever in Guantánamo or moved to supermax, it is 'no, can I stay in Gitmo?'. Here they can be outside, they can smell the sea."

And torture is a myth? Only 3 people got waterboarded? So I take it that those FBI FILES detailing dozens of cases of torture were... What - made up? Because the FBI was having a slow day and had nothing better to do?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...guantanamo.usa

Did I ever say waterboarding is a myth? No, I said that it was reserved and limited to only the worst offenders, in this case, those directly involved with planning 9-11. I think they should be tortured for breakfast lunch and dinner.

On February 6, 2008, the CIA director General Michael Hayden stated that the CIA had used waterboarding on three prisoners during 2002 and 2003, namely Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri

Three were tortured, Bush released 2/3 of them, and with little fanfare.
Estimates run as high as 14% returned to terror organizations.

If we are going to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, then we are saying they are Prisoners of War, Yes?

If they are Prisoners of War, then we don't have to put them on trial and we sure as hell don't have to release them. We can keep them until the end of hostilities (and beyond).



In regards to the other "torture" that the "dozens" reported (which was not waterbaording) was a number of things which may or may not be actual torture. For example, lawyers tried to claim that their clients were tortured because interrogators blew cigar smoke in their faces, and second hand smoke is known to cause cancer.



Anyone who sides with these wimps, are pussies. If they have the balls to strap a bomb to their ass, I dont see how a little waterboarding (which is routine training for all american SF soldiers) or cigar smoke, consitutes torture.

People that empathise with these terrorists are the reason America does not win wars anymore, you want to do it all without any good guys dying, and you want the bad guys to have a fair trial and be given roses and posterpedic beds while they wait for it. Next thing you know, using curse words against the enemy will be defined as torture.

[Judge Faust]

My unit has been boots on the ground since this whole thing started, and my brother, who is in the same unit, has had 5 combat tours split between Iraq AND Afghanistan. (Hey, it's more reliable than wikipedia entries)

I assumed you would fall back on simply denying the validity of the information provided, hence I provided a solid cite. Open the page, go down to the reference index, and see which organizations provided the numbers.

As smart as you and your brother may be, I am still inclined to believe that the United Nations is better equipped to count massive casualties on a national scale.

We are not going through town just blasting people by any measure. If you talk to any deployed veteran they will tell you that for the most part, the US make s aserious attempt at reducing civilian casualty level.

I make no such allegations - this level of wanton violence would be barbarous even by the Empire's extremely low standards.

Most casualties come from air strikes. As a military man, you should understand why this would be so. Do you remember when the US jets bombed a group of "militants," only to discover a pile of uniformed Canadian army corpses when the dust settled? Oops.

You claim that you want to minimize civilian casualties? Alright. Stop using air strikes. Problem solved. More occupation soldiers will die in direct combat, sure, but you allege that this is the accepted outcome now anyway.

[RRK]

As a libertarian I do not believe foreign war is something that we should be taking part in. Since the age of empires transitioned to an age of economic empires, classic imperialism seems kind of useless. But I do think that historically civilian casualties have gotten smaller and smaller as time has gone on. If you compare the civilian casualties of any other war I would bet that they are lower in the modern wars if you take into account the scale of conflict. I think civilians have always suffered the effects of war. I didn't read all of the posts you guys made so forgive me if I am ignorant of some of your points.

[texasmade]

civil wars are the worst

[Roo]

Judge Faust, it's good to see you posting again. Na Zdorovye.

[sgreger1]

Most casualties come from air strikes. As a military man, you should understand why this would be so. Do you remember when the US jets bombed a group of "militants," only to discover a pile of uniformed Canadian army corpses when the dust settled? Oops.

You claim that you want to minimize civilian casualties? Alright. Stop using air strikes. Problem solved. More occupation soldiers will die in direct combat, sure, but you allege that this is the accepted outcome now anyway.

I am not saying there are no civilian casualties, or that its not a lot, but you make it sound like the evil empire is over there slaughtering people.

Post the initial invasion, air strikes are very rare. I would know this because I was a 13f Forward Observer, and no close air support, cca, or any other kind of indirect fire such as mortars or artillery can be cleared unless there is an observer on the ground.


Not a lot of airstrikes going on, this has led to increased casualty rates for the ground troops. Of course, there are some time where it is warranted and the call is made, but it's not that often.

Obama has leaned more towards using predator drones for attacks and yes those can get sticky because they don't require an observer and is just some guy sitting at a desk controlling it.

Look, in war civilians will get hurt. I think we should stop the war, but if were going to stay, we should play to win. Just cut it out with the whole evil empire is over there just to kill civilians thing.

[sgreger1]

As a libertarian I do not believe foreign war is something that we should be taking part in. Since the age of empires transitioned to an age of economic empires, classic imperialism seems kind of useless. But I do think that historically civilian casualties have gotten smaller and smaller as time has gone on. If you compare the civilian casualties of any other war I would bet that they are lower in the modern wars if you take into account the scale of conflict. I think civilians have always suffered the effects of war. I didn't read all of the posts you guys made so forgive me if I am ignorant of some of your points.

This is what I was trying to say to judge faust. Yes there are civilian casualties, but we try our best and have pretty good numbers to show when compared with past conflicts, hence proving weve made a serious effort to not hurt the good guys.

But he insists we are an evil empire over there just to mow down civilians, which couldnt be further from the truth.