And the money grubbing has begun....

The first class action lawsuit has been filed against CBS over the Jackson halftime boob incident. Talk about stupid. As if ANYONE could suffer "serious injury" from seeing a breast. Sometimes I'm truly embarrassed to be an American.

this is so stupid, the costume ripped, they apologised, and it should be over, but no, americans think this is illegal, and file lawsuits. stupid americans (not meant to offend people who agree with me or people here)

relating to ridiculous lawsuits...Florida is trying to pass a measure that will prohibit consumers from filing frivilous claims agains fast food chains for their own poor health.

I don't know what's more pathetic...someone's refusal to take personal responsibility for their own appetite...........or the fact that we actually need to create a law about it.

I think wisconsin is trying to do that too... the "McFat" legislation? LOL!!!!!!

It is definitely pathetic that we have to create legislation protecting us from stupid people. "I burned myself with hot coffee, or smoked cigs for 40 years and got lung cancer, and now someone owes me millions".... I'm so weary of it all.

i think this is just one more thing wrong with the us legal system, you can sue for just about any reason, this is incredibly stupid so a boob popped out on national television whoop de do get over it
IMO this is a very immature way to deal with this, you see boobs all the time on Euoropean Tv they dont care its time for america to grow up and stop whining about everything seen on tv

ohh there's too much violence, ohh a boob popped out why did they let this show, if you dont want to see it DONT WATCH IT!!!

Is this a fact about the Jackson boob lawsuit, coz if it is then im sorry but they cannot get stupider, they could try but they wouldnt be able to!

Well, actually Helios, in this event, people couldn't decide whether they could watch it, and from what I have heard, it was aired in a time when children could still be watching.

On European television, you will probably won't be finding breasts on television around that time either. However, this is absolutely not what annoys me at all!

What annoys me the most is the hypocracy. Americans claim to be innocent, and to be prude, while in fact they have more pay-channels (there isn't even a dutch word for it!), and in fact spend more money than any other nation, that I know of.

If you are going to ban porn, because you think of it as evil (strange in the land of the free), ban it entirely, not just of national television.

Seeing breasts might not hurt someone, but seeing thousands of children killed by cluster bombs doesn't hurt one either. It's about trying not to provoke people. The thing I just can't get over is how darn hypocrite you (Americans/American Government) are!

HU

"What annoys me the most is the hypocracy. Americans claim to be innocent, and to be prude, while in fact they have more pay-channels (there isn't even a dutch word for it!), and in fact spend more money than any other nation, that I know of."


Hate to put a damper on your America bashing...but where does America claim to be innocent or prude?

Heck, I saw boobs in German parks. And the kids under 4 or so could run around nekked at the little pools. Here in the US someone would be calling child welfare if you let your toddler run nude in a public place!

It just gets on my nerves. Overt violence or even implied brutality makes a distinctive impression, particularly on young minds... and that's all over the place, with few restrictions.

tHe aRcHeItEct, this is from CNN: • A banker from Knoxville, Tennessee, filed a class action lawsuit against Jackson, dance partner Justin Timberlake, CBS, halftime show producers MTV and the networks' parent company, Viacom. Terri Carlin said the "sexually explicit conduct" by the performers caused millions of people to "suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury."

Regardless of whether I think the halftime show was distasteful or not, it is utterly ludicrous that someone is actually suing over this in light of all the rest of the crap all over television.

What I find truly amazing, Is that they will say how it was so rude and should not of been seen, and blah blah blah..

But then they go an replay it 20 times when you are watching the news, all the while saying how rude it was.
Why play the damn thing, if you dont want anyone to see it, because of the content
I for one, only saw it when they did play the replay if it.
I dont understand the media
*shakes head*

Back to the original idea of the thread.....

...It is just so sad when an individual refuses to acknowledge their own personal responsibilities to themselves and others. Their have already been court cases where the defendents have accused The Matrix as having been the cause of certain acts of violence (there is a thread about this somewhere).

So many of the current problems that Americans face internally are sourced from this refusal to accept responsibility and to look for someone to blame. The whole concept that, "it's not my fault...if it weren't for that damn company......" has become a far too common response.


If I can instill nothing else in my daughter...she will most assuredly know that what she does and says will be actions that she will be held responsible for. They are her choices and she will need to deal with the consequences of them.

Originally posted by bLindsAge
Back to the original idea of the thread.....

...It is just so sad when an individual refuses to acknowledge their own personal responsibilities to themselves and others. Their have already been court cases where the defendents have accused The Matrix as having been the cause of certain acts of violence (there is a thread about this somewhere).

So many of the current problems that Americans face internally are sourced from this refusal to accept responsibility and to look for someone to blame. The whole concept that, "it's not my fault...if it weren't for that damn company......" has become a far too common response.


If I can instill nothing else in my daughter...she will most assuredly know that what she does and says will be actions that she will be held responsible for. They are her choices and she will need to deal with the consequences of them.

Beautifully stated.

Not all of us Americans are money grubbers nor idiots.

But you know, what is it, do you think, that makes this kind of stuff more likely to happen here? Cuz it's definitely true that this suit is no surprise.

Originally posted by Tempest01

But you know, what is it, do you think, that makes this kind of stuff more likely to happen here?

Perhaps it is because America is a country that seems to be cultivating a culture of victims, yet at the same time is the most victimizing nation...

Look at the Iraq situation..."They have WMD and will use them against us! We must bomb them to stop this from happening!"

It just smacks of hypocracy.

However, I think this sad attitude isn't only in evidence in the US...it seems to be spreading and it needs urgent attention. To me all these ridiculous law suits reflect a growing selfishness in the people of the developed world...

Wow.

Ok, I DO agree with the whole idea that Americans are hypocrites, but aren't we all to some extent? Americans (in general) are idiots: We get upset when a boob gets flahed on national TV, yet glorify artists when they show the same things in art.

Still, there IS a matter of choice involved. When it's on TV like that, kids watching could be exposed. Personally, I'd rather my youngest brother didn't see that for a few more years.

Honestly, I have tried to avoid watching TV altogether now because it IS filled with so much trash. I really don't want to put the same garbage into my head. The plotlines are the same ideas that were used way back whoknowswhen, only with more promiscuity.


Anyway, back to the subject: People are stupid. I think that's the moral of, well, life. Get over it. Some people just can't, and that's why we have all these idiots running around suing everyone for the most miniscule things.

I agree with a lot of the points here, though I'm not surprised CBS and company is being sued. There are truck loads of kids watching the Superbowl and I can see how many parents would be upset. Parents can forbid their kids from going on the internet, they can put guard dogs on their computer, and take such other precautions to block their children from such images. There's also a "locks and limits" feature which blocks out any shows that contain unappropriate content. It's assumed that such things as the Superbowl would be clean enough for children's viewing, so I can understand where this all is coming from.

There's many more stupid lawsuits though... I remember hearing about a guy suing Winnebago because he left the steering wheel of his brand new Winnebago while he was driving to go cook something on the grill. He "wasn't aware" of the fact that Winnebagos can't drive by themselves, and a couple minutes later his Winnebago was lying upside down in a ditch. He sued the company, and won a million dollars and a new Winnebago. Go figure lol

However, I think this sad attitude isn't only in evidence in the US...it seems to be spreading and it needs urgent attention. To me all these ridiculous law suits reflect a growing selfishness in the people of the developed world...

Yes, I agree. We've moved quite far away from "community" and instead celebrate "me" -- not that I think this is entirely negative, but it's had some obvious negative repercussions. We're so self-centered that we don't care how our actions or behaviors may effect others.

I would say that the sphincter-like actions of certain major religious groups towards any type of individuality has a lot to do with the bursting of the "I will be MYSELF" era, however..... Religion can do a lot of good, but it can also do a lot of bad, particularly when it strives so hard to control and to KEEP us as sheep.

BTW, lest ye think I be dissin' religion, let me assure you that I'm not. All subjects are open to critique, and religion has it's far share of activities worth being judged on their merits.

posted by PsyPsy:
Still, there IS a matter of choice involved. When it's on TV like that, kids watching could be exposed. Personally, I'd rather my youngest brother didn't see that for a few more years.

Honestly, I have tried to avoid watching TV altogether now because it IS filled with so much trash. I really don't want to put the same garbage into my head. The plotlines are the same ideas that were used way back whoknowswhen, only with more promiscuity.

posted by TINM
There are truck loads of kids watching the Superbowl and I can see how many parents would be upset. Parents can forbid their kids from going on the internet, they can put guard dogs on their computer, and take such other precautions to block their children from such images. There's also a "locks and limits" feature which blocks out any shows that contain unappropriate content. It's assumed that such things as the Superbowl would be clean enough for children's viewing, so I can understand where this all is coming from.


Okay, I agree with this, that as far as kids & choice are concerned, many parents couldn't have predicted this was coming. But 2 things about that.... first of all, as BSD points out, the Superbowl has never been a perfectly clean venue -- lots of BIG MAN commercials, which includes boobies, drinking, and macho men subjegating women, directly or not. No one ever seems to complain about that stuff.

Second, these same parents let their kids watch all kinds of crap. They protect them from sexuality, but take them to see Swat or The Ring (cuz, hey, they aren't "rated" R), or rent them stuff like Starship Troopers, or let them play video games like Rage or Mortal Kombat.

These examples come straight from my son's friends, all of whose parents are ticked about the Superbowl. So I naturally have a hard time accepting the connection to child-appropriate viewing with this issue.....

Furthermore, I think it CREATES more of a problem when parents act neurotic about things they see on tv. On occasion my husband & I have let our kids see a movie that we think has a great message but that maybe has a scene with mature sexual content or some explicit violence. Sometimes we'll fast forward thru that, but usually we just pause & explain what they're going to see, and the motivating behaviors behind it, or what the scene means to the movie or such. It's when we have negative or confusing attitudes about things that kids become frightened or concerned -- or more interested! My kids weren't watching the Superbowl, but if they had been I would've just critiqued the halftime show in a mature way.

I think it's hypocritical for other nations to bash America for our materialism, and then ask for federal aid. Instead of America taking care of national debt and our OWN homeless, we give TRILLIONS of our "capitolist pig" dollars to the same people who cry like little school girls when we are looking out for our own interests.

OMG, this is so off track, but I totally agree with this!!! And I have further issues with people who immigrate to America and then b*tch about Americans & our culture!!! If you hate us so much, STAY HOME! ARGH!

Whew! Okay, sorry, it's out of my system. Years ago I read a story by Amy Tan & I've been peeved about this issue ever since....


It used to be that you saw more ta-ta in a SuperBowl beer commercial.

And this would be the heart of the matter, the true hypocrisy in the issue.

I cannot even count the number of times I've been watching a show that is considered family viewing, during prime time, and there have been AWFUL commercials on. Law & Order is my fave tv show, but I sure as heck don't want my kids to see commercials for it! And that's a fairly tame example. Previews to adult movies with seriously scary content have no place in the middle of family programming, but the FCC isn't doing anything about THAT.

But there's mostly just crap on tv anymore anyway, as others have said. The kids watch the toon channels, and I try to catch L&O when I have a free hour, but otherwise our most frequently watched tv is the weather channel.

Originally posted by Tempest01


OMG, this is so off track, but I totally agree with this!!! And I have further issues with people who immigrate to America and then b*tch about Americans & our culture!!! If you hate us so much, STAY HOME! ARGH!

Whew! Okay, sorry, it's out of my system. Years ago I read a story by Amy Tan & I've been peeved about this issue ever since....

I know this is carrying on with the "off topic" but a perfect example of this is micheal moore.
We all know him by his movies (bowling for columbine) and his books (stupid white men)
Micheal Moore claims that america is a dreadful country, he continualy bags out bush, and the american government, and yet he still chooses to live in the damn country! Why? Because it sells his products faster, and he has more of a chance at winning oscars ect. He claims to be "controversial" but there is a difference at being "controversial" and being "hypocritical"
He has enough money, to go and buy his own island, or live in another country, but oh no, he stays and groans and moans all the way through his movies and books.. and quite frankly its
p!ssing me right off.
(sorry for mistracking the thread)

I have no problems with Michael Moore bashing...... and I'm a Dem who won't be voting for Bush. Michael Moore has a right to his opinions, and also a right to critique the system, but I think it is so incredibly ludicrous that he won an Oscar for it. And I frankly am not just not impressed by extremist opinions such as his. Give me logic & reason over alarmist exaggeration any day.

But the Oscars are about winning the popularity contest anyway, not good movies. (how's that for an exaggerated opinion? ;) )

Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
As for America's hypocrasy, I think it's hypocritical for other nations to bash America for our materialism, and then ask for federal aid. Instead of America taking care of national debt and our OWN homeless, we give TRILLIONS of our "capitolist pig" dollars to the same people who cry like little school girls when we are looking out for our own interests.

This may be off-topic for a sec, but Saddam Hussein made no record of the mandatory destruction of his weapons of mass destruction by the UN. And the UN didn't do anything to enforce that mandatory ruling. And every other country that plays "backseat world leader" whines and cries about the US taking care of what the UN couldn't. That is until they get bombed by terrorists. Saddam openly supported violence on US civilians within Iraq's borders, supported Osama Bin Laden's terror campaign, and butchered, raped, and robbed his people. So we go after him and WE'RE the bad guys. As long as we're painting with broad brushes here, we may be hypocrites, but we're not procrastinators and weak cowards who fold under pressure. If we see a problem, we handle it. We don't wait until someone else does it, and then whine about how it's done.


!!!!! What a load of ignorant garbage! What was it that the UN couldn't take care of? Finding evidence of WMD!?!?! Eh...has the US? The biggest fallacy of American rantings is that you believe the rest of the world wants, or even needs your 'protection'! Talk about about one gross superiority complex!

Please wind your neck in.

from OBLh's sig
An obscure quote from a famous genius - or a hip saying - to illustrate how intelligent, cool and widely-read the person who used it is


So, having read & loved Oscar Wilde makes me widely read? (I already knew I was intelligent & cool) What if I haven't read anything else? (not likely)

Regardless, nowadays you don't have to be widely read to use obscure quotes from famous geniuses.... which is too bad, cuz Wilde's social satire is worth every second. ;)

_______________________________

The WMD search & investigation isn't over, and who knows what the facts will be when we get there. All we can do in the meantime is conject (and bicker) and that doesn't get us anywhere!

But you have to admit that many, many countries ask for (and gladly take) US money. LOTS of US money. Now, whether that gives us the right to dictate policy is a complicated question -- if I lend you money I sure as hell don't have the right to tell you what to do with it. Once it's out of my hands, it's out of my hands. But we're talking about huge chunks of money, and that's a different situation. I still don't think we have the right to outright dictate policy, but to expect some loyalty? Yes, we have that right. After all, if you're taking US money you should be concerned about US interests. Cuz US interests are what made us rich enough to support other countries in the first place.

I do not have the illusion of being influential to the world politics, nor do I think my country does. I'm from the Netherlands by the way.

Anyhow, I think the people outside of the US should determine whether the US is great, after all, how can someone say something is great, when he is part of it. It's like a person saying he is great, it surpasses arrogance on this scale.

Let's nor forget that the US has WMD's, and seems to be proud of it. A strange situation for a country to be in that declares war on a country for having WMD's, especially when no one can find these supposed weapons.

The only result this war has had, was the destruction of a country, the murder of numerous, and the desctruction of the reputation of the BBC, a brilliant act, since no news network can now give an independent, reliable view on the world. We live in scary times, indeed.

Let's keep this conversation clean, okay?

HU

Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
Wait a second...WHERE do you live? Does YOUR government do ANYTHING relevant in the world's politics? Maybe I should take political advice from someone who made a thread extolling the virtue of bestiality. Wait a second... That would make ME an idiot.

What the UN failed to do was enforce the destruction of his weapons. He made no record of their destruction, but you're so blinded that you think that's a PERFECT resolution to the matter.

Speaking of superiority complexes, you're the one from... uh... WHERE?... who thinks they have the answer to US policy. Does it have something to do with cauliflower and broccoli having sex? Because that's about as intelligent as you're posting has become. How about instead of winding my neck in, why don't YOU stick a cork in your ear so your brain doesn't roll out as you sleep. I know those wild nights with animals can make you tired, and I'd hate for you not to make "intelligent" posts. Oh, wait... Too late.

1) I'm from England. I'm not proud of it's part in the Iraq atrocities, but I think it would of been a hell of a lot worse if we didn't even try to mediate your war-mongering...

2) How can you judge beastiality if you haven't even tried it? Although, yer mama IS an animal and yo been there...

3) How can you enforce destroying something that isn't even there?

4) Of course it has something to do with cauliflower and broccoli having sex...if nothing else this acts a metaphor for the ridiculous nature of a policy that has nothing to do with relationships with other countries(surely what a 'foreign policy' SHOULD be about), but rather to further the influence of a singular nation oblivious to the rest of the world's views...

5) My brain rolling out of my ear has no relevance...as soon as I wake up I pop it back in again.

6) Yes...having sex with animals IS tiring...as you can surely testify after you daliances with your mother.

Ohhh...so the UN couldn't find the weapons that they had already ordered to be destroyed - is that right? Well, here's my understanding of the situation...PERHAPS they were destroyed and your 'jackass' of a president lied to gullable fools like yourself to hide the ultimate agenda of his actions.

I hate returning to a boring mantra chanted many times before, but the search for WMDs wasn't the real reason for Bush's ILLEGAL occupation of Iraq...it comes down to that powerful natural resource that the US is intent on relieving the rest of the world of...OIL.

How else can you explain why you aren't bombing the crap out of North Korea when they are a legitimate threat WITH WMDs, but are sadly lacking in that black gold you crave for your grotesque SUVs?

Next time, come prepared with information that isn't tainted by your government's media, because I hate fighting a battle of wits with someone who's witless.

Yo mama...

Please warn away...

You would have to have some type of 'evidence' to state that Bush's agenda in Iraq was for oil, rather than WMDs. If it's an opinion, then it's just that, an opinion. But don't mistake opinion for common sense, because it's hard to define which is which in this matter.

Random fact: Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il are great fans of American movies. I think Saddam's favorite is The Godfather. Interesting stuff, huh?

Then I think the GodFather influenced him a little too much.

Well, the Godfather is a great movie, but if it had influenced him, I'm sure he would have turned out a bit better. Although the movie is about mafia/cosa nostra, it also deals with Italian standards, Honour, respect, duty, et cetera.

Most world-leaders could learn quite a bit from Vito, I'd say..

HU

Well, the FACT that you didn't have UN-approval for the occupation means that the general consensus of the WORLD was AGAINST your actions. The UN is the international governing body for WORLD policy. Matters that affect the WORLD have to be agreed to by the UN to legitimize them...this is called a democratic process - a series of votes to understand the general consensus on a topic. A GENERAL RULE. Not the belief of ONE country that it has a right to BULLY others. This is called a 'dictatorship'.

If the US wants people to start taking it seriously they should realise the hypocracy of their stance...if WMD are a threat to WORLD peace(which of course they ARE...) then it means that ALL countries should NOT proliferate them...At the moment the US is telling the world that these countries CANNOT have them, yet at the same time are developing new ones of their own!!!!! It's is a completely ridiculous way to behave!

THE US IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO WORLD PEACE!

I await your flame-broiled reply...

Wow! I'm at a loss to even begin to respond to that hulking monstrosity!!!!!!

Eh...I have no problem with flammers, just hypocrites who go around preaching to others what they can and can't do, yet at the same time being one of the chief offenders! You perfectly reflect the government of your home nation...it's too beautiful(MY EYES! MY EYES!) to witness my points being so perfectly exemplified by your bloating! I should just let you carry on and let you swamp yourself some more...BUT...

Yeah, you're right...it took me 2 days of constant thought to come up with my last reply...phew...my brain ached after that one, I can tell you...Well, either that or my time was taken up with more pressing matters than..."Gee Whizz! I wonder what that kid replied to my post with????"

Have I ever stated I supported Saddam? If I'm not mistaken - and I haven't been so far in my life - I don't think I have...so rather than just reading that bright screen in front of you, try to comprehend what it is you're reading - it's called 'Reading for Meaning' and I'm sure you can buy the Idiots guide to it on amazon...

Your understanding of political terms seems to fall nicely into easily quotable dictionary sources, rather than an actual consideration of the topic in question...I can see it now..."CAN'T THINK. PRESS BUTTONS. READ SCREEN. TYPE FROM SOURCE. DONE." - I congratulate you on not only your verbal constipation, but your inability to understand what you read in the first place...it must take much effort!

Finally, to paraphrase you from a previous post..."Instead of intelligence, all I hear is "Hey, can I jump on the bandwagon...that Bush is beating a mighty fine drum..." - down, down, down and out...down, down, down and out...down, down, down and out...

You got my number, doGGy...

A couple of things though...

I've got no beef wid doggs who wanna flame me, it's just the damn hypocrisy thing that gets my goat...I know for a fact that I flame to high-heaven if I smell bullshizznit, but I'd like to think I listen too...there's evidence here if you look for it...

So, if you cut the 'holier than thou' attitude we can get along like ham and eggs...

Another thing to do with the useage of words...I like to interest you in a little word I know and love...it's called 'semantics'. I'm sure you are aware of this word, so please put it into practice and try not to negate the meaning of all words to dictionary-specific explicity. That my good Lassie, is not language...This is not to say that I can use the word 'small' to mean 'BIG'. Rather meaning is implicit, even if it is not the explicit dictionary definition of said word. I would hate to condescend, but you catch ma flow, bro? Like if I was to say "Charles is behaving like a dictator"- This is a similie - I do not mean he is an 'absolute ruler of a country'. but rather he is showing traits relating to the word used. I hope this helps...

Ohhh how you love the ol' ULTIMATE AGENDA thing, don't you? - That's a rhetorical question, with a tag ending - but, I do indeed believe that the ultimate agenda of the Iraqi war was power...and in this case it was the power to control one of the world's richest oil regions. As for the price of gas in the US, try living in England (not that I do...), but that's besides the point.

'Subliminable' - nice, I like it! Here's one for you...

nat-I-onal F-irefighters w-O-R-d G-ame I-sland V-ic-E YOU

- I made it easier for you at the end there...

Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
And for the record, I voted for Al Gore, and I think Bush is an idiot.

Ohh... and this makes me question the price of oranges in Florida.

Val, here is a quote from an interesting article.

The USA wants to verify oil contracts signed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The American government is going to recommend that the prospective Oil Ministry of Iraq to check up oil contracts concluded with companies from Russia, France and China. Former Chief Executive Officer of Shell Philip Carroll, now picked to run Iraq's oil industry, said in an interview to the Financial Times: "Each of the contracts must be investigated for the legitimacy of its status." The newspaper thinks that the check may result in cancellation of contracts.

Carroll says that someone from the Oil Ministry will have to find out whether this or that agreement is a completed contract or just an agreement of intent concluded between both parties. He is sure that the number of legitimate contracts is "relatively insignificant". He says the former government and some oil companies had many "talks" which finally resulted in different kinds of progress. Those contracts that prove to be complete after the check will be subject to a more-thorough examination for legitimacy. Philip Carroll thinks that some of the contracts are dubious, as "one party of such contracts enjoys more advantages as compared with the other." He hasn't yet studied the contracts himself and has no intention to. Philip Carroll says his main objective is to deal with the petrol deficit in Iraq and to raise oil production levels.

The future of oil production is one of the key problems in post-war restoration of Iraq. Some time ago, companies from Russia, France and China concluded contracts with Saddam Hussein's regime. Now the companies fear they may be barred from development of Iraqi oil fields, because the governments of their countries didn't support the coalition's campaign in Iraq.


Who will be get the oil contracts? if it's the USA, that will tend to back up OBHL views, and you'll get your reply within a few years. Afghanistan and Irak wars were sheduked before they happened. That's the only source of oil US can get their hands on without creating to much trouble for themselves and international relationships.

Bigstankdogg, you can also check that
http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/OUS0307iaea.pdf

.UN inspectors have been refused to access US complex they required to check. That is us taking the world for fools.Show us what you get first. The Anthrax That has been used in letters to kill your people was definitively produced in America and not elsewhere like you governement claimed at first.

http://rwor.org/a/v23/1140-1147/1145/anthrax%201145.htm

About the war, try that if you are still not convinced.

http://member.nifty.ne.jp/jalisa/eng/eap20030212.html

That's right, UN have been keeping the world under balance because of that only very rule. You can't declare war because of natonal issues.That's why some africans tyrans are still in place (and also, they have nothing USA requires ATM). Because of this war, the world is less safe.



2.3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

2.4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the UN.


http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1374/3_63/101261140/p1/article.jhtml

At the end, the fool doesn't appear to me to be OBHL. Get a brain.

Ahhh...good. We're 'friends' again...

Anyway, I was never anti-American - I lived there for 4 summers while I was at uni and many of my friends here in Taiwan are American...BUT, I WAS and always will be anti-Bush. I think the international community should push for regime change in America.

As for Saddam's plan to ASSasinate Bush snr...what was Bush jnr's intention with the first missle raid on the presidential palace if it wasn't to do the same to Saddam...? Hypocracy again...I think some bloke who wore sandles once said "Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you"...words to live by?!?

And as for the Geneva Convention...have you heard of 'Guantanamo bay'!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? You should check it out before you start using the Geneva Convention to support Bush's policies...

There's so much more I could go into but, I 'm bored...so I'll stop.

We should have gotten rid of saddam the first time we were in, and we did try hell of a lot. There was no point making the population suffer an embargo over ten years to do that ultimately, unless there was another reason that entered the equation recently.

Bush would have found any reason to invade, that was sheduled as soon as he became president. let's check who's got shares in petrol industries in the actual governement, if you can add 2 and 2 by yourself, you'll see it doesn't make 5.

I'm not anti american, i am anti bull****, it's not my fault if Bush is producing 5 tons of it a minute.I am also bored by the americans who support their country believing the whole world hate them, when they simply don''t look at the whole picture. You are creating the hate by endorsing actions i would not accept if they were done by my own country.

Ou Be Low Hoo, if you do not condone the actions of George W. Bush, what do you think about his father, George Bush. In my opinion, the last few presidents have been either frauds, liars or mass-murderers.

I'm not anti-American, I just don't see how a people can keep living under a government that is guilty of these many crimes.
I fear we'll have an episode 2 real soon, when Bush get's re-elected, instead of charged with mass-murder in the Hague, like justice should be done.

I'm against dictatorship, and am not pro-"Sadam Hussein" but that many has rights too, and so does Iraq, no matter what it's government is.

The US may be trying to restore the souvereingity of Iraq, but they violated it in the first place. It's a disgusting war.

HU

Jebulum, thanks. That's all I was asking for, just a little 'proof'. Well, at least a source to quote, so now I just say that Kerry keeps winning caucuses. My mom said she voted for him in Washington because his wife speaks five different languages, and that says something about Kerry (since he married a non-dummy). I just want a new president, for a second look at this Iraq war. If it's warranted, then you'd think he'd keep the troops there, but if not, he'll pull them out and try something different. I think change is what we need more than anything (to the Democratic side, I have to say). I want more opportunities for the little guy, because that's what I am. I'm pissed off that everyone thinks our economy is fine when it's nowhere near fine.

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Ou Be Low Hoo, if you do not condone the actions of George W. Bush, what do you think about his father, George Bush.
HU

I think he's a cock who controls a cock AND they are both controlled by other invisible cocks. - I originally used the short name for someone called 'Richard', but it was deemed rude so I changed it to 'cock'...boo.

The problem with America is that the people in power have too much money and they use it to help them stay in power and exercise new Laws to keep them rich. No other 'democratic' country has a political system where money is THE integral part of election...not England, not France, not Germany...Sure, money is important for the ability to generate publicity to their causes, but not to the extent that it is in the good ol' US of A.

Hmm.. That's just a small part of what bothers me. What I find most scary, is the lobbying. Sure, we have lobbying here in Europe (well, at least in my country), but in here, it doesn't obstruct the making of decisions. I find this development, in where corporations decide what's best for the people, a bit scary.

There was a movie about this with Eddir Murphy, I think it was called "The Distinguished Gentleman". Anyhow, in this movie we see how congres makes a decision about kids with cancer, who live under power lines.

But the same goes for war. If Bush wants war, he will just use the corporations he has behind him to lobby for it. To me, that sounds like a whole new level of dictatorship.

HU