ericz

Maybe, maybe not. They were intended to protect the Shia population. If I remember correctly, France was also part of the mix, it wasn't until later that they had an epiphany and dropped out. "The United States and Britain argue the patrols are authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 688 adopted April 5, 1991. The text "condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq," but it doesn't specifically mention no-fly zones. However, the overflights were never authorized by the United Nations, and were therefore illegal with respect to international law. Regardless of the legal status, the northern no-fly zone is often credited for giving the parts of the Kurdish region of Iraq de-facto independence after the Gulf War" source Wikipedia.

Blake Hardly the same thing as China's shooting of U.S. spy aircraft. The no-fly-zones were a construct of coalition forces to exclude Iraqi aircraft from flying in them. Not the other way around.

Please explain. Â I missed the point you no doubt witily made. Denoir Liberals have their own visions and ideas of dangerous utopias. Thank you for the link. Â In regards to the seeming inconsistencies (condom=bad, war=okay). Â I am sure you could also ask, "well if the bible says turn the other cheek and Pres. Bush is a Christian, why doesn't he just follow the bible, after all he wants to ban partial birth abortion, he should just forgive the terrorists" Â I am sure you can see that would not be a workable response regardless of your Christian indoctrination. Yes, this is the information age. Â Yes, we deserved to be attacked because we support Israel as our ally? I am sure you are quite right, a great bloodletting is in order. Blake What you state is a fact. Â The circumstances under which that fact occurs and the underlying implications that Moore proposes are what I dispute. ?This was directed at you. Â Bush's fear of pushing hard into Iraq because of liberal public opinion. Â Bush's tax cut for the large corporations. Â Christian fundementalist Republicans shared effort with the liberal (pc) left in censoring violent video games and movies or any other media that offends their sensibilities. Â Lack of resolve in enforcing immigration law in the U.S. and stopping illegal immigrants at the border. Â Lack of funding for the Civilian Marksmanship Program that used to get more support. Â Bush's increase of entitlement programs on a level approaching Democratic "tax and spend" policies. Â Just to name a few.

And you have personal experience with this I assume???? There is any easy way to resolve this with minimal bloodshed, give up the terrorists. In a word YES. Any death is significant, I haven't seen any figures that would suggest "100,000+" Â Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of Americans. Prove it. Â More death at the hands of the insurgents, yes. Â The insurgents don't seem to share your sympathies with the Iraqi people. Blake I suggest you re-read his quote "Fact is that Bush is the reason for at least 100.000 civillian casualties (newest studies).". Â ; "And dont you condemn the action to let the Bin Laden family escape?" That is clearly along the line of "reasoning "(if you can call it that) that is proposed by Moores film. One should ask relevant questions first, then criticize if appropriate. Â Let me ease your mind, Â the Bush supporters I know have lively debates on issues of President Bush's policies all the time.

I guess I must be out there by myself as I don't "approve" of all Pres. Bush's decisions and I am Republican, go figure. Don't believe everything you see in film, particularly Moore's propaganda masterpiece. Â But if you insist, kindly view another film Fahren-HYPE 9/11. Some of your questions are of the "if you helped them why not help these others" are a not so subtle implication that the U.S.A acts out self interest. Â Let me disabuse you of your doubts, YES, the U.S acts out of self interest or perceived advantage just like EVERY other country in the world, I hope that's not a surprise to you, every nation represents its own citizens interests or interests. Â Having said that the U.S. is also one of the most generous nations to its allies and Americans are some of the most charitable people in the world. Maybe not, but surely there is no reason to allow them to live. Â Further we should include those that sympathesize in ways that amount to tactical and strategic support or aid to them. Kindly post the link to support your claim that "300,000" civilians have died at the hands of American war fighters. As for the deaths of civilians in general, it is a very sad thing. Â 3,000 American civilians died in 9/11 and Americans were treated to scenes of merrymaking in the streets of many Muslim countries because of it. War always results in the death of civilians, it has never been any other way. Â The main difference is whether civilians are intentionally targeted or not. Â American rules of engagement to not allow for targeting of civilians. Â Terrorists have no such restraint. Â Saddam could have stepped down and avoided this war if he really had his country's best interests at heart. Â Iraqis can inform on and surrender the terrorists within their midst and stop the violence. Â But if there counting on Americans turning tail and fleeing all I can say is good luck.

On other news, it's not looking good for the Gay lobby...eleven states (including Oregon) pass ammendments to their respective constitutions banning same sex marriage.... Wait....do you hear that....rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipppp! That's the sound of the fraudulent marriage licenses being validated.

Lets see.... Terrorists support Kerry... American Communists support Kerry... Feminist Lobby supports Kerry.... American Socialists support Kerry... Gay Lobby supports Kerry... Anarchists support Kerry... Illegal immigrants support Kerry... The choice is clear...KERRY Was that a threat??

bn880 We don't want you to come work over here....unless of course you are going to work on OFP or VBS1 stuff Don't worry yourself, the same thing that was happening with "assault" rifles before the ban...nothing at all. Ralph Wiggum Ahhhh, Â next on my hit list, I mean to do list.....must speak to the Governator

Pathy Understood.  But if you refer to my previous post or two ago and to the kindly Ralph Wiggums reply.  There are several hard fought regulations in place that make  firearms safety, background checks, residency requirements mandatory now currently. The only .50 caliber rifles I know of that are available for sale to the public are extremely expensive ($2,000-6,000), the rounds are expensive ($1.50 ea), the recoil is monstrous, they are incredibly heavy and very long, besides they are BOLT action.  For all these reasons, I believe they would be useless for a criminal endeavor.  Although some madman might have use for one, banning them for that remote possibility seems unnecessary. "Assault" rifles of the variety that could be sold pre-ban were semi-automatic, meaning one shot - one trigger pull.  No burst function or automatic switch were present.  A true modern military rifle has these items.  The current U.S. military M-4 has a semi-automatic and burst function.  The AK-47 has a semi-automatic and automatic function.  The burst or automatic function is what causes concern due to the increased rate of fire.  Semi-automatic is the same across the board, whether its a handgun or a rifle ,1 for 1. I will agree with you that true SMGs and Automatic or true burst rifles shouldn't be sold to the general public.  But they haven't been since the 1920's or 30's and probably never will.

Pathy Astounding observation.  They are all the things you say they are but they still  happen frequently, consistently and cause more deaths than firearms do regardless of whether they are "illegal" or "banned".  One has only to tune into the news stations to see high pursuit chases and the like. Just as we do not "allow" armed bank robberies, murders and violent assaults these are aso "banned" and "illegal".   Law enforcement is not omnipotent or capable of being everywhere at the same time.  Ralph Wiggum Quite the contrary.  The pretext for the assault weapons ban is PUBLIC SAFETY; that it will save lives.  The reason we have laws against drunk driving is to save lives.  The difference between the two lies in that the former is not borne out statistically and the latter is.  The percentage of murders committed with "assault rifles" in the U.S. pre and post ban were very small and changed very little.  Most murders were committed with the use of HANDGUNS.  Handguns, handgun magazines and cartridges are convenient, concealable and very portable. One has only to look at the restrictions of assault weapons ban to realize it is a farce.  It bans weapons simply on the basis of cosmetic features as has been alluded to in previous posts.  My feeling is that this piece of legislation was a way to pacify the uninformed and those opposed to private ownership of firearms in general.  I can only imagine that it gave peace of mind to many that are afraid of firearms. Another culprit in the disinformation campaign waged against legal firearms were the journalists from many of the media outlets who reported on crimes committed with firearms.  The use of the words "assault", "automatic" in place of semi-automatic and phrases such as "large caliber" used to describe something is mundane as an AR-15 in the .223 caliber would always get a chuckle out of me.  All these made for headlines and sensational coverage but also implied that these weapons were more lethal, more dangerous than any other firearm available.  If so the statistics would bear this out, but they do not. Many have given the example of the North Hollywood robbery as a clear example of why assault weapons should be banned. But the truth is this event was and  remains an isolated incident.  These criminals modified their carbines illegally and turned them into automatics.  They fired thousands of rounds at very short ranges and killed no one.  How effective really were they? A much more deadly incident occurred this year in Los Angeles were a geriatric driver ploughed his vehicle into a "farmers market" killing +- 8 people.

Ralph Wiggum I dont agree with the belief that law enforcement and by that I mean the ATF or the other licensing authorities are diligent enough in performing administrative inspections of licensed firearm dealers.  I don't believe that all that can be done is being done.  I do believe in regulating firearms to include: -mandatory firearms handling safety courses -criminal background checks -state residency requirements -mandatory trigger lock mechanisms I am glad to say that my experiences with other gun owners has been different.  They have been law abiding, responsible shooters who complain (as is there right) about an intrusive law whose efficacy is questionable. Obviously those that break firearm laws for financial or personal reasons should be prosecuted.  I would even say that their  right to bear arms should be suspended.  Afterall, we suspend motorists licenses when they fail to obey traffic laws, why should it be different. A true statement but it does not negate the fact that irresponsible drinking is a serious problem.  Consider that motor vehicle deaths accounted for almost double the amount of deaths in which  firearms were involved.  Yet we allow 16 year olds to get a permit and drive a 3000 lb + hunk of metal capable of speeding up to 120 mphs on public streets and highways.  Further note that many (not just teenagers) run red lights, break speed limits, don't signal, drive while intoxicated, and engage in all sorts of unsafe behavior when they are behind the wheel of an automobile yet we still allow it. Perhaps we should ban cars afterall there is such a thing as public transportation.

Frisbee: It's a matter of perception, thanks for sharing yours. ALL: A small point, the assault weapons ban did not take away or dispose of the assault rifles sold prior to the ban. The ban, from what I understand, affected imported and post ban sales. Ralph Wiggum This example speaks to the need for enforcement of existing laws and strict accountability, not to the need for a weapons ban.

Denoir While I am not sure what a "human right" or a "god given individual right" is and I doubt that anyone would be able to provide me with a concrete example of one, I will say that all the all the above issues have a potential to impact society as a whole. Â Drug use in particular, far from being a victimless crime has the potential to and has generated wasted lives, murder, corruption, destroyed families and cost untold amounts(rehab, jails, counseling, etc). Â There is much more available data proving connections between drug abuse and criminal behavior than there is between gun ownership and criminal behavior. If one person were going to kill another and had a firearm handy it would make sense to use it instead of say a knife, a bat or even a car. Â I wouldn't dispute that. Â It would be interesting to find out what percentage of murders by firearms are made by legal gun owners as opposed to those made by criminals with stolen firearms. If the criminal dies, ce' la vie.

It may take a smaller percentage figure to accomplish that given not all registered voters vote. Some already have (9/11) except in their case the weapon of choice was a civilian jet and none of the restrictions with the exception of the prohibition of raising support for organizations on a target "terrorist organizations list" were in place. But speaking of silly examples, I'll offer one of my own. I will preface it by saying that this in no way is meant as a threat to you personally. Lets say that in 2012 after 12 years of constant war and bloodshed due in part to the U.S.A practice of pre-emptive strike (which has somehow survived 3 more administrations)which has taken it to Iran, Syria and North Korea with no end in sight has finally worn on the "people" of the U.S.A. This has created an environment which you (having graduated with an advance degree in governance) and a group of like minded academics and intellectuals find conducive to promote your idealogy and start a movement. The movement is a combination of repackaged communist idealogy and populist initiatives which resonates with the majority of the voters. They see it as a humanistic and community minded approach and are tired of the old system. With the backing of some of the sympathetic oligarchs (those that will benefit by your new government) you and your party are swept to victory and you busily go about implementing changes. 1) You nationalize the police forces. 2) You outlaw private ownership of firearms. 3) You do away with the U.S Constitution or at least parts of it explaining through your now prodigious propaganda machine that it is a outdated document and that we must look to the future and not to the past. The first measure you explain as simply a function of centralizing police authority which will standardize it and make if fairer across the board for citizens. The second is just a matter of safety. Besides with the new expanded police forces and harsher penalties for criminals, self-defense through firearms is obsolete. Hunting is outlawed as a new national vegeterian movement and groups against animal cruelty have gained strong political power in your new government. Sport shooting is allowed, again only by government sanctioned shooters and in government sanctioned events. Of course their is strong resistance to your measures by a large minority. Granted this minority is disjointed, but it does contain quite a few vocal as well as radical groups. Many did not turn in their weapons and hid them instead. Knowing this and based on studies done at your request you estimate that fully 20% of the opposition is armed and potentially dangerous to your fledgling government. You redouble the efforts of your propaganda machine and broaden the authority of your national police forces in an effort to eliminate the threat and jail dissenters. Seeing this in the wind, one lone individual decides that your government is a perversion of every principle the U.S. was founded on and takes it upon himself to stand against it. Knowing that he doesn't have the power to unite the minority against the government and knowing that he cannot compete with your propaganda machine he decides on another solution. He takes his scoped hunting rifle that he purchased when it was legal to own firearms and he plans out your assasination. One fine morning as you give a speech in a university in his hometown, a shot rings out and the back of your head explodes in a shower of pink and red. Your dreams and aspirations die with you for about the cost of 30 cents. With the head ( literally and figurativley) gone your party is thrown into disarray amid squabbling (maybe). The event at very least underlines the new governments frailty and encourages a large element of the minority to organize. On the otherhand fearing further outbursts of violence against itself the new government brings on even more draconian measures which earns it disfavor with the majority as well and creates a generalized resistance. In either case one bullet and a rifle destroyed your tyrannical regime or at very least the founder. Keep in mind, that it was the assasination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria-Hungry which precipated the start of WWI, or at least served as the pretext for it. That power of private gun ownership should not be underestimated.

This comment I will file in my NAIVE folder. Although I laud you optimistic and trusting viewpoint, I must disagree. Institutions may be undermined, changed or corrupted. A look at the world governments today and even in the U.S. will show as much. Foreign lobbies, rubber stamp courts, government sanctioned police brutality all exist. The Democrats assert that the "people" chose AL Gore to be their president, what happened to the majority there? An armed populace is a guarantee of struggle and bloodshed if government abuses them.

Yes, 6,000,000 Jews now dead might disagree with your view. They believed that there government might restrict them but certainly not do anything as barbaric as march them to death camps. When a few of Jews came to a different conclusion, they began to arm themselves (Jewish underground) but it was too late. They allowed themselves to be manipulated by there belief that "this couldn't happen to us". Interesting conjecture, but history clearly shows that blood spilling is the only thing that guarantees the freedom or (whatever they want) of the group. How many bloodless revolutions revolutions do you know of?

Frisbee Newsflash for you....officials are people too and if you think that by virtue of being "officials" they always "try to do what's best for normal people", I ve got prime agricultural land in antartica I love to sell you. BTW, if you believe people in general are idiots, I should think you would be afraid of a "true democracy". Â No, no, no much better that a few enlightened intellectuals or academics should teach us (brainwash) to develop a society where we live harmoniously together working for the betterment of humanity through our (their) ideology. Â Of course we must always guard against counter-revolutionaries and be prepared to fight them where ever they appear even within our midst. The U.S. is a "representative" democracy and I've never dreamt of a real democracy. Nowadays, with the level of medical competence available, you go to the doctor and if he diagnoses you with a serious illness, Â you do your own research and get a second opinion. Â Particularly when you have an HMO plan. Tyranny can take many forms...forcing me to turn in my firearms is one of them. Â BTW, that is the ultimate goal of many anti gun advocates. Â They are just smart enough to go one step at a time in order to appear to be reasonable to the majority.

Red Oct All firearms, particularly AUTOMATIC WEAPONS are governed by Federal law. A state or locality may add restrictions but they can in no way relax federal firearms law at their choosing. In order to legally own automatic weapons you must have a license issued to you by the ATF. This does not preclude law breakers from modifying their weapons into automatics.

Those that call themselves "liberal" usually are on the anti-gun side of the equation.  Since anti-gun groups are mostly contributors and supporters of the  Democratic Party side of the house, the connection is made Anti-gun = liberal = democrat. As an aside, I know quite a few registered Democrats that are pro-gun and dislike the anti-gun groups intensly.

Thanks, I bookmarked that for future perusal. Â Yes, i am watching CNN and a spokesperson for Al-hamat??? is speaking on this issue. Pakistan is certainly doing so as well as Saudi Arabia and others. Â If not in the Middle East then in Europe, U.S. etc.

Correction, they have a responsibility to denounce acts like this PUBLICLY. Â I am sure that there are many states and law enforcement organizations that would help them if asked. While on the surface you are correct, this assumes that everyone in the world has understanding of Islam. Â Since this is not the case, therefore the silence of the Muslim community at large concerning these heinous acts coupled with the constant barrage of suicide bombers, kidnappings, beheadings and terrorist plots done in the name of Islam against the "infidel" paints its own picture unfortunately. Yes, policing efforts should be an official undertakeing and not a vigilantee endeavor. Its not an issue of whether I believe their interpretation is wrong or right. However as Scorpio pointed out good Muslims would have nothing to do with this act.Your statement that a religious interpretation that justfies and encourages the intentional killing of children is valid, is simply moronic. Â I sincerely hope I misunderstood your statement. Â Its not a function of religion, its a function of law and order. Â Ridding terrorists and murderers from your midst has nothing to do with ridding a community of religious devotion, unless of course your a commissar.

Scorpio Incorrect... Muslims DO have an obligation to denounce this kind of act. Â The perpetrators of this act and others like it present themselves to the world to be devout Muslims. Â Lets not forget their rallying cry of Allah Akbar as they detonate themselves and blow children away. Â If they are silent , then it can be assumed that at very least, acts like this have their tacit approval. Communities have a responsibility to police themselves. Â The Chechen people have a responsibility to themselves, their cause and the world to assist in eradicating terrorists in their midst. Â That is unless they approve of their actions in the first place.

A very simplistic view and wholly inaccurate. Kindly save these comments for another thread such as the Iraq War  thread as it has no place here, and even there it might be considered flamebait.

Terrorism is generally accepted to be the unlawful use of or threat of violence in order to make a political or idealogical statement. Generally by unofficial or illegitimate groups. War on the scale of WWII is a total war of sorts under which the inventory of targets included industrial and manufacturing centers and their attendant structures.  Lets not forget that in WWII the fate of several nations and tens of millions were on the line.  Hardly comparable in scope or context to the conflict in Chechnya or any other current conflict for that matter. If the drastic actions of atomics had not been used the war would have gone on longer and cost milliions more lives.  Sadly the hundreds of thousands that died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a smaller price to pay than what would have resulted from a fight for the island of Japan. With the current conflicts we have the luxury of debating the finer points and legalities of war and conflict. The kind of  hatred that seems to permeate both sides of this conflict was created through cruel and personal actions by one side on the other.  One thing is to shoot an enemy combatant and kill him, it is altogether a different thing to kill him and cut his genitals off and stick them in his mouth for his comrades or his people to see.  Yet these are the types of actions that have been carried out by both sides. As to what constitutes an innocent in a battlefield, that is open for debate.  Did the mothers, sisters, cousins provide food and shelter for their sons, husbands, fathers fighting the Russians.  Did they lie to hide their whereabouts?  Did they hide arms and munitions for them?  Where their younger children put to rec the Russian soldier positions for later ambush?  All these things may to some signal a change in status from non-combatant to combatant. Afterall these actions contribute to the death of Russian soldiers and to thwarting the policies of the government.

This heinous act will just invite official and unofficial acts of retribution from Russia. Â I can easily see parents of the murdered children starting or supporting paramilitary groups for the sole purpose of revenge. Â Barring that, Russian soldiers will surely have this event foremost in their minds if and when they are utlized in retaliatory operations...it is inevitable and so the cycle of violence will continue...... Politically and strategically, it is hard to think what this murderous act will accomplish for the Chechen separatists overall.... except to turn the world and Russians who may have been sympathetic to their cause against them....