Guns allowed in America...

[Starwars4J]

Good god, jinzo, you said what I wanted to in a way I couldn't

*slow clap*

[Hobbes]

Emm...Clinton declared war on former Yougoslavia...

So there has always been a war..or two :-/

Not exactly. Clinton threatened former Yugoslavia with air strikes which then were executed by NATO, led by the US. That "battle" won it. He didn't really declare war. Yes, he bombed the country but at least his "reasons" (suppression of Albania) weren't fake.

[JINZONINGEN73]

I was tired when I typed up yesterday's response, but in the back of my head, I KNEW I'd forgotten to hit something major.

I have to go back to this sarcastic AND 100% FALSE quote:

SARCASM STARTS HERE

I love America! I love the fact that I can go down to my local ghetto weapons shop, buy a fully-automatic AK-47 legally, and pop some caps! I love hunting the po-po with my .50 cal rifle (.50 cal bullets are about 6cm long, btw), and I love doing school shootings with the Uzi my adult friend bought me! When I bring my AK-47 deer hunting, there isn't any usable meat left on the remains of the carcass! Yay for military weapons legal for the general population!\

SARCASM ENDS HERE

America is crazy. I don't think guns should be outlawed, but assault rifles and submachine guns should be.

Dude... you can NOT BUY MACHINEGUNS IN AMERICA, unless there's federal clearance.

You haven't been able to since 1934... which makes me wonder where you've been for over 72 years.

If you go into a gun shop and ask for an UZI, the shop owner will probably look at you like you're mentally handicapped, followed by something along the lines of, "You must be from the city" or "Watch less movies, kid".

Express your disdain for a tool that you personally feel you can not responsibly control yourself, but don't lie about the tool (gun) to get people in other countries worked up and angrily shocked.

http://www.factcheck.org/article258.html

Since I'm a person who considers life too short for lies and deceit, I'll quote some important things from the site below (in other words, I'm on a roll lol):

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2000/june00/psrjune2000.html

The Lies Behind Gun Control

"We need more gun regulations." False. There is no academic evidence that gun regulations prevent crime and plenty of evidence that they encourage crime. It stands to reason that, if we disarm those likely to obey the gun laws, we make crime more attractive, profitable and likely for those who do not obey the law. Washington, D.C. has the strictest gun control laws in the country and the highest murder rate, 69 per 100,000, while other major cities with more gun freedom have only a fraction of that rate. 200 scholars from major universities (Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, UCLA) released an open letter to Congress on June 16, 1999 stating that proposed new gun laws are ill-advised: "With the 20,000 gun laws already on the books, we advise Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to investigate whether many of the existing laws may have contributed to the problems we currently face."

"The United States has a higher murder rate than other countries because Americans own so many guns." False. Switzerland and Israel have more gun ownership than the United States and their murder rate is far less. Switzerland has more guns per person than any country in the world, yet is one of the safest places to be. All males age 20 to 42 are required to keep fully automatic rifles or pistols at home. It's a common sight to see Israelis carrying sidearms. On the other hand, Brazil and Russia have complete gun control, and their murder rate is five times that of the United States.

Oh, what's that? Lots of FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons = safety? But that's IMPOSSIBLE! :-D

"Guns in the home are so dangerous because most murders are acquaintance murders, that is, someone you know gets angry and picks up an available gun." False. The vast majority of "acquaintances" who kill involve drug dealers, gangs, prostitutes, cab drivers, barroom brawlers, etc., and 90% of murderers have criminal records.

"The easy availability of guns in the home contributes to crimes of passion and domestic violence." False. Denying guns denies a woman the ability to defend herself against an abusive man. Guns equalize the means of physical terror between men and women.

"Passive resistance is the safest response to an attacker." False. It depends on the means you have to resist. If a woman has only her fists to defend against a rapist, she's not likely to be successful with active resistance. But if the woman has a gun, active resistance can mean the difference between rape and safety.

The "increase in rampage killings" shows we need gun control. False again. Professor Lott, who did a couple of thousand hours of research on this issue, found that there has been no upward national trend in such killings since the mid-1970s.

"We need safe storage laws." False. States that passed "safe storage" laws have high crime rates, especially higher rates of rape and aggravated assault against women.

"We need waiting periods and background checks to reduce crime and youth violence." False. No academic study has shown that crime is reduced by waiting periods or background checks.

Clinton brags that we are safer because "the Brady law has kept 500,000 criminals from buying handguns." False. The only academic research done on the Brady law showed that the Brady waiting period has had no significant impact on murder or robbery rates and is associated with a small increase in rape and aggravated-assault rates, perhaps due to removing victims' ability to defend themselves.

"Guns create a terrible danger of accidental deaths." False. Rep. James Traficant (D-OH) told the House: "Something does not add up, the number of accidental deaths involving guns average 1,500 per year; and the number of accidental deaths caused by doctors, surgeons, and hospitals average 120,000 a year. That means ... [it is] 80 times more possible of being killed accidentally by a doctor than a gun." (April 4, 2000)

"We should register guns and license gun owners just like automobiles, and that won't lead to confiscation because we haven't confiscated cars." That's a false analogy. There are 130 million automobiles in the United States weighing about a ton each and confiscation would be impossible. We've seen gun confiscation and its results in many other countries. The analogy to automobiles also fails because cars are not used in self-defense to protect lives.

"The gun show loophole most be closed." False. There is no gun show loophole. Anyone who is engaged in the business of selling firearms, whether at a gun show or a fixed retail store, must fill out a government registration form on every buyer and get FBI permission through the National Instant Check System for every sale. There is no evidence that gun shows are an important source of criminals' guns. A 1997 National Institute of Justice study in December 1997 reported that only 2% of felons acquired their guns at gun shows and those included purchases from licensed dealers who conducted background checks.

"Assault weapons should be banned." False. Civilian assault weapons are not machine guns. They are just ordinary guns that have a pseudo-military appearance. They do not fire faster, the bullets are not especially powerful, and they are slower than bullets from hunting rifles. Semi-automatic guns do not "spray" bullets and are not machine guns, they require a separate pull of the trigger for each shot to be fired just like a revolver. (Fully-automatic military assault rifles are not part of the current gun debate.)

So you could say that anti-gun activists calling them "assault weapons" are either suckers, or the liars lying to the suckers... controlling them with a nonsensical fear of that which is not there.

"Handguns must be banned." False. The law abiding, by definition, will abide by the law; law violators will not. Handguns will always be available at some price; demand will create its own supply.

"We must get rid of the Saturday Night Special." False. This is a small, low-caliber, short-barreled, not-too-expensive gun. Not only does this type of gun have a legitimate sports and recreational use, it is the best defensive weapon for poor, inner-city residents who are the most likely potential victims of crime. Why deny them protection?

"The American Society of Pediatrics says that handguns should be banned." But the pediatricians' statement is based on the usual bogus statistics, not on any scientific study. If the pediatricians did a scientific study, they might reach the same conclusion that Professor Lott did, namely, that more guns in the hands of law-abiding people result in less crime.

We are told that "we need zero tolerance in the schools about guns." But schools were a lot safer prior to the 1970s, when guns in schools were very common. Professor Lott has pointed out that, "until 1969, virtually every public high school in New York City had a shooting club. High school students carried their guns to school on the subways in the morning . . . and regularly competed in city-wide shooting contests." When guns were so easily accessible, even inside schools, why didn't we have the problems that we have today? The reason can't be that kids take guns to school.

I like that last point, as my dad (born in 1933) tells stories of how he and his friends brought their rifles and guns into class for "show and tell" days.

Noone died. lol

Edited September 22, 2006 by JINZONINGEN 73

[Asuka]

I was tired when I typed up yesterday's response, but in the back of my head, I KNEW I'd forgotten to hit something major.

Express your disdain for a tool that you personally feel you can not responsibly control yourself, but don't lie about the tool (gun) to get people in other countries worked up and angrily shocked.

I like that last point, as my dad (born in 1933) tells stories of how he and his friends brought their rifles and guns into class for "show and tell" days.

Noone died. lol

So i guess everything is fine. I like weapons (tools....) by myself. They are cute, but sometimes

somebody bites the dust.... lol

Dude... you can NOT BUY MACHINEGUNS IN AMERICA, unless there's federal clearance.

Federal clearance....Clearance....Federal.... i think i like the sound....

"We need more gun regulations." False. There is no academic evidence that gun regulations prevent crime and plenty of evidence that they encourage crime. ....to investigate whether many of the existing laws may have contributed to the problems we currently face."

I

[TaltosVT]

I don't usually get into gun debates because I tend to be on both sides of the argument.

From what I can tell, the original reason behind America's right to bear arms was for the formation of militias. The militias were for the protection of the community, whether it was against indian attack, government attack, or attacks by headless horsemen.

In a case like that, it makes sense. I certainly don't want my government saying "I can own a gun, but you can't. Now do what I say or I'll shoot you." In a case like that, I'd like to be able to defend myself somehow.

On the other hand, I personally can't stand guns. I won't have one in my house. So every time you hear someone say that all Americans are toting guns around and filling their houses with them, you've got proof right here in writing that it's not so. I do own a couple of swords, but my skill level with them is such that I'd probably chop out my own liver before being able to defend myself with them.

I do, however, have the choice to own weapons, which to me is the important part.

A lot of people twist the right to own a firearm into something else. Most commonly it's "I have the right to protect myself!" While that's basically true, what they really should be saying is "My neighbors and I have a duty to protect our community from outside forces that might destroy it." Our right to bear arms is really a right to form militias. Of course, these days if you form a militia, the government will probably come in and blow up your commune, but that's another discussion.

Oh, in the case of a headless horseman attack, you're pretty much doomed anyway because they are already dead, and most likey won't be bothered much by bullets.

-Taltos

[JINZONINGEN73]

A lot of people twist the right to own a firearm into something else. Most commonly it's "I have the right to protect myself!" While that's basically true, what they really should be saying is "My neighbors and I have a duty to protect our community from outside forces that might destroy it." Our right to bear arms is really a right to form militias. Of course, these days if you form a militia, the government will probably come in and blow up your commune, but that's another discussion.

The only twisting is when the people try to say it's not the right to protect themselves (and those around them).

The anti-gunners will constantly interpret and reinterpret the 2nd amendment to mean militias aren't individuals, merely the beginning of government / community run armed parties.

But they never bother to read the stuff that the signers of said document say elsewhere, which describe their intentions specifically with no room for interpretation.

Of course we need more of them.... how else we should get rid of the mosquitoes?

... ...Maybe I'm losing something in understanding your grasp of the english language, but we're not talking about mosquitos. We're talking about forces larger than you which mean to impose horrible things on you.

Mosquitos are merely swatted... and all together ignored, if you keep your cool.

Most of your retorts really are just kind of biased and slightly nonsensical.

I

[Asuka]

Most of your retorts really are just kind of biased and slightly nonsensical.

You are very exactly right with your conclusion. Because this was also my straight intention. I could unfortunately not avoid to interpret the arguments of professor Lott and others quoted by you in exact this kind and i felt the strong need to adapt my own statements gladly to the special style of your sources. And why, you may ask yourself, do i feel uncomfortable with professor Lott? Maybe this is an answer:

Here are the facts: Like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, the University of Virginia, and many other excellent schools, the University of Chicago has an endowed chair created by a single large donation from the John M. Olin Foundation. The Foundation exercises no control over who is appointed to the Olin Chair at any school, and no control over any professor

[Peoples_General]

:-|

Did you know that there are different TYPES of guns that civilians are allowed use -vs- those allowed to use by the military and police force? Not to mention the different bullets.

I think you people need to do some further research into these things rather than just shooting off.

Otherwise you will be NO BETTER than those... "uninformed individuals" in America who decide that Indians = Arab = Muslim = Terrorist.

Do some further research, please. Knowledge is the greatest power anyone can have.

[phoinix]

:-|

Did you know that there are different TYPES of guns that civilians are allowed use -vs- those allowed to use by the military and police force? Not to mention the different bullets.

And can those different guns like...kill?? as the many that died at schools all over america lately?i think it was like 3 schools in 2 weeks!wOW i think thats a new record!

I think you people need to do some further research into these things rather than just shooting off.

and when did americans do any research about anything?Did you know that Iraq has no chemical weapons?so why are your soldiers still there? i think they call it OIL (ofcourse i am sarcastic!)

Do some further research, please. Knowledge is the greatest power anyone can have.

Again like the knowledge americans have when it comes to Iraq or september 11..

Come on people your goverment controlls you like crazy!!

Have you seen the new republican TV add?? please do...and get some pop-corn with that...

Everything is a show for those people!!!

i couldnt find the new one but this one is also just for laughs!

[Peoples_General]

Republicans, Democrats, whatever... *n*

Thats why I belong to no political party because my own person views differs greatly from those guys. My own values are closer to the Universal Humanitarianism or Unitarian Universalist. Since they have no political party here in the US, I ain't voting ever. :P

--------

Besides....

[Minifig Lecturer]

however, in all states it is legal to have hunting weapons.

- BrickMiner

Pity animals dont have guns to hunt the hunters :-(

The Americans went into Iraq to make "the world a safer place" and now all the Iraqis have guns :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D Americans are legends *y*

[dviddy]

Pity animals dont have guns to hunt the hunters :-(

The Americans went into Iraq to make "the world a safer place" and now all the Iraqis have guns :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D Americans are legends *y*

And they didn't before?

There's this thing many of you seem to be missing.

It's called the Black Market. Criminals who want guns are still going to get them. Gun laws or not. Groups like the insurrectionists in Iraq, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, et al are going to get their weaponry whether we allow gun sales or not. That, and the weaponry they're usin' against us over in Iraq and Afghanistan are weapons that aren't allowed to be sold here to the general populace anyway.

If you're going to make sarcastic remarks, at least make ones that have some factual basis.

<<DV>>

[JINZONINGEN73]

Pity animals dont have guns to hunt the hunters :-(

Likewise, pity mice don't have talons to fight hawks.

That seals don't have giant choppers to combat sharks.

That flies don't have a venomous bite and a pair of scissors to escape from spiders.

Look, there'll come a time when our bodies are removed from nature, inorganic bodies that don't require meat... but for now, we eat.

The Americans went into Iraq to make "the world a safer place" and now all the Iraqis have guns :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D Americans are legends *y*

Well, it's bad for the Americans there, sure. But is it bad for the Iraqi citizens? Sure, at first. But in time, with a bit more stabilization, they may mean life or death in future invasions.

Death squads coming to your house in the middle of the night to remove "dad" because he spoke out against your leader?

Not without the potential for extreme blood loss.

That's a grim yet good thing.

[M'Kyuun]

Concerning the topic of American gun laws, consider the country's origins. The "Founding Fathers" were in large part prior British citizens who, out of disdain for the strict regulations afforded them by the British government, decided to create a new country with leaner laws and greater freedoms. I'd imagine they undertook this task with something akin to trepidation, given their resources. Winning a war with Britain, achieving acknowledgment of independence from the Crown, gaining acceptance of a new non-monarchial government, and endowing the citizenry with the freedoms they felt they'd been previously denied in their homelands was no small undertaking, since most American settlers still felt patriotic to their own countries. Given the odds, I'm amazed that the Revolutionary War ever happened, let alone succeeded. Although they were thoughtful, learned men, I somehow doubt the Founders could have in any way predicted the problems we face today, given the societal changes over the past 200+ years. Nor can I believe that the Constitution was a rapidly conceived document; rather, I imagine much squabbling, ill-feelings, and sleepless nights went into the thing. When they set pen to paper, I believe they looked as far ahead as possible, and thus created a malleable governing document that could change with the generations to come. However, I don't think they could have forseen the moral decline that underlies the problems in my country. If everyone was an honest, law-abiding citizen, the possession of weapons for defense and recreation would be perfectly acceptable to even the abstainers. Discipline and punishment, on the whole, have waned in America, much to its degradation. As we become more permissive as a society, both in terms of our laws and attitudes, is it unreasonable to expect crime, despite its means and motivations, to escalate? My thoughts.

And concerning Iraq, I hope our war, and the subsequent disruption of Saddam's regime, will give the Iraqi people some small respite from the oppression, fear, and abuse he maintained in his country while in power. As for their oil, it is an age-old adage: to the victor go the spoils. I don't personally condone it, but I have to concede that America's possession of said resource strengthens us economically in the future.

[Mister Phes]

Due to this "tradition" of yours children can find guns at home and i have heard of many accidents where kids find their dads gun and use them! We have also heard about students going mad in school and killing of teachers and students...My my that is some tradition! But thats what happens if you can find a gun so easily!!

At least they don't have shooting LEGO cannons. That must avoid many injuries...

[JINZONINGEN73]

I believe they looked as far ahead as possible, and thus created a malleable governing document that could change with the generations to come. However, I don't think they could have forseen the moral decline that underlies the problems in my country. If everyone was an honest, law-abiding citizen, the possession of weapons for defense and recreation would be perfectly acceptable to even the abstainers. Discipline and punishment, on the whole, have waned in America, much to its degradation. As we become more permissive as a society, both in terms of our laws and attitudes, is it unreasonable to expect crime, despite its means and motivations, to escalate? My thoughts.

I believe that in both this document (and even made crystal-clear in verbatim in other documents) that they could see ahead into a morally disgusting future.

You have to understand that to have good, "bad" has to be understood.

A person from any time who has lived long enough KNOWS that man does weird things, that what man considers acceptable one year can be considered an unpopular act the next with someone ambitious adding the right spin, etc etc.

Anyone alive a few decades knows that there are some bare-bones, black and white absolutes that need to be at the core to bind the ever-changing changing mass atop it together.

Where guns were taken away, crime rose. Guns were brought back.

An armed citizenry is safer than an unarmed one, both from evil people and evil governments.

They knew this fact quite well, and all you have to do is watch the news to realize even in this modern world of electronics, we're still cavemen.

"stupid dead sheep shoes" next door still wants "Ogg"'s woman.

"Krunk" from a day's walk away still wants "Krank"'s land for it's water source.

And let's not get started on what happens if the neighboring tribe is praying to the sun when you think they should be praying to your invisible moon spirit.

And concerning Iraq, I hope our war, and the subsequent disruption of Saddam's regime, will give the Iraqi people some small respite from the oppression, fear, and abuse he maintained in his country while in power. As for their oil, it is an age-old adage: to the victor go the spoils. I don't personally condone it, but I have to concede that America's possession of said resource strengthens us economically in the future.

Is that accurate though?

If we supposedly invaded Iraq for oil... how?

I mean, gas prices have skyrocketed.

Clinton went after Saddam with the same reasons as Bush... but everyone says Bush did it for his friend's connections to the Halliburton company.

If anything, I'd say the fuel companies devised this as an excuse to make billions (trillions?) of dollars, in preparation for their financial decline looming on the horizon due to new technologies.

Dude, scientists have begun making strange polymers... new plastics that hold an electrical charge AND recharge themself... so an iPod (or a car?) will be able to run merely on the outer shell, no batteries.

Hydrogen is finally getting a bit out more into the light as a decent fuel source, even if only used in part with a hybrid gas engine.

But hey, I'm just speculating.

Here's another possibility:

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

As the dollar falls, other countries start dumping their trading dollars and going Euro... so big daddy America shows the world how crazy it can be.

My point is, even if science has slowed down light, even to the point of sending it backwards on itself:

http://news.zdnet.com/IBM+slows+light,+rea...=feed&subj=zdnn

Even if we can create diamonds more perfect than nature to make data transfer easier and laserguns:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinno...-diamonds_x.htm

Even if we can now remote-control human bodies with a videogame controller against their will:

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_artic...7272&ch=biotech

Even with us on the eve of downloading / uploading memories like in The Matrix:

http://www.physorg.com/news7746.html

Even with invisibility cloaks being created:

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn...ed-at-last.html

Even with cancer's days being numbered:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4734507.stm

Even with "lightbulbs" ready to be replaced with nanite light paint:

http://www.livescience.com/technology/051021_nano_light.html

We've got China building an artificial sun:

http://www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/155689.htm

Japan building a ship to drill to the Earth's core:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...B7F0000&ref=rss

Etc etc etc... we're still primal enough that we need to occasionally defend ourselves from each other.

I think they knew that, regardless of their foresight into modern science.

We are NOT peaceful creatures of light floating around in space, We're still made of animal matter.

And even when nanite technology gets to the point we can have inorganic bodies if we choose... there'll still be human purists messing things up, bringing others to situations where self defense is required.

And on a face to face basis.

[Asuka]

Where guns were taken away, crime rose. Guns were brought back.

There was a trial for this in the United States? Serious-minded? :-P

[Minifig Lecturer]

Guns are legal in the USA because they are BIG BUSINESS (i.e. $$$) That is it. Nothing to do with right to hold arms or safety etc...

Perhaps I am wrong but this is my opinion.

[M'Kyuun]

Guns are legal in the USA because they are BIG BUSINESS (i.e. $$$) That is it. Nothing to do with right to hold arms or safety etc...

Perhaps I am wrong but this is my opinion.

Possession of arms is a provision of the Constitution first and foremost. The gun also plays an important role in American history and tradition. It has become a big business for these reasons, much like the car industry, or even ....the toy industry. :-) In a business-minded world, anything which appeals to a mass market will become a mass marketed commodity. This is true anywhere.

[M'Kyuun]

I believe that in both this document (and even made crystal-clear in verbatim in other documents) that they could see ahead into a morally disgusting future.

You have to understand that to have good, "bad" has to be understood.

A person from any time who has lived long enough KNOWS that man does weird things, that what man considers acceptable one year can be considered an unpopular act the next with someone ambitious adding the right spin, etc etc.

Anyone alive a few decades knows that there are some bare-bones, black and white absolutes that need to be at the core to bind the ever-changing changing mass atop it together.

Is that accurate though?

If we supposedly invaded Iraq for oil... how?

I mean, gas prices have skyrocketed.

Clinton went after Saddam with the same reasons as Bush... but everyone says Bush did it for his friend's connections to the Halliburton company.

If anything, I'd say the fuel companies devised this as an excuse to make billions (trillions?) of dollars, in preparation for their financial decline looming on the horizon due to new technologies.

Jinzo, your penchant for finding interesting scientific articles is commendable.

Allow me to clarify what I meant when I said they looked as far ahead as possible. Consider that the early Americans came from a gentleman's society, where even war was fought in a gentlemanly, albeit foolish, manner, i.e. lining up in opposing orderly formations while taking shots at each other. They disdained the Native Americans' way of fighting because they used stealth, camoflauge, hit-and-run tactics, etc, which are considered tantamount to successful military operations today. This was barbaric in their minds. Their society had much stricter dos and don'ts, proper behaviorisms. Too, rigid observation of the Church's interpretation of Biblical texts was much more highly esteemed. Death was generally the penalty for any perceived heresy. Because they were so steeped in these ideals, I think it would have been difficult for them to forsee a world where abortion, homosexual marriage, or even "time out" for unruly urchins would have found social acceptance. Of course, men murdered each other and committed all sorts of despicable and criminal acts upon one another in those times as well; they were neither naive nor strangers to evil. Humans excel at inhumanity; how it manifests as man progresses technologically becomes the issue. History tells us that nothing inspires man's creativity so prodigiously as war and greed.

As for the oil issue, I believe Iraq posed a realistic threat to the security of America and its allies. By its nature, intelligence and national security measures are secretive, and I believe much of what we knew of Iraqi operations is still protected information, due either to the sensitive nature of the material or to the collection means. Oil was a secondary, but no less important, goal of our occupation because we are a greedy, wasteful country that consumes oil and oil based products on an unprecedented scale. Too, I believe the majority of Americans are ignorant concerning how our governmental, economic, and military organizations operate, and are highly susceptible to gullibility when bombarded by the media's biased and limited views. Oil companies raised prices not because there was a deficit, but because they could, effectively utilizing government and media to great effect, relying on the fear and anxiety raised by a seemingly endless war as justification. I think it none too coincidental that Haliburton received a large part of the contracts to conduct operations in Iraq, given that our Secretary of Defense was the previous CEO. Perhaps I'm just cynical.

[Asuka]

M

[M'Kyuun]

M

[JINZONINGEN73]

Oh, I'm sure there were shenanigans in relation to the Halliburton contracts, but seeing as how Clinton also acted on the same alleged reasons Bush did, it was not the largest reason.

Like I think you said, I'm guessing there's other reasons that helped in the creation of this war... hidden dealings and agends that are nothing short of a worldwide chess game that's been planned out way too far ahead to be visible to anyone not in on it all.

And that's not kooky conspiracy theory... that's slap-in-the-face common sense. :-D

From my gut instinct, I'm thinking that alot of the more insane political stories that are becoming commonplace recently are directly rooted in someone's foresight of trying to get control NOW, right before the really powerful technologies just around the corner make even the smallest man a king.

The other day I was saying to my wife, "It looks like the world's going crazy, so it can sort out what "man" is... before we go out into space and start having entire colonies and countries possibly stumbling onto unlimited resources to do with what they want... in ways that don't jive with the US or UN way of thinking. Watch Bush or someone soon later BAN space occupation".

Well, BAM! Here it is, like clockwork:

"The US has adopted a tough new policy aimed at protecting its interests in space and denying "adversaries" access there for hostile purposes."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6063926.stm

In a way I agree. I don't want religious nutjobs (from ANY religion) finally getting into space, just to be TOTALLY insulated from being spied on, while covertly constructing REAL weapons of mass destruction on a planetary scale.

(Lol... reminds me of Gundam, and crashing colonies & meteors onto unfavorable Earth continents). :-D

... ...man... has this ever gone off topic. :-|