Ableton Forum

FireForEffect wrote:

astronmr20 wrote:OK. Someone has a knife. They try to stab me repeatedely. I have a gun. I shoot them. Peace attained. Case closed.

Exactly why I have been carrying a gun legally everyday for over a decade.

To nod, what are you going on about? Here is a little background on the Iraq war since you seem to not get it.

Excerpt from wikipedia->

On October 11, 2002, the United States Congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002", giving U.S. President George W. Bush the authority to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not give up his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).

On November 9, 2002, at the urging of the United States government, the UN Security Council passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles".

Resolution 1441 threatened "serious consequences" if these are not met and reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors that were to report back to the UN Security Council after their inspection should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance. Significantly, the Resolution stated that the UN Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter" (United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441).

Due to the imminent invasion on February 15, 2003, the largest ever world-wide protests took place with millions of people on the streets of all continents.

In his March 17, 2003, address to the nation, U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline [1]. This demand was reportedly rejected [2]. Iraq maintained that it had disarmed as required.

The UN weapons inspectors UNMOVIC headed by Hans Blix, who were sent by the UN Security Council pursuant to Resolution 1441, requested more time to complete their report on whether Iraq had complied with its obligation to disarm (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; UNMOVIC).

The International Atomic Energy AgencyIAEA reported a level of compliance by Iraq with the disarmament requirements (UN Security Council Resolution 1441; IAEA) The attempt of the United Kingdom and the United States to obtain a further Resolution authorizing force failed. Thus, the U.S.-led invasion began without the express approval of the United Nations Security Council, and most legal authorities regard it as a violation of the UN Charter. (cf. The UN Security Council and the Iraq war) Several countries protested. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it was illegal." [3] Proponents of the war claim that the invasion had implicit approval of the Security Council and was therefore not in violation of the UN Charter. Despite the discovery of some potential components of WMD manufacturing, no actual weapons of mass destruction were found.
----

Now of course the last line should be updated, especially with the news this past couple weeks about the WMD's being moved to Syria.

So what part of the reason's for going to war don't you get? It had nothing to do with the 9/11 and Saddam connection...officially anyway. It was a pre-emptive strike against an enemy that had repeatedly broken resolutions. We have already gone over this. Iraq sponsors terrorism, is that simple enough for you? Afghanistan does and did as well. See where this takes you? Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan... getting the picture?


and then there is today's news->

IAEA Report Says Iran Has Bomb Plans
Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Iran Says Russia Uranium Plan is Worth Pursuing
VIENNA — A document obtained by Iran on the nuclear black market serves no other purpose than to make an atomic bomb, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.

The finding was made in a report prepared for presentation to the 35-nation IAEA board when it meets, starting Thursday, on whether to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.

The report was made available in full to The Associated Press.

First mention of the documents was made late last year in a longer IAEA report. At that time, the agency said only that the papers showed how to cast "enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms."

The agency refused to make a judgment on what possible uses such casts would have. But diplomats familiar with the probe into Iran's nuclear program said then that the papers apparently were instructions on how to mold highly enriched grade uranium into the core of warheads.

In the brief report obtained Tuesday, however, the agency said bluntly that the 15-page document showing how to cast fissile uranium into metal was "related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components."

Asked about the finding, a senior diplomat close to the IAEA declined to elaborate but emphasized that the documents had no other use.

The report said the document was under agency seal, meaning that IAEA experts were able in theory to re-examine it, but "Iran has declined a request to provide the agency with a copy."

Diplomats familiar with the IAEA investigation of Iran said earlier Tuesday that part of the document recently was given to the agency in an effort to deflect building international momentum to report Iran to the Security Council. But the report did not mention Tehran handing over any papers.

The document was given to Iran by members of the nuclear black market network, the IAEA said. Iran has claimed it did not ask for the document but was given it anyway as part of other black market purchases.

The same network provided Libya with drawings of a crude nuclear bomb which that country handed over to the IAEA as part of its 2003 decision to scrap its atomic weapons program.
--------------
Some of you seem to have not a clue how dangerous Iran is to the rest of the world with a nuke.

noisetonepause wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestive_biscuit

FireForEffect wrote: To nod, what are you going on about?

FireForEffect wrote: Here is a little background on the Iraq war since you seem to not get it.

Excerpt from wikipedia->

FireForEffect wrote: So what part of the reason's for going to war don't you get? It had nothing to do with the 9/11 and Saddam connection...officially anyway.

FireForEffect wrote:It was a pre-emptive strike against an enemy that had repeatedly broken resolutions. We have already gone over this. Iraq sponsors terrorism, is that simple enough for you? Afghanistan does and did as well. See where this takes you? Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan... getting the picture?

FireForEffect wrote: Some of you seem to have not a clue how dangerous Iran is to the rest of the world with a nuke.

astronmr20 wrote:If we REALLY want to get away from middle east oil, we need to buy from russia and drill in alaska.

noisetonepause wrote:That whole case is a clusterfuck of poor communication. We have an anti-blasphemy law here and I'm not really opposed to it (considering some of the racist twats with Tourette's we have to bear and the way many people are misusing my own faith for selling everything from tea to scarves - i've seen a shop in Copenhagen that uses Bodhsattva statues as display stands; I don't necessarily want it to be allowed, I just wish they had the tact to not do it in the first place). I think some of those drawings were out of order, but this whole thing is quickly turning into a farce and the Muslim world seems to care as little about the background for the drawings and the way they were intended just as the chorus of right wingers that are paying lip service to freedom and democracy here (even though their main spokesperson has had the nerve to call a ruling by our supreme court 'political' because she apparently knows better than them - but what about the division of power?) are aggressively disinterested in the feelings behind this strong reaction. It's a classic case of a culture clash that could be avoided by a little more understanding on both sides...

We don't really have censorship in the media, though and I doubt this will have long term consequences for press culture except if it's directly linked to a terrorist attack...
Our ideas of decency are quite different to yours and that's, I think, the only point where we differ (that and we don't have Fox). The blasphemy law has been tested twice (once in the 30's where some nazis were told to STFU, and once in the 60's where the case fell) and will apparently be tested again soon in this case. I dunno really. I just wish that blatantly islamophobic newspaper and its ilk would fuck off and die and make it possibly to breathe in this country again, and also that some of those whining fucking muslims would just chill a little.

-Paws

FireForEffect wrote:In answer to your question, no, people who carry guns legally have caused crime to go down significantly in states where concealed carry permits are allowed. Florida is a model example of this.

I do a lot of training with handguns and rifle's, and I advise anyone who carries to do the same.

forgie wrote:

FireForEffect wrote:In answer to your question, no, people who carry guns legally have caused crime to go down significantly in states where concealed carry permits are allowed. Florida is a model example of this.

I do a lot of training with handguns and rifle's, and I advise anyone who carries to do the same.

Hmmm I'm glad I live in Australia - we also only have cops with guns. The result? Shit loads less violent crime. The rest of the world can see this to be an axiom, why can't Americans? A number of reasons - including the fact that once gun culture is established, it's damn hard to kill it off.

Holy shit people, could we get any more off topic? This pissing match of conservative vs liberal isn't even discussing the philosophies behind the two ideologies. If you aren't smart enough to explore and discuss your own philosophies, then you shouldn't be carrying a fucking gun! God damnit! (oh yeah, and damn to Allah! )