Trauma_Hound

Joined

• started 79 topics
• posted 1,611 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Trauma_Hound

• 
  22

  The Next Vietnam?

  by dubla in

  1. social
  2. current

  ive noticed many posters have predicted this war in iraq to possibly be the next vietnam, and actually one poster (trauma hound) said to mark his words that this would in fact be vietnam all over again.

  im just wondering, do these same posters still feel this way, with this weeks progress into baghdad?

  no doubt there is still more fighting to take place, more lives will be lost, and im not declaring a coalition victory/"all is well" just yet.....but.....it sure doesnt seem to be shaping up as a battle that lasts years, and no victor emerges, does it?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  Ok I said that, I forgot about that post. But still what is your point? This war isn't over yet.
• 
  47

  Rubber Bullets Used On Oakland War Protesters

  by Pleasuredome in

  1. social
  2. current

  you dont think the us admin will start to set up anti-war townships aswell, do you you?

  is this the sort of freedom the aparthied south africa us offers?

  http://www.rense.com/general36/rubberbullets.htm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  Hell no. What do you think, TH?

  They'd have to pry my gun, out of my cold dead hands.
• 
  22

  The Next Vietnam?

  by dubla in

  1. social
  2. current

  ive noticed many posters have predicted this war in iraq to possibly be the next vietnam, and actually one poster (trauma hound) said to mark his words that this would in fact be vietnam all over again.

  im just wondering, do these same posters still feel this way, with this weeks progress into baghdad?

  no doubt there is still more fighting to take place, more lives will be lost, and im not declaring a coalition victory/"all is well" just yet.....but.....it sure doesnt seem to be shaping up as a battle that lasts years, and no victor emerges, does it?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  What exactly does that link, have to what, you claim I did. Hello I didn't write that article! Jesus, I'm getting really sick and tired of this, do you know the difference between, posting and article and actually writing that article?
• 
  104

  Liberals have lost the Iraq argument, so please stop whining...

  by dolphman in

  1. social
  2. current

  nothing you said was going to happen has actually happened.

  the iraqis have welcomed us with open arms.

  we have not decimated baghdad's infrastructure.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/international/worldspecial/09TERR.html

  Republicans Want Terror Law Made Permanent

  By ERIC LICHTBLAU

  ASHINGTON, April 8 — Working with the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans are maneuvering to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers granted to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, officials said today.

  The move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans.

  The landmark legislation expanded the government's power to use eavesdropping, surveillance, access to financial and computer records and other tools to track terrorist suspects.

  When it passed in October 2001, moderates and civil libertarians in Congress agreed to support it only by making many critical provisions temporary. Those provisions will expire, or "sunset," at the end of 2005 unless Congress re-authorizes them.

  But Republicans in the Senate in recent days have discussed a proposal, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, that would repeal the sunset provisions and make the law's new powers permanent, officials said. Republicans may seek to move on the proposal this week by trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.

  Many Democrats have grown increasingly frustrated by what they see as a lack of information from the Justice Department on how its agents are using their newfound powers, and they say they need more time to determine whether agents are abusing those powers.

  The Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, said today that without extensive review, he "would be very strongly opposed to any repeal" of the 2005 time limit. He predicted that Republicans lacked the votes to repeal the limits.

  Indeed, Congressional officials and political observers said the debate might force lawmakers to take stock of how far they were willing to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

  Beryl Howell, a former Democratic aide in the Senate who worked extensively on the 2001 legislation, said that by forcing the issue, Mr. Hatch "is throwing down the gauntlet to people who think the U.S.A. Patriot Act went too far and who want to cut back its powers."

  Justice Department officials in interviews today credited the Patriot Act with allowing the F.B.I. to move with greater speed and flexibility to disrupt terrorist operations before they occur, and they say they wanted to see the 2005 time limit on the legislation lifted.

  "The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.

  Another senior official who also demanded anonymity said the department had held discussions with Congressional Republicans about how that might best be accomplished. "Our involvement has really been just keeping an open ear to the issue as it's proceeding, not to really guide the debate," the official said.

  With the act's provisions not set to expire for more than two and a half years, officials expected that the debate over its future would be many months away. But political jockeying over separate bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senators Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, and Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, appears to have given Senator Hatch the chance to move on the issue much earlier than expected.

  The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, like a terrorist group.

  Advocates say the measure would make it easier for agents to go after "lone wolf" terrorists who are not connected to a foreign group and might have allowed the F.B.I. to get a warrant against Zacarias Moussaoui, known as the 20th hijacker, before the Sept. 11 attacks.

  The proposal was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Republicans are upset because several Democrats say that when the measure reaches the Senate floor for a full vote, perhaps this week or later in the month, they plan to offer amendments that would impose tougher restrictions on the use of secret warrants.

  Among other proposals, Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, wants to add amendments that would require the Justice Department to give detailed information about how the secret warrants are being used and that could give defense lawyers access to some information generated by the warrants in criminal cases.

  Republicans are countering with amendments of their own, including the idea of making the Patriot Act permanent.

  Aides to Senator Hatch would not discuss his views on repealing the time limits in the law.

  But an aide who demanded anonymity said of the "lone wolf" bill: "We support this bill as it is and that's how we want to see it passed. If the Democrats want to amend the bill, then we will offer an equal number of amendments to improve the bill as well. We hope the Democrats will stop holding this bill up."

  Members of the Judiciary Committee, which Mr. Hatch leads, have been working in recent days to reach an agreement over the amendments that will be considered, officials said. But so far neither side appears willing to back down.
• 
  104

  Liberals have lost the Iraq argument, so please stop whining...

  by dolphman in

  1. social
  2. current

  nothing you said was going to happen has actually happened.

  the iraqis have welcomed us with open arms.

  we have not decimated baghdad's infrastructure.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  PS. By the way, what does liberal mean? Someone who supports liberation? freedoms? Is that so unpatriotic or unamerican?

  It would be, if you were a communist.
• 
  102

  SEE THE REAL FACE OF THE WAR IN IRAQ, SEE THE HORROR

  by justhuman in

  1. social
  2. current

  since the media in u.s show nothing about the war in iraq, and bush's administration censor everything that is "bad' for the puplic, here are some shocking photos of how bush is setting free the iraqi people.

  similar view of how watchtower's god will treat everyone who disagrees with them in armageddon.

  bush does not care about the iraqi people.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  Listen to Simon and others TRY and weasel out of every nook and crannie they are now stuck in for supporting Saddam Huseein, the French, the sad UN, and others.

  Umm no one said they supported Saddam, oh my god France disagreed with the US position. Should we invade France now? Now post a link where ANYONE said they supported Saddam, or shut up.
• 
  47

  Rubber Bullets Used On Oakland War Protesters

  by Pleasuredome in

  1. social
  2. current

  you dont think the us admin will start to set up anti-war townships aswell, do you you?

  is this the sort of freedom the aparthied south africa us offers?

  http://www.rense.com/general36/rubberbullets.htm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  Check out this headline from Iraq a few years ago:

  (from the Bahgdad post)

  REAL BULLETS USED ON ANTI-BAATH PARTY PROTESTERS...100s KILLED

  Your point? Are you saying this is worse, so we should just shut up, I'm sure the communist party in china has a job for you.
• 
  22

  The Next Vietnam?

  by dubla in

  1. social
  2. current

  ive noticed many posters have predicted this war in iraq to possibly be the next vietnam, and actually one poster (trauma hound) said to mark his words that this would in fact be vietnam all over again.

  im just wondering, do these same posters still feel this way, with this weeks progress into baghdad?

  no doubt there is still more fighting to take place, more lives will be lost, and im not declaring a coalition victory/"all is well" just yet.....but.....it sure doesnt seem to be shaping up as a battle that lasts years, and no victor emerges, does it?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  Do you have a thing for me dubla? I'm sorry if I have a job, and can't surf this place all day long like you can. Now point to a link where this WOULD be like vietnam, I made references to Somolia, as a possibility. But obviously you can't tell the difference between conjecture, and facts. If anything I said I hoped it wouldn't be like that. Now stop harrasing me, you didn't need to send me a private pm.
• 
  96

  LIBERAL PEOPLE HAVE THEIR PANTIES IN A WAD NOW!

  by dolphman in

  1. social
  2. current

  so, the iraqis did want us to liberate them.

  what are your pathetic responses to the images of cheering iraqis?.

  thank god bush knows better than to listen to you..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  Once again, my point is proven.
• 
  104

  Liberals have lost the Iraq argument, so please stop whining...

  by dolphman in

  1. social
  2. current

  nothing you said was going to happen has actually happened.

  the iraqis have welcomed us with open arms.

  we have not decimated baghdad's infrastructure.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  We are giving away our freedoms just as fast as we can arrange to do so. My in-laws are refugees from Castro's Cuba. They are appalled at seeing the American people give away a LOT of freedom, for a LITTLE security. Soon, we will have neither. My fatherinlaw just shakes his head in disbelief at what he sees going on in the so-called democrat party.

  I'm really confused by this statement, since the new "security" acts, were put together by republicans.

  Dolph, thanks for proving my point.