-
Should you upgrade your GPU or CPU for faster gaming? We tested many hardware combos to find out.
I started reading these posts because there were 13. It started out that amd supposedly stole technology. I went straight from page 1 to page 13, what a difference 12 pages makes. They are compleatly different topics.
I know a sorny when i see one.
I know a sorny when i see one.
damn i missed this. i forgot i had posted in here.
i see Willamette_sucks has found his way in here as well, but only to make an ass out of him self.
so whats up? who died and who is going to die?
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/scamtron2000/Lochel.html" target="_new"> <font color=red>go to my site</font color=red> </A>
i see Willamette_sucks has found his way in here as well, but only to make an ass out of him self.
so whats up? who died and who is going to die?
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/scamtron2000/Lochel.html" target="_new"> <font color=red>go to my site</font color=red> </A>
dhlucke
Polypheme
- Feb 2, 2001
- 31,570
- 0
- 65,780
Wow, politics in here!! Oh oh....
First off, I think the Bush Administration has really stepped up to the plate. Notice the word administration. They have found themselves in a mess that has been in the making for 8 years plus and will still be around long after their 4 or 8 years are up.
Americans have a hard time remembering the past. You can go all the way back to the Wilson administration and see how we tried to isolate ourselves and at the same time bully the world. That's the position we were in when Bush took office. It's the same position we were in during the Vietnam War. We tried to isolate ourselves during WWII as well. It doesn't work. So now we've had to step up and act.
During the Clinton Administration we created a whole myriad of problems that I'm sure my grandkids will be paying for dearly. He set up America to be attacked by not acting appropriately during attacks on America. The Clinton administration was a very well oiled machine. They had the press very well understood and were very influenced by public opinion. Any action that even hinted at a bad press release was avoided. Thus every single one of our military operations were very conservative in fear of causalities. You can't win that way. Soldiers die during any battle. The point is to lose as little as possible while still winning. Clinton didn't understand that. He backed out of Somalia as well as Iraq. He screwed up during kosavo and the Balkans. He tried to remotely bomb Bin Laden, missed, and gave up. The USS Cole was never avenged, the embassies were never avenged, and the 1993 WTC was never avenged. He set a precedence that the USA would give up if any casualties would be involved. He gave an illusion that we now have to overcome. That will take a long time. I don't care how powerful the USA is, the reputation has been made. His foreign affairs will go down in the history books as the worst we've seen and for all we know will cause other problems. We still have to see what the future holds for us in Iraq, Korea and China. It's not going to be good.
The only reason Clinton was trying to bring peace to the table in Israel was due to his lack of other options. I honestly think he thought he could smooth talk his way in there. He thought it would be an easy way to get something good written under his name in the history books. He was wrong. Very wrong. Very very wrong.
<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
First off, I think the Bush Administration has really stepped up to the plate. Notice the word administration. They have found themselves in a mess that has been in the making for 8 years plus and will still be around long after their 4 or 8 years are up.
Americans have a hard time remembering the past. You can go all the way back to the Wilson administration and see how we tried to isolate ourselves and at the same time bully the world. That's the position we were in when Bush took office. It's the same position we were in during the Vietnam War. We tried to isolate ourselves during WWII as well. It doesn't work. So now we've had to step up and act.
During the Clinton Administration we created a whole myriad of problems that I'm sure my grandkids will be paying for dearly. He set up America to be attacked by not acting appropriately during attacks on America. The Clinton administration was a very well oiled machine. They had the press very well understood and were very influenced by public opinion. Any action that even hinted at a bad press release was avoided. Thus every single one of our military operations were very conservative in fear of causalities. You can't win that way. Soldiers die during any battle. The point is to lose as little as possible while still winning. Clinton didn't understand that. He backed out of Somalia as well as Iraq. He screwed up during kosavo and the Balkans. He tried to remotely bomb Bin Laden, missed, and gave up. The USS Cole was never avenged, the embassies were never avenged, and the 1993 WTC was never avenged. He set a precedence that the USA would give up if any casualties would be involved. He gave an illusion that we now have to overcome. That will take a long time. I don't care how powerful the USA is, the reputation has been made. His foreign affairs will go down in the history books as the worst we've seen and for all we know will cause other problems. We still have to see what the future holds for us in Iraq, Korea and China. It's not going to be good.
The only reason Clinton was trying to bring peace to the table in Israel was due to his lack of other options. I honestly think he thought he could smooth talk his way in there. He thought it would be an easy way to get something good written under his name in the history books. He was wrong. Very wrong. Very very wrong.
<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
As a leader, Clinton sucked; as a speech maker he was very good and charasmatic.
As a leader, Bush is pretty good; as a speech maker he is fair - probably better than most people here.
As a lover Clinton was (well, who cares except Hillary and a bunch of other women?).
What ever your moral ideals, I think a leader should be held to a higher standard, not given more rights. The problem is the "rockstar" phenomenon; you get famous, have money and people backing you up (and covering up) and you think that you can do what ever you want. This demonstrates a severe lack of character in our politicians.
I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
As a leader, Bush is pretty good; as a speech maker he is fair - probably better than most people here.
As a lover Clinton was (well, who cares except Hillary and a bunch of other women?).
What ever your moral ideals, I think a leader should be held to a higher standard, not given more rights. The problem is the "rockstar" phenomenon; you get famous, have money and people backing you up (and covering up) and you think that you can do what ever you want. This demonstrates a severe lack of character in our politicians.
I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
- Dec 31, 2007
- 2,000
- 0
- 19,780
"ok so what. you just love drawing attention to yourself don't you? it's so pathetic.
lets not mention intel stealing via technology ok? hypocrite. you are soo left!"
please stay on topic, the topic has changed to SEA OF GLASS!!!!! the total nuclear devastation of the mideast.
"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
lets not mention intel stealing via technology ok? hypocrite. you are soo left!"
please stay on topic, the topic has changed to SEA OF GLASS!!!!! the total nuclear devastation of the mideast.
"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
eden
Champion
- Oct 3, 2001
- 26,549
- 0
- 50,780
I hate it when they sometimes put news about someone's personal life and make a big story off it.
Last time I heard, BUSH WAS GOING TO THE DENTIST!!! OH NO!!
Seriously the fact they meddle in the politicians' personal life shows is what keeps us from having privacy.
--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
Last time I heard, BUSH WAS GOING TO THE DENTIST!!! OH NO!!
Seriously the fact they meddle in the politicians' personal life shows is what keeps us from having privacy.
--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
xxsk8er101xx
Splendid
- Dec 31, 2007
- 3,967
- 4
- 22,815
what does that have to do with anything compared to what you said ... you have little or no rational thinking
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
lhgpoobaa
Illustrious
- Dec 31, 2007
- 14,462
- 1
- 40,780
hehehe 3 hours exam?
hey, who here thinks that this post is one of amdmeltdufus'es better threads?
certainly looks that way. kinda funny that his hhigh and mighty post gets dragged down to a political discussion
I love helping people in Toms Forums... It reinforces my intellectual superiority!
hey, who here thinks that this post is one of amdmeltdufus'es better threads?
certainly looks that way. kinda funny that his hhigh and mighty post gets dragged down to a political discussion
I love helping people in Toms Forums... It reinforces my intellectual superiority!
I think if the situations was reversed you (and people who think like you) would be screaming bloody murder. Let say Bush was caught screwing some Enron exec's 20 year old daughter. Even today (after Clinton) they would cry for a resignation. I would too.
I guess that kind of behavior not only sets a bad example but left Clinton wide open for bribery by people wanting favors. He denied it to the bitter end. If it hadn't been for the spoo stained dress it would have been swept under the rug forever. Don't tell me he wouldn't have sold out the US to keep it quiet either. I think 20 years (God forbid not sooner) from now (probably after his death) we will know what nuclear secrets the Chinese government got for their campaign contributions too. As far as being a good speaker, everytime the guy spoke he sounded like a used car salesman trying to sell somebody a piece of sh!t.
My cousin and her husband are both Air Force officers. He is a pilot flying missions in the Middle East right now. They and the people they worked with were very upset that the Cole and embassy bombings were never avenged. They felt cheapened by the way it was handled. Her bitterness really shocked me since she and her parents were big Clinton fans (at least at one time).
I don't think most Americans realize how great the threat to our way of life is right now. Sadly, it will take probably take another 9/11 (a much bigger one) for everyone to open their eyes.
The 80+ "suitcase nukes" that are missing from the former Soviet Union is what scares me. How do you stop that? They know Iran has at least 3 of them. If they could get one of those into Washington it would be "Game Over"(like someone was quoted as saying). I support everything we are doing now but you see several senators (just this past week) criticizing Bush's actions. Saying it is costing too much. Don't go after Iraq or Iran. We shouldn't be sending people to go after the small terrorist cells in Yemen, Georgia, Phillipines,etc. Basically the sound like isolationists. They're not bothering us now, let's wait until they do. If more soldiers start getting killed their criticisms will only get louder. The Bush people need to hold their ground and keep up the effort. The cost of the war should not be our top concern right now.
Have you forgot about Viagra? Lol.
The Enron analogy is true. People are assuming he is involved since he was a Texas oilman. The <i>most</i> that could be said now is that Enron gave campaign money and got nothing in return. Clinton got a power plant approved and a $100,000 check was in the mail the next week.
The Enron analogy is true. People are assuming he is involved since he was a Texas oilman. The <i>most</i> that could be said now is that Enron gave campaign money and got nothing in return. Clinton got a power plant approved and a $100,000 check was in the mail the next week.
I hear that, but if you look around Bush has the large chunk of the US pop on his side and as long as we the people put pressure on those idiots, I mean senitors, we will finish what we started.
Everything that I've read and heard, Bush isn't going to stop, and honestly that is really what we need. I've talked, well mostly argued with people that say we shouldn't be there, that we brought 9/11 upon ourselves.
I usual answer is, ok, fine if that is how you feel. Then put yourself in one of the people that lost a loved one in 9/11. They won't saying I can't, and I usually say because you are a cold hearted bastard.......
Its one thing to attack us policitcally, its a whole other thing to kill 3000 innocent people because you disagree with our way of life. Those people died because Bin Lawdin wanted to keep his power that he has. That is what the terrorism is really about. About power, after Afgan won the war against the USSR Bin Lawdin didn't have anyone to fight and keep his power that he had built up. Once the US invaded Iraq, he had found his great evil to fight once again. He had found something to keep his power alive.
I have a lot of muslim friends and they have all said, they want to get ahold of him, because its men like him that give muslims bad names.
Even if we have to go into Iraq alone.......it is worth the price, because Iraq did help fund the bombing, they need to pay.........and what if we don't go after them, and next time they don't use planes......but the nukes that are missing.....
It won't just be game over for US..........it will be game over for the world as we know it.
Everything that I've read and heard, Bush isn't going to stop, and honestly that is really what we need. I've talked, well mostly argued with people that say we shouldn't be there, that we brought 9/11 upon ourselves.
I usual answer is, ok, fine if that is how you feel. Then put yourself in one of the people that lost a loved one in 9/11. They won't saying I can't, and I usually say because you are a cold hearted bastard.......
Its one thing to attack us policitcally, its a whole other thing to kill 3000 innocent people because you disagree with our way of life. Those people died because Bin Lawdin wanted to keep his power that he has. That is what the terrorism is really about. About power, after Afgan won the war against the USSR Bin Lawdin didn't have anyone to fight and keep his power that he had built up. Once the US invaded Iraq, he had found his great evil to fight once again. He had found something to keep his power alive. I have a lot of muslim friends and they have all said, they want to get ahold of him, because its men like him that give muslims bad names.
Even if we have to go into Iraq alone.......it is worth the price, because Iraq did help fund the bombing, they need to pay.........and what if we don't go after them, and next time they don't use planes......but the nukes that are missing.....
It won't just be game over for US..........it will be game over for the world as we know it.
Atolsammeek
Distinguished
- Dec 31, 2007
- 1,112
- 0
- 19,280
Try this one UN Criminal Court Threatens U.S. Soldiers In Fight Against Terrorism
February 26, 2002
By Tom DeWeese
U.S. soldiers and pilots are risking their lives fighting the terrorists who killed almost 5,000 innocent Americans on September 11th. They have been using massive firepower to rain destruction down on the hide outs of Osama bin Laden and those who help to hide him. Once the evil ones are destroyed in Afghanistan, the war theater will shift to other nations that aid and abet terrorists. Our soldiers are heroes in the tradition of the Doughboys of World War I and the GI’s of World War II, who also sought to vanquish evil from the face of the earth.
However, when our conquering heroes come home, rather than victory parades, they may face criminal prosecution. And they may find themselves tried for war crimes by judges from the very countries they just defeated. Such is the reality of the United Nation’s International Criminal Court (ICC).
UN propaganda sells the vision of the ICC as a tool for bringing international criminals like bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Qadhafi to justice. The truth is, the court is more likely to be used as a tool for those criminals, against the United States. In a letter to President Bush, Senator Jesse Helms said, "instead of helping the United States go after real war criminals and terrorists, the International Criminal Court has the unbridled power to intimidate our military people and other citizens with bogus, politicized prosecutions. Similar creations of the United Nations have shown this to be inevitable."
Unlike any other treaty in history, the UN International Criminal Court ignores national laws and declares jurisdiction over all nations, whether they have ratified it or not. Once 60 nations sign on, the ICC becomes international law. The ICC defines as a war crime, any attack by our soldiers with knowledge that inescapable collateral deaths or injuries "to civilians or damage to civilian objects or wide-spread, long-term damage to the natural environment... would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated." In other words, you can have a war, but don’t break anything and don’t hurt civilians or the environment.
It is physically impossible for the military to comply with those restrictions and still achieve its mission. Bombs go awry. Civilians get in the way. Intelligence agents make mistakes and target the wrong buildings. In the early days of the war on terrorism, with little intelligence on the ground, U.S. bombs mistakenly fell into a residential neighborhood and killed civilians. A Cruise missile strayed from its target and may have killed some UN operatives who were working to clear mines. Several civilians were killed in an Afghan village during bombing runs. Are the U.S. soldiers who are responsible for these actions to be prosecuted by the ICC?
Is that what should have happened to the airmen on board the U.S. planes that dropped atomic bombs on Japan in World War II? Keep in mind, those bombs were dropped in order to save thousands of American lives because the United States knew the Japanese were prepared to stand to the last man to ward off an invasion. Civilians were killed, but many more lives were saved by the action. Under the UN’s ICC rules, the Americans would have been treated as the villains, not the Japanese.
Consider too, that the Taliban used innocent civilians as human shields against U.S. bombs. Saddam Hussein used the same tactic in the Gulf War. Under ICC rules, these cowards would get away with such a tactic as a helpless U.S. military would be forced to stand by, waiting for their targets to stand away from women’s skirts.
War is not a video game and it’s not an Olympic event. War is hell. Innocent people die. 5,000 of them were Americans. More will die if the U.S. has its hands tied by the United Nations’ International Criminal Court.
But the International Criminal Court represents even greater threats to American sovereignty and Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. Unlike the American system of justice, the ICC would not perform trials by juries of peers; would not guarantee bail; and would not grant prisoners the right to face their accusers. The United States judicial system would not be permitted to intervene on behalf of American citizens.
More frightening is the manner in which the UN will choose the eighteen judges who will each serve for nine year terms. They will be elected by a two-thirds vote of the nations which ratify the court. This was the same process used to oust the United States last Spring from its long-held seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The United States would hold one vote against the likes of Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, the very nations which now protect and even foster terrorists. Will the court elect a judge from Red China, where American rights aren’t just foreign, but represent the enemy? It doesn’t take a genius to see the direction the UN’s court will take when American soldiers stand on trial.
There is one more important point that must not be overlooked concerning the overwhelming power that the ICC will hold. The Court can prosecute anyone who violates UN treaties, including environmental agreements like the Biodiversity Treaty and those covering World Heritage Sites. This one provision makes the ICC a direct threat to ALL American citizens. Case in point was the Crown Butte Gold Mine that was shut down by UN intervention in 1997. Crown Butte was located on private property, miles from Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone was designated by the UN to be a World Heritage Site. The UN determined that the mine was a direct threat to Yellowstone and declared it the first ever "endangered" World Heritage Site. Had there been an International Criminal Court in place, there is little doubt that the Crown Butte owners would have been put on trial for violating a UN treaty.
The UN needs only twenty-two more nations to ratify the Court in order for it to become international law. Senator Helms is leading the fight to keep America out of it. Calling it the "International Kangaroo Court," last year, Helms introduced the American Service Members’ Protection Act (S.857) to exempt American soldiers and leaders from ICC prosecution. Congress has refused to act on the bill. Last month, in the wake of the terrorist attacks and the war in Afghanistan, Helms tried to attach the bill to the Defense Authorization Act, but the Senate failed to act on the amendment.
Senator Helms’ bill would: prohibit use of taxpayer funding for the ICC; prohibit the sharing of classified information; restrict the U.S. role in UN peacekeeping missions unless the UN specifically exempts U.S. troops from prosecution; blocks U.S. aid to allies unless they too sign accords to shield U.S. troops on their soil from ICC prosecution; and authorizes any necessary actions to free U.S. soldiers improperly handed over to the ICC. President Bush has endorsed S.857. It’s even being supported by the State Department. Yet the U.S. Senate, led by Majority Leader Tom Daschle, has refused to enact the bill and protect American soldiers as they fight the war on terrorism. Instead, they cater to the United Nations.
Terrorists have murdered our people and disrupted our lives. They’ve forced us to put soldiers in our airports and around bridges. We have military planes guarding our borders and air space. We’re afraid to use our mail system. We are being frightened into surrendering our liberties in exchange for security. Their hatred of America’s freedoms is forcing us to live in fear. For their violence against us, they deserve to die.
This is not the time for muddle-headed international bureaucrats to call for debates and resolutions. It’s not the time to allow those with an anti-American agenda to stop us from freeing ourselves from the terrorist threat. This is not the time to encumber our soldiers as they try to rid the world of these murderers. This is not the time to pretend that the United Nations has any relevance in the drive for peace, justice and security. This is the time for America to stand for its own self interest, to declare its sovereignty and to reject any initiative that tries to block our way.
The UN’s International Criminal Court is a dangerous and powerful tool for those who seek to weaken the independence of the United States. Senator Daschle and the rest of Congress have a duty to protect the U.S. Constitution from attack by the UN’s ICC. It must be rejected by the U.S. at all costs. Senator Helms’ American Service Members Protection Act is a major step in the right direction. Once the United States refuses to participate, the ICC will prove to be another useless UN folly.
February 26, 2002
By Tom DeWeese
U.S. soldiers and pilots are risking their lives fighting the terrorists who killed almost 5,000 innocent Americans on September 11th. They have been using massive firepower to rain destruction down on the hide outs of Osama bin Laden and those who help to hide him. Once the evil ones are destroyed in Afghanistan, the war theater will shift to other nations that aid and abet terrorists. Our soldiers are heroes in the tradition of the Doughboys of World War I and the GI’s of World War II, who also sought to vanquish evil from the face of the earth.
However, when our conquering heroes come home, rather than victory parades, they may face criminal prosecution. And they may find themselves tried for war crimes by judges from the very countries they just defeated. Such is the reality of the United Nation’s International Criminal Court (ICC).
UN propaganda sells the vision of the ICC as a tool for bringing international criminals like bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Qadhafi to justice. The truth is, the court is more likely to be used as a tool for those criminals, against the United States. In a letter to President Bush, Senator Jesse Helms said, "instead of helping the United States go after real war criminals and terrorists, the International Criminal Court has the unbridled power to intimidate our military people and other citizens with bogus, politicized prosecutions. Similar creations of the United Nations have shown this to be inevitable."
Unlike any other treaty in history, the UN International Criminal Court ignores national laws and declares jurisdiction over all nations, whether they have ratified it or not. Once 60 nations sign on, the ICC becomes international law. The ICC defines as a war crime, any attack by our soldiers with knowledge that inescapable collateral deaths or injuries "to civilians or damage to civilian objects or wide-spread, long-term damage to the natural environment... would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated." In other words, you can have a war, but don’t break anything and don’t hurt civilians or the environment.
It is physically impossible for the military to comply with those restrictions and still achieve its mission. Bombs go awry. Civilians get in the way. Intelligence agents make mistakes and target the wrong buildings. In the early days of the war on terrorism, with little intelligence on the ground, U.S. bombs mistakenly fell into a residential neighborhood and killed civilians. A Cruise missile strayed from its target and may have killed some UN operatives who were working to clear mines. Several civilians were killed in an Afghan village during bombing runs. Are the U.S. soldiers who are responsible for these actions to be prosecuted by the ICC?
Is that what should have happened to the airmen on board the U.S. planes that dropped atomic bombs on Japan in World War II? Keep in mind, those bombs were dropped in order to save thousands of American lives because the United States knew the Japanese were prepared to stand to the last man to ward off an invasion. Civilians were killed, but many more lives were saved by the action. Under the UN’s ICC rules, the Americans would have been treated as the villains, not the Japanese.
Consider too, that the Taliban used innocent civilians as human shields against U.S. bombs. Saddam Hussein used the same tactic in the Gulf War. Under ICC rules, these cowards would get away with such a tactic as a helpless U.S. military would be forced to stand by, waiting for their targets to stand away from women’s skirts.
War is not a video game and it’s not an Olympic event. War is hell. Innocent people die. 5,000 of them were Americans. More will die if the U.S. has its hands tied by the United Nations’ International Criminal Court.
But the International Criminal Court represents even greater threats to American sovereignty and Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. Unlike the American system of justice, the ICC would not perform trials by juries of peers; would not guarantee bail; and would not grant prisoners the right to face their accusers. The United States judicial system would not be permitted to intervene on behalf of American citizens.
More frightening is the manner in which the UN will choose the eighteen judges who will each serve for nine year terms. They will be elected by a two-thirds vote of the nations which ratify the court. This was the same process used to oust the United States last Spring from its long-held seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The United States would hold one vote against the likes of Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, the very nations which now protect and even foster terrorists. Will the court elect a judge from Red China, where American rights aren’t just foreign, but represent the enemy? It doesn’t take a genius to see the direction the UN’s court will take when American soldiers stand on trial.
There is one more important point that must not be overlooked concerning the overwhelming power that the ICC will hold. The Court can prosecute anyone who violates UN treaties, including environmental agreements like the Biodiversity Treaty and those covering World Heritage Sites. This one provision makes the ICC a direct threat to ALL American citizens. Case in point was the Crown Butte Gold Mine that was shut down by UN intervention in 1997. Crown Butte was located on private property, miles from Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone was designated by the UN to be a World Heritage Site. The UN determined that the mine was a direct threat to Yellowstone and declared it the first ever "endangered" World Heritage Site. Had there been an International Criminal Court in place, there is little doubt that the Crown Butte owners would have been put on trial for violating a UN treaty.
The UN needs only twenty-two more nations to ratify the Court in order for it to become international law. Senator Helms is leading the fight to keep America out of it. Calling it the "International Kangaroo Court," last year, Helms introduced the American Service Members’ Protection Act (S.857) to exempt American soldiers and leaders from ICC prosecution. Congress has refused to act on the bill. Last month, in the wake of the terrorist attacks and the war in Afghanistan, Helms tried to attach the bill to the Defense Authorization Act, but the Senate failed to act on the amendment.
Senator Helms’ bill would: prohibit use of taxpayer funding for the ICC; prohibit the sharing of classified information; restrict the U.S. role in UN peacekeeping missions unless the UN specifically exempts U.S. troops from prosecution; blocks U.S. aid to allies unless they too sign accords to shield U.S. troops on their soil from ICC prosecution; and authorizes any necessary actions to free U.S. soldiers improperly handed over to the ICC. President Bush has endorsed S.857. It’s even being supported by the State Department. Yet the U.S. Senate, led by Majority Leader Tom Daschle, has refused to enact the bill and protect American soldiers as they fight the war on terrorism. Instead, they cater to the United Nations.
Terrorists have murdered our people and disrupted our lives. They’ve forced us to put soldiers in our airports and around bridges. We have military planes guarding our borders and air space. We’re afraid to use our mail system. We are being frightened into surrendering our liberties in exchange for security. Their hatred of America’s freedoms is forcing us to live in fear. For their violence against us, they deserve to die.
This is not the time for muddle-headed international bureaucrats to call for debates and resolutions. It’s not the time to allow those with an anti-American agenda to stop us from freeing ourselves from the terrorist threat. This is not the time to encumber our soldiers as they try to rid the world of these murderers. This is not the time to pretend that the United Nations has any relevance in the drive for peace, justice and security. This is the time for America to stand for its own self interest, to declare its sovereignty and to reject any initiative that tries to block our way.
The UN’s International Criminal Court is a dangerous and powerful tool for those who seek to weaken the independence of the United States. Senator Daschle and the rest of Congress have a duty to protect the U.S. Constitution from attack by the UN’s ICC. It must be rejected by the U.S. at all costs. Senator Helms’ American Service Members Protection Act is a major step in the right direction. Once the United States refuses to participate, the ICC will prove to be another useless UN folly.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question Can you increase the size of an existing partition in Windows without losing data?
- Started by Balic Blackthorn
- Replies: 13
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Question Inconsistent FPS, and GPU usage drops while gaming ?
- Latest: Therealhandyman1957
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram