Rants

Here is what I believe is going to happen in Iraq . . .

Firstly Bush is going to "rebuild" Iraq by himself and not allow anyone else besides "coalition" troops to maintain stability in the region and in the world. This isn't his job to do, because it is the international community's responsibitly and duty to maintain stability in the world, and not a country that has some lets say "preferential idealogy." This task of rebuilding Iraq should be left up to Kofi Annon and the UN, because their rulings will have the most legititamacy than any other group. But nonetheless Bush believes that it is his "job" to rebuild Iraq, which really it comes down to him believing that "to the victor goes the spoils," and that since he defeated Iraq, he gets the right to reap the nation of anything he wants. This doesn't make much sense to me, just because the Iraqi people have seen of enough of the imperialist America, and now want their nation to be rebuilt, not re-cultivated with American societal standars and so on, the Iraqi's need an organization in their that will be able to rebuild and care for the people . . . hell the WHO should been in there five weeks ago. Secondly on Bush's road to "rebuilding" I believe that he will take the Iraqi's oil. He will do this on the front that the oil is going into funds that are headed towards rebuilding Iraq, so therefore he isn't taking the oil he is just using for the same purposes that the Iraqi's would hopefully use it for . . . rebuilding. But rather this oil money will not benefit the Iraqi's to the large extent that it should, rather much of the money, not all because that would be to obvious, will be stolen and will be used the same way Bush uses most of American tax money - to benefit his friends in higher position. And thusly Iraq will turn into another Afganistan, will the Drug Lords taking over the nation and, not one single road being built, and not one single step taken towards democracy in that nation.

Lastly, I don't believe that the UN would do a perfect job in Iraq, they had some problems in Bosnia, which they did manage to overcome, but I believe that because the UN is a more neutral body then the US and also that the Iraqi's trust the UN more than they do the US, that the UN would be the better body to oversee this affair. If this is not handled properly every America that lost his life, lost it for nothing, and every Iraqi soldier and civilian that was killed, was killed for no reason. This will be the hardest part of the war, and I don't trust Bush to do it.

Legally, some speech is not protected. Although it is not in the Constitution, it is a precedent just as important as separation of church and state, another practice by the government that is not expressed in the constitution. In Schenck v. United States (1917), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force." It is not free speech for someone to induce panic knowing full well there is no reason because that kind of speech has the capacity to harm the population as a whole.
Likewise, it is not legal to use speech as a weapon. One cannot legally use speech to incite acts of violence or other illegal acts. For example, it would not be legal, or appropriate for me to say, "Go and kill black people on Tuesday." One can also use speech as a weapon against a person's livelihood. This can be tried in civil court. For example, if a student lied and accused a teacher of sexual harrassment, that teacher would be fired. The teacher probably not be able to find any teaching job again and their livelihood would be greatly diminished. If you do not have some sort of deterance for that kind of speech, like "if you lie about me and destroy my life doing so, it's illegal, and i'm going to sue you," every American would fear being destroyed by lies. As far as political speech goes, there are very few limits on that. You can express any viewpoint you want so long as it does not involve inciting people to act violently. Do you think that it is free speech to order people to blow up city buses or to lynch certain groups of people?

Go back and read your last post. Yeah. I'm weeping with embarrassment too. First you assert that free speech has conditions. Show me where it specifies conditions in the constitution, or any other definition, for that matter! Until you do, I'll brand you as a babbling fool. Hell, even if you do manage to back yourself up, I'll still call you a babbling fool. Then you go on to talk about "returning things to the way they never were." WHAT THE FUCK!? Are you saying that just because something hasn't happened yet it should never happen? If that ideology held true throughout history, we'd still be breaking mammoth skulls open with big pointy rocks. This is what I HATE about you political conservatives. You think that new things are bad. I'll admit that technology and recent advances may be somewhat detrimental to our way of life, but progress on the whole is a good thing. Especially political progress. So "returning things to the way they never were" is bogus.

Please prove to me that you're not as much of a dork as I think you are.

Dan, at this point I urge you to pack up and move to Zimbabwe where you can be worshipped as the blue haired god of Spam (low salt of course). Free speech has always been the right to voice your beliefs on the condition that your words aren't ment to cause harm to another person. I have no problem with laws that punish those who use false words as weapons, but I do have a problem with people who want to return things to the way they never were.

You sir, are an idiot. Furthermore, you were off topic. It doesn't matter if it's hard to prove, my point is that it shouldn't exist in a country that has "free speech".

I've got no problem with people like Dan yelling whatever comes to them without thinking it through. Personally, they make the world i live in interesting. In any event slander is incredibly hard to prosecute. You have to prove that someone like yourself intended to say things like "Dan Juola is a blue-haired petafile" or "Dan Juola is a Canadian feed lot" to cause harm, not just that he/she spoke a lie. Common Dan, you should know that.

Party on Free Speech, Party on...

I have to say I completely 100% agree with dan. But I am lazy and dont want to take the time to add on so I quit here.

In a country built on free speech, how is it that the government can make laws about slander? This policy is undermining to the entire concept of free speech. If I feel like lieing about something in a country with free speech I should have every right to say something like "Paul Johnson is being raped by Chris Franson every night." What's you take on it? Cause to me, it's incredibly senseless.

Before you start getting up and arms about post-Iraq, let events play out. It could be very possible that we could screw the country, yet is also possible that we will be thanked forever by the Iraqi people for our work. Hans, you said, "I envision an economy and government run by the rich." WELCOME TO AMERICA! Our economy and government is run by the rich, and have always been. That is what allows our economy to expand and grow. I don't hear the cries of the American Proletariat crying out for revolution right now! In fact, most Americans prefer the American form of government over any other. I don't think that the American people want Iraq to turn into a communist country! Hopefully, Iraq will have an economy and government run by the rich (Capitalism!!). God willing, it will be democracy.

Did anyone besides me find it really freaky that Bush's head didn't move AT ALL during that speech? His neck must be really stiff. OR he could have trained his neck by keeping it in odd positions for hours on end... giving blowjobs, perhaps?

You know what they say about those Texans...

But seriously. I agree with Andrew. I got sort of this blah, blah attitude from Bush for most of the speech, kind of like "I've been saying the same stuff for the past 3 months... blah blah" but when he came to the topic of oil, his eyes lit up... I could see oil-lust. It did seem a bit blatant.

We're going about this wrong. Erik may have convinced me that we need to march in and hold an election, but I heard none of that in Bush's speech. There was only a casual reference to such an election, but I want to hear him explicitly say "We will hold a democratic election in Iraq and allow every citizen over 18 to vote." Instead, I only heard talk of disarmament. If this is the attitude that drives the war, I fear what will happen in post-war Iraq. I envision an economy and government run by the rich, because they're the ones who are least affected by a US invasion.