How far will the Army go?

Joined for the money for college, right.

It says that his family said that IRA members were involved. You said it doesn't.

In England, too young for active duty but was in the Air Training Core.

My father, brother, unlce(s) and grandparents all fought wars or were in the military, my brither AND sister were both born on Military bases in Singapore. My family survived the Battle of Britain (London Blitz) that made 9/11 look like a day at a MacDoinalds playground.

I grew up in a country after WWII and the reminders are all over the place. They don't have cheapo plywood homes that are simply demolished forgotten and rebuilt to hide any signs of prior conflict. I've seen the effects of war on my nation firt hand. I have watched terrorism as it bombed citizens in front of me. I have feared for the life of my family members after a terrorist bombing.

Don't even try to pull the "You wouldn't understand" crap on me.

As for a negative way of lookig at the US, your'e wrong again. Just like many tunnel vision Americans, if someone disagrees with your government, they hate all Americans and don't like America. You need to learn how to separate your unbilical cord from the government, they really DON'T have YOUR best interests in mind when they are making decisions that effect YOUR life.
No country's government does, save the Bhuddist monks living in Tibet.

You just seem to all have this undying belief that your government actually cares what you think, do or say and that they are only acting valiantly in your best interests.

Wake up already!

I would be th efirst to criticize Canada's government, as would most other Canadians, Brits, Germans, French, Polich or whomever you pick. It's only the US that holds its government with such esteem.

They are just a bunch of knobs with jobs, not some saviour police of the poeple.

Afraid to say I joined up to get some sort of saleable skill. And I am quite pleased to say that they saw me right on that front. But I did also sign on for an additional couple of years. A lot of my High School friends did the same and are better people for it. But I would be worried that we are lining up young people, just to fill the ranks. If we are going to put these young people in life or deathers, I hope that there is some payback when they get out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/northern_ireland/4415617.stm

Less spinning and a little more reporting is what it is. While they seem to conflict, they are merely reporting different views and conclusions, not thier own.

If one guys says it's the end of the world, they report it.

If another guy says the world has only begin, they report it.

MY first hand experience, is that the recent 'minor issues' for lack of a better term, are nothing in comparisson to the constant bombings and terrorism shown in England from the IRA over hisory.

Things are not all bunnies and ballons, but they are MUCh better and the two sides actually communicate and reach agreements now, as they hadn't when it was merely terrorism faced with war.

Are you saying only the "good" soldiers survive? I don't know...I think the military is facing a problem because:
a) people don't like to get shot at and they really aren't that hot on dying
b) the 18-20 year olds are still signing up, but the college students and recent college graduates are not
c) there is no chance for advancement in the military anymore. Thanks to Clinton, the military is VERY top heavy.
d) The military doesn't really help you get a job anymore (unless you are lucky enough to get a MOS that is useful in the outside world)
e) The military needs some help. The management is poorly trained and the underlings are over worked. Much like in the corporate world, but you get paid less and you HAVE to be there...you can't quit.

YOur posts, one after the oter, are just chock full of assumptions and incorrect conclusions.

First of all, you say only enlisted and veterans, RIIIGHT. I think half the world has been on the US Army's restricted forums to chat.

There's one from the Pentagon, one for the Marines, one for the US Army and they all say they are restricted but they aren't.

You seem to keep missing the point, you are hearing a pumped up and morale boosted opinion of those who have to chin up and face the music everyday. It's part of thier JOB.

As for returning soldiers, what the hell makes you think these are recruits?

In fact one story that comes to mind was from a general who had been in many wars and been a staunch Republican supporter all his life, as was his father.

When he returned from his second tour in Iraq, he was adamant that he would NEVER vote for Bush or Republicans again, said they have tarnished the party, tarnished America. Reported only the surface of the real issue they were facing, hadn't provided the expected or assured support they were supposed to receive etc. Again from a long time soldier and once career military man. Not a recruit.

There have been DOZENS of similar stories, if you stay out of chat rooms and actually hear what returning soldiers are saying AFTER they have served thier durty and no longer have to hype up the morale, you'd see a much different picture.

In the same sense, I am not saying life for the soldiers is terrible over there. They have helped people, they have helped the country, they have won many battles, but they haven't won the war.

Difference is, I accept BOTH sides of the coin, as to your one sided shiny coin you keep so intently focused on. There's TWO sides to the story, there's another side to everything you read these people typing. You simply have to take off the blinders and look at the whole instead of just the odd parts that YOU want to believe.

But continue with your constant circular and unsup[orted reports, have a little giggle with the boys online, God only knows they need it.

Just try not to be blind to reality.

I'm done wasting time trying to explain this to you, you simply refuse at all costs to see the whole and not just the individual pieces of a very big picture.

That seems to be a Gerry Adams promo. He does not seem able to control them or be able to get them to participate. They still will not disarm. How come? Being cynical, they could always get new guns, and they would give the illusion of participating, if nothing else than to give Adams some legitimacy.

I believe it was republicans that killed that guy, and now are covering up and intimidating, as do most criminals.

Anyhow, gotta go and suppose this does not really belong in this thread

These are all things you should learn as a result of life anyway.

Why would I need the army to teach me organizational skill? Teamwork? and many more?

If you haven't learned about teamwork and organizational skills by grade 12 you need some real help!

As for keeping your cool, that's hardly coming from the army, the whole probelm people see in the US military is that they DON'T keep thier cool.

Other armies refuse to fight beside you, even in a allied conflict because they say American troops don'T keep thier cool and jeopardize the lives of thier own troops. What about friendly fire? The US Army's favorite excuse for soldiers who don't keep thier cool.

What ever happened to parneting and learning work ethice from working?

I know you like ot chat wit hall your corn fed army boys no the internet, and they think thay are the toughest thing since diamonds were discovered but don't let that musgiude your opinions of others.

Even to the posts above, you tried to insinuate that he hadn't had the experience, then was only in it for the college money.

You INSTANTLY try to downplay any comment that doesn't share opinion with your cornfed Army boys in your chat room.

Nobody nderstands but you, perhaps you shoudl give Bush somepointrs then, he seems pretty confused as to where this is all going these days. Perhaps you can show him your private 'Hunky Men in the Military' chat room and he can be filled with happy thoughts too.

PULL THE OTHER ONE!! :D

That's why I also asserted that it was just a 'wide angle suspicion', not a fact.

This is a war of politics. The Army didn't decide to just up and go to work, "let's pick invading Iraq today."

POLITICIANS sent your army to invade another country based on political differences.

What part of the war is NOT political then?

As for who you know, I REALLY couldn't give a toss how many Canadian soldiers you know, I know both of then too.

I went to highschool with the Canadian Army, swam in the public pool and helped blow up the raft for the Canadian Navy

I have NEVER said anything about this being the military's fault, I have said more than once that I support ANY soldier form ANY country that is willing to fight for his country.

Again your assumptions of MY stand are incorrect after all the times I have explained and reiterated it to you. You simply REFUSE to see anything other than that which you already think.

Troops, whether they like it or not, ARE political pawns, what country do YOU live in??

AlL troops in ALL countries are at the mercy of politicians, they are used and abused by those same poliicians whom they place all thier trust in.

This has war nothing to do with the army at all actually, it is 100% political.

Is it in the Army's best interests? Nope.
Is it in YOUR best interests, well they tried to pretend it was but that was proven otherwise so.NOPE

Is it in the government's best interests? DAMN RIGHT IT IS.

This is a war of attrition, save thier souls and reap the rewards, which were dealt out to Bush's friends and family before the war was barely started, and those who he harmed with his poor business failures of course.

The rest is just a waste of human lives, all at the hands of the puppet masters, the Republican administration. It IS 100% undeniably a political war for political gain.

No Americans have been saved, no threats upon America have been thwarted, no Military action was in place for the right purposes.

Don't know what Hardy Boys book you've been reading but this is political, end of story.

The Bush administration didn't start the war because they wanted Iraq to be free, they wanted a stronghold in that region. AND of course everybody important makes money along the way. It started with Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia just doesn't have enough oil to fill our needs. We need our own jointly-operated oil producing country. AND everyone important makes money along the way.

I'm not surprised at any tactic I see with the Bush Administration to recruit new members in the military. I expect it. After all, he thought it was ok to have voter signup sheets in churches after the sermon. No one seems to grasp how subversive that is.

Such is our country today. I swear, it must be in the water. Most people don't realize what is going on even if it is shown on TV. Bush knows how to push the buttons. Then again, maybe its Karl Rove.

I support our troops totally. I know their intention is to serve their country, a very noble aspiration. Regardless that we went to war for the wrong reasons, you have to admit that freedom is spreading in the Muslim world. It will be hard fought, its not a gift. Out of a bad scenario came something good.

Our troops should be real proud of that.

your fair and honest.

It is to easy for and dishonest of blind partisans to look for things to blame on people they don't "like".

Air america of course is painting a very different picture than what you just said.

The U.S. Army conducts random testing on a regular basis. 10% of the roster is the usual way. They're required to conduct enough tests in a year to achieve 100% testing on a yearly basis. Your name comes up, you do the test. I've heard that there are ways around it, collusion, conspiracy, etc. All I know is that I saw soldiers and NCO's put all the way out for violating the drug policy. BTW, that policy tolerates one mistake by junior enlisted and zero for senior enlisted.

Do I think 10,000 soldiers might use drugs? Yes, I do. But they won't get away with it. If they do, it won't be long.

http://www.goarmy.com/life/living_the_army_values.jsp

In training, especially, those Seven Army Values are stressed highly. The leadership knows the ill effects of violating them.

The allegations were made, probably not resolved at this time, but the misconduct has not been proven or disproven yet. The article says the commander has 30 days to investigate. Then they will resolve whatever evidence and testimony is turned up with whatever means, be it administrative action or formal charges and court martial, is called for by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Recruiters are people, and as such, imperfect. Some might want the rewards for surpassing quotas too much. Try it yourself, go to nearest recruiting office and claim a problem that would be disqualifying.

You might be pleasantly surprised. You might find that these soldiers will probably go out of their way to find you help to resolve those problems. Or they might brush you off politely but firmly. But I suspect that unethical behavior like this is a rare exception to the norm.

The Army will snuff these guys' careers so bad they won't be able to get a decent job in the outside world IF they find those recruiters guilty. And if they ARE guilty, they will be found guilty.

I suspect the second recruiter was new, and just going along with what the previous one left him. Bad choice on his part.

Oh, and the accused soldiers leaders will be under suspicion here too. It sounds to me like that is where the problem lies.

As they see it. At the top of the chain of command, that's what they talk about. Needs of the Army. Actually, they talk about that all the way down to the recruits in basic training.

At the same time, those three and four stars up there in the rarified positions of power in the armed forces live in a political world, where political dealings are required to get things done.

As a former soldier, I wish politics had nothing to do with it. As things are in reality, without politics, there would be no checks and balances and the military would rule this country.

jdclyde:

commandos, they were immigration agents
Elian Gonzalez

I cannot argue that Waco was not mishandled. But I suspect that Reno's assumption of responsibility was of the nature of: it shouldn't have happened, it did, and on my watch, therefor I am responsible and will act responsibly.

Oh, and I'm sure she did not say 'burn them out.' Matter of fact, last I read, a tear gas grenade was credited with starting the fire. Stuff happens every day.

Waco was a tragedy that happened because people were holed up in a big wooden compound with lots of guns and refused to surrender themselves. Federal agents were forced to try to get them out. The situation got out of control.

Lesson: when the ATF and FBI knock on your door, the party is over. If you refuse to surrender, everything that follows is your own fault. If you are innocent, it will come out in the courts.

Reno had nothing to do with Ruby Ridge. Wasn't appointed until a year after it happened.

Everyone else:
You can scream and cry and rant and rave about the Army, the Government, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party or the American Nazi Party. The fact remains that when all is said and done, the actions of one or two people, while embarassing, do not necessarily accurately portray any group they are affiliated with.

As for free speech, I risked my life to protect mine, AND YOURS. Put up or shut up.

My father in law had an interesting military career, serving in both the British and Canadian armies, working with NATO, dealing with various branches of the US military.

You would have to consider him a conservative. But he didn't support the war in Iraq, and neither did most of the friends he has made over 40 years, in the militaries of Canada, Britain, Germany and the US.

Its one thing to support the troops - they didn't have a choice. Its another to support the decision which the military didn't make but the politicians did.

James

Oz,

Much as the same with France, The Netherlands and several other countries around the world, Canada has a VERY relaxed immigration process which has allowed for the entrance and establishment of terrorist groups within Canada. And since we share borders with Canada and you proclaim them to be such a "friend" in the global scheme, you'd think our friend would watch our back door and do more thorough screening of individuals entering their country.

The fact is if roles were reversed and terrorism was infiltrating Canada from the United States, there'd be an uproar that we weren't doing our part as a "global superpower" to protect our neighbors. And I suspect, Canada would have the loudest voice in the bunch.

I don't know how much U.S. Government associations you've had, but I have worked in contracting for customers within the U.S. Government and have seen the extents to which they screen passengers, check with international police, maintain profiles and intelligence of known individuals linked to terrorism, etc. And, that was even before the 9/11 terrorism.

I suspect Canada's resources are not as plentiful as the United States, but it would seem to me if even your own government officials admit that their own immigration policies are defectively lenient that they'd make a move to change that.

Hence...if Canada expects the U.S. to give them all the benefits they think a neighbor should provide, the least Canada can do is secure its borders sufficiently to curtail the terrorist-aligned infusion of immigrants that has happened there for years. And, the first step in that would be to tighten their immigration policy.

I've clarified for Oz elsewhere in the discussion that I meant the 7 individuals that the USA has caught coming in from Canada to commit terrorist acts.

I'd also cite reports both from U.S. state sources, magazines, and even 2 reports from the Canadian government on known terrorist cells that have grown presence in Canada and use it as a "staging area".

In fact, the 9/11 report as well as one Canadian report I read specifically cite the "Millenium Bomber" named Ressam having come from France and claimed Algerian persecution and seeked asylum.

Canada gave him asylum with falsified French papers.

I'm less worried about starving Mexicans who are willing to work for $20 a day in a field than a Muslim extremist trying to bomb LAX.

BTW, only one terrorist involved with 9/11 came in from Germany, and that was Atta I believe, who actually had lived there.

Trust me. You will eventually get to know what's in your country as "sleepers" like the 9/11 terrorists once they decide Canada has done something heinous enough against them to declare you an enemy of Allah.

It's just a matter of time, man. Their ignorant hate knows no boundaries.

And, I do know a little about Canadian immigration, such as different classes of immigration, waivers on policy granted for purposes such as granting asylum, etc.

And if you'd like statistics and information about Canadian immigration, I'd direct you to check the Canadian government's website...not a third party think tank.

Jesus...I knew two days after it happened that the IRA was offering to off their own.

It helps to have half a dozen friends over there, a couple of whom are politically connected.

I'm still planning on 2 days in Northern Ireland, and 3 days in the Republic.

My main tasks there are
1) to celebrate a friend's birthday, and
2) to try and find a girl in Donegal I met on my last visit.

slan agus beannacht leat

As for the portraying ANY group based on the actions of a few people is just wrong. (isn't that what I have been saying all along?)

As for Waco, they had the chance to pick him up in town unarmed an hour earlier but CHOSE to wait for him to get back to his "compound" before starting the assault.

Doors that prove which way the bullets came from are missing.

There was never any proof or anything else to indicate child abuse.

The guns were not illegal and not out of perportion to the number of people living there compaired to what the average sportsman has in their own homes.

The warrent was about to expire, which is why they chose that time to finally storm the place. There were no hostilities coming from the place to provoke the attack.

They lied about drugs so they could illegally get and use a TANK! ATF had no business being there in the first place.

Immigration officers carry automatic rifles and riot gear to deport a little boy who is in living in a house with no weapons of any kind?

There was child abuse.

David Koresh admitting to having "taken a wife" who was a girl of 15 years and having consumated their bond of matrimony.

In the Republic of Texas, that is statuatory rape.

There were also guns there illegally:

Koresh also had firearms in the "compound" that required federal firearms permits for which he nor anyone there had permits. The gun dealers did make the mistake of shipping the items there without properly confirming those permits.

Firstly, you commented that the US has caight these people trying to enter the USA.

In other words, YOUR border security that checks people entering your country works sometimes, this doesn't mean we are allowing terrorists to enter your country though,

As for AlQaeda sects, there are KNOWN cells operating in almost every country, INCLUDING THE USA, right now. But Iraq is th ebaddie now, AlQaeda's newfound force is just being watched like kids hanging out at a 7-11.

So inessence, there will always be those who slip through the cracks, in the recent case cited, they wer stopped from entering your country, so there's no isses to be discussed.

They were IN Canada, so what, perhaps they weren't terrorists to us or identified as such at the time they entered Canada, if you saw the number of muslims in Vancouver you'd go cross-eyed trying to figure out who's who, believe me, ever try counting stars?

The fact is, they DIDN'T neter the USA, your border security did as expected, they probably had reasonable clearance and authority to enter Canada as a commonwealth (as described before)but not the USA.

AS for terrosit cells in Canada, you missed , England, Bosnia, Africa, Australia, Germany, the USA etc. THere are so many divisions of the former al!qaeda terrorists now that they are said to be growing faster, stroonger and more widespread than every before. Bosnia was a HUGE AlQaeda recruiting ground for a while, terrorist brochures were handed out IN SCHOOLS, but they are seen as heros for rebuilding Bosnia and building new parks and mosques everywhere that cover up the reminders of the atrocities they faced.

This has ALL taken place SINCE teh war in Afghanistan, again, just another reason why I feel that the attention to you rREAL threat and REAL attackers was so conveniently diverted and placed on Iraq's shoulders.

What's the rest of the world doing about it though? They have been forming smaller alliances to pool resources and intelligence on these rising sects so that tey can be watched, tracked, predicted and stopped from terrorizing others.

Firstly is a HUGE concern of Canadians and for reasons other than terrorism.

Secondly, Canada has spent billions increasing border and immigration security, it i REALLY hard to get a LI authorization nowdays. Even when I moced here many years ago, it took nearly a full year to pass blood tests, urine tests, passport checks, intentions, records etc., and I was a minor at the time moving from ONE British colony to another, not moving to a foreign land.

As for allowing terrorist sects to reside in Canada, they reside in the USA and something like 60 other countries too, you just don't talk about it.

You have no idea just how many muslims you will run into while walking down the stree in Vancouver. Some areas are 100% muslim, juts like a China Town, we have little India too.

99.9999% of these people are here with nothing but the best intentions of becoming Canadian citizens (as MOST are) , they are also coming from a friendly country, all work multiple jobs, all pay taxes and thier children attend the same schools ours do. I don't thin you REALLY have an idea of how many East Indian, Iraqi, Iraqnian, and other middle eastern citizens actually live here, most being MROE Canadian than myself and actually having Canadian citizenship.

SO it's not a matter of just spotting terrorists, we would need to break HUGE foreign relation laws and immiration laws that have united Canada, England, The Middle East and other commonwealth countries for many years. HOw far BACK in records must we go to FIND these people, really a NEEDLE IN A HASTACK.

BUT, if they try to enter the USA, and with modern awareness, they are stopped, then the system works after all.

As for our immigration laws, they haven't been slack for MANY years, we do have MORE immigrants than most but this is also have the most desirable country to live in in the world.

We have two of the top rated (most desired) cities to live in in the world and have similar government structure as those we are allied with, so it's a little harder to show as much discretion on our borders as say entering the USA from India.

Canada isn't a terrorist breeding ground like Bosnia (and don't forget...the Phillipines which has the largest growing Muslim extremist movement worldwide).

Canada is a conduit. They have become and still are a way that terror cells see to establish themselves in North America.

As for countries of entry, the biggest points of entry for people being watched for "suspect activity" are not Bosnia and and Africa. The biggest points of interest are coming in from Canada, France, and Germany. The UK and Ireland and now Spain have started checking people coming into their countries that are bound for "target" countries such as the USA and England.

Personally, I think someone should just pay the mob to hunt all these guys down. At least the mob doesn't have to follow protocol (like the military does) to catch a group of terrorists that never will follow anything but a radical vision.

As for tracking terrorists...it's a misguided concept...it's like saying you can track all the particles of moisture in the atmosphere...because it mutates and grows and shrinks chaotically.

I still say the best way to stop them is to stop the civility.

If a terrorist group beheads a soldier, you go hunt the family of a terrorist leader down and take them somewhere and tell him to surrender or that you'll bathe his while family in pig's blood and give them no chance of being with Allah.

This love and tenderness crap is getting soldiers and civilians killed all over the world. Put the foot down with them...teach intolerance of radicalism...teach sensitivity but not passivity.

Gimme a gun...I wanna go hunt Osama...

erm...let's see here...

I had opportunity to go to work straight-away for a company in Hamilton, ON about 2 years ago and they said since I had a college degree they could get me into the country in weeks. No blood tests or anything. And, I'd be there indefinitely. I turned it down because I don't like cold weather and my parents are elderly and I have to watch out for them.

Yes, terrorists live everywhere. However, they are significantly more organized in Canada than other modernized countries.

Canada might be spending billions more, but from what I read that was increased after 9/11 and prompting by US politicians that border control would help "ease concerns", and the USA's increasing their own border management with Canada.

And you're right...I have no idea who walks in Vancouver...I've never been there. But, I've been to ethnic areas before.

And, I've never once implied that most everyone or that everyone of the Muslim faith is a terrorist or linked to terrorist backers. I have friends of almost every faith you can imagine...and I've said that before. But believe me...if I found out a friend was a terrorist...I'd turn his ass in faster than wet cat shit on greasy linoleum...regardless of his/her religious belief.

Finally...as for the huge "foreign relations issues"...which is more important...making sure your citizens are safe...or that you don't offend someone because you were making sure your country was safer for them to immigrate to? Wow...what a hard decision to make.

BTW...I've been for the concept of putting a big concrete wall along the US-Mexican border for years. Illegal immigrants coming here and working and paying no taxes to support our system is a slap in the face to all my ancestors who came here and worked their butts off to get where they did.

I'm also in favor of travel policies being implemented at public transportation like they have in Israel. You're subject to search at any time, anywhere when you're in the station, parking lot, etc., not just this single search and scan.

The fact is, safety needs to be improved. Part of that is tightening down the immigration policy in Canada. Part of that is tightening security in airports and other transportation.

If all we worry about with this is political hoohah and who gets offended cause they got searched 3 times...we might as well give the terrorists their bullets cause we're shootin ourselves in the arse anyways.

Still wrote an essay though. :p

I still have a problem with your suggesting Canadian terrorist sects being 'more organized than in other countries.'

Perhaps you have seen a good report or had information about an organized sect in Canada, which I don't deny or doubt at all, but I have also seen the same with large sects being formed in England and the USA. This has gone on forever. If they CAN'T get to the US through Canada, the WILL find another way in.

Our countries don't even have the ability to stop drugs from slipping through by the truck, train,boat or plane load. And that's certainly not a couple of well doscumented but discreet Muslim terrorists slipping through the cracks. This is about tonnes of drugs, a small plane entering, landing and ddropping off a shipment unnoticed. A container (a full 40') SAILING into our harbours and being processed and shipped out. RAIL cars on a passenger train being loaded with marijuana.

So when a country does EAXCTLY what anyone could expect them too, AND MORE, by increasing spending, awareness, immigration policy etc., in light of such events, how can you possibly discount thier efforts.

You have to remember, MANY people here, not just yourself, start these rants off by making absurd comments such as 'Canada is not doing thier part by letting these people enter the USA to begin with', I must adress the facts that we DON'T let people enter YOUR country, first and foremost, and that we HAVE taken great measures as an allied neighbour to work toward increasing our security with cooperation of parties on both sides of the border.

So the premise that leads us here, and it happens often on TR, is often forgotten and is most certainly quite a strong and inaccurate statement.

50 posts later we find we agree, more needs to be done but much HAS been done.

[b][u]Other points of comments:[/b][/u]
The bringing up of our ethnic diversity was not to suggest you don't understand but to suggest the sheer volume of legitimate people that DO enter our country and how that simply increases the ability for more to slip between the cracks. You know the old numbers game.

[u][b]Your opportunity for work;[/b][/u]
First of all wouldn't rejecting YOUR entry be wrong?

Secondly, you were being sponsored by a company, I would like to see how long you would be able to remain here without thier employment AND the same goes for me, I operated two offices in the US and could have moved there in a heartbeat.

My best friend is from Alabama, he was married to a Canadian woman with two of his children, they were all living in Alabama. It took him just over two years to get all of his paperwork finished with immigration, even though they had let him move here with his family in the interim period, after the first 6 months of BS and red tape because he was sponsored by an employer and she had a transfer from her transport company she worked with.

I am a BRITISH citizen, Brtiain and Canada are virtually the same country when it comes to travel within our nations. After having pulled all the strings to get a landed status (as a Permanent Resident) I just had to go through it all again just a few months ago.

In order to reenter Canada if leaving the country, I needed a Permanent Resident Card from the Canadian Gov. in ADDITION to my British Passport, my old immigration documentation was no longer acceptable as they hav ecreated a new ID card with the most intense security measures on it (must cost some dough to make those up).

This is in effect for ALL new and existing immigrants who wish to enter Canada. It took a few hundred dollars with a notary (my brother doesn't count as he's related, bummer), a visit to my old instructor at BCIT (high school teachers not allowed), new photos and then mailing it off for a 3 month wait (which is EXTREMELY fast due to my need for immediate travel)but they are still processing applicants from several years ago. They rejected mine once, requesting further authorative signatures and then finally released it.

You can move here if you are sponsored for work, you can move here IF you can get an extended travel visa etc. But to get a permanent resident status or become a Canadian citizen, it's a lot of work and beaurocratic BS. Staying is harder than it first seems.

Sorry to go on so long, but really all I saw was us in total agreement with the REAL situation that is being handled appropriately, but your initial statements were fighting words.

[i]"Canada has a VERY relaxed immigration process which has allowed for the entrance and establishment of terrorist groups within Canada. And since we share borders with Canada and you proclaim them to be such a "friend" in the global scheme, you'd think our friend would watch our back door and do more thorough screening of individuals entering their country."
"f Canada expects the U.S. to give them all the benefits they think a neighbor should provide, the least Canada can do is secure its borders sufficiently to curtail the terrorist-aligned infusion of immigrants that has happened there for years. And, the first step in that would be to tighten their immigration policy."[/i]

You're right, tihtening the immigration policy HAS been thier first step.

Make note too, many of these unwanted immigrants have NOT been Muslim but gangs from Hong Kong or Taiwan, during the Communist scare. THey faced life behind bars if they didn't escape to another commonwealth REALLY fast. Pregnant asian women would come here pregnant, give birth and return to Asia. Once there, they would get immigration statys for the mother and child as he is automatically a Canadian citizen for being born here, then then sponsor the family process begins.

What happened is we gained a huge influx of Asian gangs/mafia (Triads etc.) which in turn brought the Russian mafia to our borders in greater strength. So while these organizations are large and very powerful, they are not aligned to terrorism in the US or Canada, organized crime maybe, but not terrosism.

There are many facets of Canadian immigration that ARE fought for daily and have been for a very long time, it is hardly an issue of not making the right moves to address an immigration problem, or stabbing you guys in the back.

Beer time? If you actually waded through all of that and took any of it in, then I should be sending you MY TR mug!

Yes, I see your point Oz. It seems that these days you can't address a specific issue without having somebody assume that it is a direct or an indirect attack to the current administration. That was not my intent, actually. I would have started the same discussion if this happened in the Clinton or Bush Sr. administrations. Just because I disagree with many of this administration's policies doesn't mean that I assume that the White House ordered such recruiting methods. In fact, I don't even mention Bush or the White House in the original post at all. It wouldn't surprise me to get a similar reaction if I made a post on something like rush hour traffic or light pollution.

I got one long ago...I had an inside connection...and kept my mouth shut about a glitch.

Being discrete pays off...it's why the government hated it when I left contract service :)

Beer...it's what's for drinking!

I'm headin home!

for over 20 years. The only up times were on the outset of a war.

Ask most women today would she rather date or marry a soldier or a salesman. She'll prefer the salesman over the soldier. 50 years ago it would have been a soldier. Times have changed - no one wants anything to do with the service.

Here's the thinking a woman is going to use:

1. Lifestyle? What kind of home, vacations, cars I am going to get from a soldier vs a salesman?
If a soldier will move every couple of years, she'll have long periods of time alone, and average cars, and ok trips around the world. If a salesman, hot social uppity scene, high pay, big house, few moves, expensive cars... Granted not all women think like this but enough do to get noticed.

2. Family? what kind of family life will she get? Will move away from immediate and extended family. Kids will change schools alot if married a solfier. If a salesman, then stable school environment, clubs, sports teams with long term friends. Close to most of the family.

are you going to say that is what they killed all those people over?

Explain why they didn't take him peacefully when they had the chance.

explain lieing to get the atf to bring in the tank.

sorry, it was not a justified attack. The US government is not suppose to be slaughtering women and children. Deffinately a dark day.

Despite the draft, recruiters still had quotas, and each service vied for the best.

Just been busted? No felony conviction yet? No problem. We can arrange for a plea bargain, reduction of charges, or an outright dismissal of charges, if you'll just sign on the dotted line.

And, there's no reason to think that the practice had only then begun.

I bet you anything talks of that sort happen...just not in a lab inside a wall.

um...I won't make excuses for the government and why they didn't take him when he was in town.

Also, I'm not going to go into numbers. But, I will say this:

a)Koresh was, by law, a self-admitted child molester.

b)Koresh was, by law, holding firearms illegally in *his* compound.

c)Koresh was ordered to surrender and did not.

As for lying to the ATF to get a tank in there...I can't justify that either if it happened. I didn't read the report on Waco, just saw lots of CNN and read lots of magazines and newspapers in college.

Of course women and children dying is horrible. However, the mothers could not have been mistaken with the loudspeakers telling them that if Koresh didn't surrender that they were going to have to come in. At that point, the parents should have been smart enough to at least let their children go if they had any concern for them.

To keep your children there when you know law enforcement is going to make forceful entry to take someone who is your religious leader because he broke the law...is as bad as the Iraqi government deciding to put Iraqi families to live in and around military targets to shield them from possible US military action. Placing a child in harm's way can't be validated in any manner.

Now, I can't say the parents did it in sound mind. But, I don't think they thought it through...mainly cause to think that dude was Jesus or some incarnation you'd have to be brainwashed or stupid. But, you know Koresh had no concern for the children or the others at all when they told him they were going to come in and get him, otherwise he would have told them to leave. He selfishly kept those people there out of dilusion from some psychotic religious pipedream.

BTW...as for what killed all those people?? I don't even think anyone has determined if it was an gas grenade or an oil lamp that started it. Fire is what killed them though.

Also, notice on the video playback when that FBI agent was crawling up the roof and got in front of that window, the bullets started coming out through the wall. They fired from inside on a law enforcement agent before he even got inside to start a firefight. Hmm...there's some peaceful God-loving people for you.

OK...so...a recap...

a) He's molested kids and his hiding out in his compound
b) He's holding firearms that are illegal for any other American to possess without a federal permit
c) He's refused to surrender when ordered by law enforcement
d) Someone in his compound fired on a federal officer without any aggression having taken place against them by the officer.

So...I guess...law enforcement should have just sat around and waited for him for a few months? Or hoped he came back into town?

Also, how can you imply it was a slaughter? You'll categorize this incidence as a slaughter of women and children by the FBI, when no one took aim at anyone but Koresh from the FBI side. Your phrasiology implies that the FBI took aggressive, ruthless action on each woman and child. When in reality, they gave the guy over a month and a half to surrender.

No...I'm not making excuses for the government. They make dumb moves every day. But, I won't let anyone validate an idiot like David Koresh. Freedom of religion is *your* right to worship as you please and for others to share that with you, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. It doesn't involve making others a party to your illegal activites,making them to suffer the consequences of your actions, to harbor illegal fugitives from the law, or to endanger the lives of innocent children.

Koresh was as much to blame as the FBI for that incident. Those other people didn't have to be involved or die. He could have surrendered. He could have told others in the compound to leave. His drive was one thing...egomania.

Just as easily as the FBI could have gotten him in town...David Koresh could have surrendered. It's as simple as that.

Pinky and the brain built thier lab in thier cage as they are lab mice.

GAAWD! Doesn't ANYONE watch cartoons anymore?

I watch Pinky and the Brain. I know they have a cage and break out of it and use the lab they are caged in. "They're laboratory mice, their genes have been spliced. They're Pinky and the Brain...Brain...Brain..Brain..Brain. Narf!"
Their lab isn't in a wall. Everyone knows that. My favorite is when they mess with the printing press to create Brain playing cards.

I thought you wee going to suggest the same thing as me, but then again, how do you get a room full of catepillars to sing America the Beautiful? NARF!

in a wall...that they broke out to devise schemes...

Oh well..it's been years since I watched it.

.NET is getting to me...even tho the Guinness doesn't help

Whatever happened to Superfriends? damn man

I need more Guinness...and to watch Cartoon Network more evidently

Despite the draft, recruiters still had quotas, and each service vied for the best.

Just been busted? No felony conviction yet? No problem. We can arrange for a plea bargain, reduction of charges, or an outright dismissal of charges, if you'll just sign on the dotted line.

And, there's no reason to think that the practice had only then begun.

Instead of the commercials they pass off as cartoons these days.

Tom& Jerry (the old ones before Hanna took over)were priceless, yet were also banned from TV during the political awreness craze of the 80's and 90's due to thier racist insinuations.

Original Bugs, Daffy,FoghornLeghorn etc. wer also excellent cartoons, but mroe focused toward adult humour, as they were mainly made during or shortly post war when the theatres played all day shows for a nickle.

Newer stuff, I liked the first season ofPinky, the first season of Animaniacs was also pretty funny, but fo rth emost part, cartoons these days are just commercials for toy companies.

Herman and Catnip?
And what is the name of the big red hairy monster in such Bugs Bunny cartoons as "Water, Water, Every Hare" and "Hare Raising Hare"?
What is the name of Marvin Martian's dog?

They still can't say who fired the first shot, and the evidence that would support this (the front door) is missing. How convenent. How do you rationalize that away?

As to the alledged child beatings, investigated and cleared.
Taking of minors as some of his wives WOULD be concidered statutory rape, but not quite the same marrying a 15 year old and ABUSING children.

Illegal weapons, most reports are that it wasn't that they were illegal, just that they didn't properly pay the TAX on them. You kill 80 people over TAXES?

You call in the MILITARY to storm the church and home of this group where women and children are over TAXES?

I am not justifying who or what Koresh was or what he did. I do know that he has a right to his religious freedom still, right? Oh yeah, I forgot we lost that freedom?
When someone is to be cast in a bad light they start using words like CULT and COMPOUND instead of his followers, church and home.

I am hearing all the sniveling about Bush taking away peoples civil liberties, WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS?
When the government can assasinate anyone they lable as part of a CULT, where is the freedom from religious persecution?

I really don't expect you to read all of this, but take it as you will.
At least note the excerpts from the congressional hearing near the end.

Sources very, from BBC to followers. Take it as you will.

Alleged beatings of kids, investigated and cleared.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/431311.stm
"The former followers told authorities that Koresh would beat the children until they were bruised and bleeding. Social workers investigated but could never confirm the charges."
"It has not been determined who fired first, but gunfire erupted."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/431348.stm
Army involvement?
In other developments, the Texas Department of Public Safety told The Dallas Morning News members of the Army's secret Delta Force anti-terrorism squad were at the scene the day the compound burned.
The newspaper obtained a Defense Department document under the Freedom of Information Act that confirmed the presence of the Special Forces unit when the FBI used tanks to assault the compound.
The US military is barred from domestic law enforcement.

The fire, Who started it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/431348.stm
"For the past six years, FBI agents have repeatedly and categorically denied that they fired any incendiary devices capable of sparking the blaze that consumed the cult's compound. But on Wednesday, FBI spokesman John Collingwood said: "The FBI may have used a very limited number of military-type CS gas canisters on the morning of April 19 in an attempt to penetrate the roof of an underground bunker 30 to 40 yards away from the main Branch Davidian compound."
The military-type canisters differ from civilian tear gas in that "the military canisters may have contained a substance that is designed to disperse the gas using a pyrotechnic mixture," Mr Collingwood said."

It is also reported that the Dividians started the fire as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/845483.stm
Speculation that the FBI may have triggered the blaze accidentally intensified, after the agency finally admitted last year it had fired potentially incendiary devices into the compound.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/koresh/1.html?sect=14

http://www.wizardsofaz.com/waco/waco4.html

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/david-koresh/

Then the ATF got wind that the Davidians had failed to pay taxes on a bunch of machine guns that they possessed. So they mounted a now-infamous raid on the Mount Carmel complex in February 1993.

Not helping matters any were the FBI's pyrotechnic CS tear-gas grenades, which the agency swore had not been used, until they were forced to admit it six years after the fact. Further loss of life occurred because the FBI deliberately rendered inoperable all exits to the burning building, logic apparently dictating that in order to save the children, they had to destroy them.

http://www.wizardsofaz.com/waco/waco3.html
1995 Congressional Hearings:

Steven Schiff, US Congress, New Mexico (R):
I'd like to focus on the search warrant. First, it was put together, as a number of witnesses
have testified, in a prejudicial and inflammatory manner. And second . . . it clearly misstates the
US Code statute number for the offense charged, and, I think makes other technical mistakes in the law.
Which means to me it was put together in a sloppy fashion, Now you put together inflammatory with sloppy,
that means to me that ATF was in a hurry to make a big splash with something.

Stuart H. Wright, Editor, Armageddon at Waco:
Why was a warrant sought in the first place since David Koresh, on learning that he was
being investigated by the ATF, invited the agents on July 30th, 1992, through his gun dealer,
Henry McMahon, to come to his residence and inspect his firearms?

John B. Shadegg, US Congress, Arizona (R):
They never once followed up on that offer. Never even tried to follow up on that offer . . .

Robert Sanders, former ATF Deputy Director:
I can't imagine any circumstances when I would not take up such an offer. It indicates a mind-set.
Perhaps it was non willful. Perhaps what the ATF thought were violations of the law were
really things that Mr. Koresh thought were legal.

John B. Shadegg, US Congress, Arizona (R):
It suggests that what they really wanted to do was conduct a raid,
not make an arrest or conduct a search.

Robert Sanders:
In the opinion of the agents, you know, the planning for Waco and the manner in which it
was done was done for the purpose of publicity.

Bill Brewster, US Congress, Oklahoma (D):
Mr. Hartnett, there's a rumor, surely it's unfounded, that the publicity person or public relations
person for ATF had released some kind of a press communication the night before to media
around the country that something big was going to come down in Texas?

Bill Hartnett, former ATF Deputy Director:
Yes, and we heard that and . . she called . . . called the reporter to ask if he was going to be in.

Bill Brewster, US Congress, Oklahoma (D):
Why did she do that?

Bill Hartnett, former ATF Deputy Director:
She wanted to be able to get a hold of them in case we recovered these arms.

Bill Brewster, US Congress, Oklahoma (D):
Wouldn't there be ample time after they were recovered?

Bill Hartnett, former ATF Deputy Director:
Oh, Yes, I mean . . .

Sharon Wheeler, ATF Public Relations:
I just said we might have something going on here in Dallas this weekend and I'd like to
have a weekend contact number and that's what I was given.

Bill Brewster, US Congress, Oklahoma (D):
What was the purpose for contacting them? Were you actually seeking publicity for the agency?

Sharon Wheeler, ATF public Relations:
Absolutely not!

Bill Brewster, US Congress, Oklahoma (D):
OK. Then I guess I don't understand the reason for your call.

No, I am not a consperacy nut.

No, I am not a militia man.

No, I am not entirely sane. (oops, how did that get in there?)

Just think that yes the government has to be watched all the time, not just when the political party you are NOT aligned with is in office.

You want to talk scary, read up on the Ruby Ridge.

Now complain about The Bush Administration taking away peoples rights and freedoms.

Politics makes for great hypocrites.

Question EVERYONE, not just the ones you don't "like".

Land of the free?

- Law in the Republic of Texas allows anyone under the age of 18 to be get a marriage license if you have written parental consent on an official form in the presence of the county clerk or if you have received an order from the Texas district court authorizing your marriage.

So, Mr. Koresh was legally statutorily raping the girl even though he "married" her (which he married her in his compound, not legally with a Texas marriage license).

- The front door is probably missing because it burned up with the rest of the wooden compound.

- I never said anything about beatings.

- I seriously doubt they went in there over taxes...be real.

- So if I understand your thinking, I (or anyone else) can declare my house a church and expect any freedom I want because I'm a self-proclaimed evangelic icon and have immunity from the law? C'mon, man. That makes no sense. Just cause 80 people huddle together with some guy who professes at one point to be the next coming of Christ...doesn't make them a church. That's like saying Jim Jones was Moses and he led his people to the promised land with a Kool-aid cocktail.

I never said he didn't have a right to religious freedom, but religious freedom and following "God's law" does not exempt you from having to follow "man's law", so Mr. Koresh was dilusional in thinking his self-proclaimed church was a key to exempting him from the law of man that dictates illegal activity, i.e.- purchase of federally controlled firearms without a permit, and sexual activity with minors.

Also, I've never ranted about Bush taking away any civil liberty, as I am fairly pro-national ID card, so long as its done right.

I am not a fan of Bush because he shows himself to be disregarding of the needs of his people at home, he's intolerant of opposing views to his, and he's not as open-minded and thinking of a man as I usually like to have leading the country I live in.

As I have said before...monies appropriated to liberate and rebuild Iraq: $300,000,000,000.00

That would house and feed a LOT of poor Americans and train them so they could be self-sufficient.

Helping Iraq isn't bad, but rebuilding their buildings and water pipes and electrical grid when there are parts of our country who need that...is just sad...especially when Iraq, again, is sitting on trillions of dollars in crude oil with which to fund their own recovery.

Back to Koresh tho...

I don't say the government was totally right...but, Koresh definitely wasn't in the right either. The man had broken the law...and he could have surrendered and none of that ever would have happened. And if he was innocent, he could have easily cleared himself and gone back to living in his compound and convincing 15 year olds to "marry" him and have sex with him.

I'm not for giving up freedoms...I'm just not for giving someone the right to violate the law in God's name.

No, the door is NOT assumed to have burnt up. Did you just make that part up?

If taxes wasn't what the problem was with the guns, then please state exactly WHAT the charge was. More than one article from differnt sources stated that he hadn't paid the proper taxes on the firearms. NOT that he had illegal firearms. He was a lisenced dealer so he HAD the proper permits to buy and sell the firearms.

And yes, in america I could say I am gods son and try to get people to drink kool-aid with me. Freedom from ALL religious persecution for everyone, not just the ones YOU can say are rational.

If he had the signed concent to marry these girls, then he commited no crime with them. NOTE, some of the articles said the girls were as young as 12. But this is now a moral issue with YOU, not a legal issue about him. He found the loop hole. While not something I admire or approve of, it is no more illegal than getting an abortion, and just as moral.

If nothing else, read this page.

http://www.wizardsofaz.com/waco/waco2.html

Didn't know he actually had a name, hang on, Herman?

I think you mean the monster that's scared sh*tless, "PEEEEEEOPLE!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"

Herman was a mouse, Catnip was a cat. Herman wore a bowler(sp?). In one episode he tricked Catnip into falling down a well several times.

Yes, he said, "People? AAhhhhhhh!" And ran through several walls. Gossamer is his name. He was called Rudolph in one episode "Water, Water, Every Hare" by an evil scientist. Bugs Bunny gave him a perm with sticks of dynamite.

Marvin the Martian's dog was named K-9. Though he was also given different names through out his career.

I know my cartoons.

I don't think I'll ever convince you otherwise, but I'll just try to show you information that is quoted and websited since you obviously think I'm pulling stuff outta my arse til I quote just like you do.

Since I have time this afternoon, here it goes -

Now... you're saying a fire would have burned the place down except for the doors? hm...I gotta call back my high school chemistry teacher and discuss this one. Even metals (including most used in door construction) would melt down in a fire that big and sustained.

As for marrying the minors, did you not read what the statute says? It requires him (or anyone else under law) to go before a court clerk to get the license to marry her, or to have a court approve the marriage license. He did neither. He had self-admitted sexual relations with a 15 year old in Texas without her being his wife under *law*. That's a crime under *state law*. Therefore, it *is* a legal issue.

So...here's you some info for you, since you want quotes and such to validate what I say:

****************
"The government of the United States and its agents are not responsible for the April 19,
1993, tragedy at Waco. The government:
(a) did not cause the fire;
(b) did not direct gunfire at the Branch Davidian complex; and
(c) did not improperly employ the armed forces of the United States."

"Responsibility for the tragedy of Waco rests with certain of the Branch Davidians and their
leader, David Koresh, who:
(a) shot and killed four ATF agents on February 28, 1993, and wounded 20 others;
(b) refused to exit the complex peacefully during the 51-day standoff that followed the ATF
raid despite extensive efforts and concessions by negotiators for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (?FBI?);
(c) directed gunfire at FBI agents who were inserting tear gas into the complex on April 19,
1993;
(d) spread fuel throughout the main structure of the complex and ignited it in at least three
places causing the fire which resulted in the deaths of those Branch Davidians not killed
by their own gunfire; and
(e) killed some of their own people by gunfire, including at least five children."

"The following evidence demonstrates that the Davidians started the fire:
(a) Title III Intercepts.9 Davidian conversations intercepted through the use of
concealed listening devices inside the complex from April 17 to April 19 indicate that the Davidians started the fire. An April 17 intercept records Davidians discussing how they could prevent fire trucks
from reaching the complex. An April 18 intercept records a conversation between Steven Schneider(10)
and other Davidians indicating a conspiracy to start a fire. During that conversation, Schneider joked
that another Davidian had always wanted to be a ?charcoal briquette.? Another Davidian stated that, ?I
know there?s nothing like a good fire . . .? On April 19, between the beginning of the gas insertion
operation at approximately 6:00 a.m. and approximately 7:25 a.m., the Title III intercepts recorded the
following statements: ?Need fuel;? ?Do you want it poured?;? ?Have you poured it yet?;? ?Did you pour
it yet?;? ?David said pour it right?;? ?David said we have to get the fuel on;? ?We want the fuel;? ?They
got some fuel around here;? ?Have you got the fuel . . . the fuel ready?;? ?I?ve already poured it;? ?It?s
already poured;? ?Yeah . . . we?ve been pouring it;? ?Pouring it already;? ?Real quickly you can order
the fire yes;? ?You got to put the fuel in there too;? ?We?ve got it poured already;? ?Is there a way to
spread fuel in there?;? ?So we only light it first when they come in with the tank right . . . right as they?re
coming in;? ?That?s secure . . . we should get more hay in here;? ?You have to spread it all so get
started ok?? These statements precede the sighting of fire by several hours, which is further proof that
the Davidians intended to set fire to the complex well in advance of actually lighting the fires."

"Davidians who survived the fire have
acknowledged that other Davidians started the fire. Graeme Craddock, a Davidian who survived the
fire, told the Office of Special Counsel in 1999 that he observed other Davidians pouring fuel in the
chapel area of the complex on April 19, 1993. He further stated that he saw another Davidian, Mark
Wendel, arrive from the second floor yelling: ?Light the fire.? Davidian Clive Doyle told the Texas
Rangers on April 20, 1993, that Davidians had spread Coleman fuel in designated locations throughout
the complex, although he declined to state who specifically lit the fires."

"(c) Statements of Davidian Witnesses. The interviews of Davidians further establish
that no government agent fired on April 19. The Office of Special Counsel interviewed 13 Branch
Davidians, six of whom were in the complex on April 19, 1993.18 Attorneys and investigators for the
Office of Special Counsel questioned each of these witnesses in detail about the standoff. None of the
Davidians who were in the complex on April 19 indicated that he or she saw or heard government
gunfire, nor did any Davidian provide other evidence that the government fired at the complex or at the
Davidians.
The evidence indicates that the Davidians who died from gunfire either committed
suicide or were shot by other Davidians. One surviving Davidian, Kiri Jewell, testified before Congress
that Koresh had taught her how to use a gun to kill herself. Moreover, Dena Okimoto, a former
Davidian, reported to the government on March 3, 1993, that Koresh had instructed his followers that,
if he died before they did, the women should kill themselves or receive assistance from the men, who
were to go on a shooting spree before they died. Title III intercepts indicate that on March 16, 1993, a
Davidian, possibly Koresh, discussed committing suicide by shooting himself. These statements further
support the conclusion that the Davidians shot themselves and did not die as the result of government
gunfire."

- Waco Report, compiled by Sen. John Danforth of Missouri

*************

You should be able to download the actual audio clips of the Branch Davidians from the FBI or ATF site, or get them from Congress. I'm not going to take the time to hunt down all the links. That would take too much time.

here's some links that were quick finds.

FBI wanted to shoot, but didn't:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/08/waco.inquiry.02/

Full Danforth report to the Deputy Attorney General:
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/DanforthRpt.pdf

I'm looking for the actual video so I can get you proof as to whether or not the door was wood and caught fire and burned.

There is a picture on a anti-ATF site that claims the ATF did all the offensive things, but you can clearly see that after the firefight there are no bullet markings on the front door as you claimed would be there if they could find the door.

You can see where the bullet holes were circled and that the witness testifying even noted what they were on the photo, and they are clearly around two windows on the top floor, and having blown out the bottom floor window to the right of the front door. The picture is on this page.

http://www.hardylaw.net/ATF.html

I again have to say that you are correct in your statement that everyone has religious freedom to worship as they choose. However, that is qualified by the caveat that their practice does not infringe on the rights of others and does not violate law.

For instance, I could not be a devil worshiper and say "My Lord Satan says that I am required to offer the blood of a virgin girl. Therefore, it's my right to practice my religion." and then kill a girl if she says she wants to be my virgin sacrifice.

Religious freedom does not give you carte blanche right to do anything, even within your own home, to others around you.

His most obvious infringement (at least to me) was his statement that he had taken a 15 year old wife and consumated his marriage with her, which would qualify as statutory rape under Texas law, since he was never legally married to her under Texas law.

As for the firearms details, the report clearly lines out it didn't have to do with taxes but with the fact that they were allegedly converting Colt AR-15s to fully automatic weapons. Even if he was a gun dealer as you claim with a dealer's license, he couldn't have possession of or the right to convert AR-15s to fully automatic weapons without a proper class of federal permit to have them.

I know I won't get enough evidence to convince you. That's pretty evident. The guns if they were converted to automatic were probably melted down when the compound burned, so I can't pull those out of a hat. I can't do anything more than report what Davidians themselves reported to independent counsel, which was that:

a) Koresh ordered Coleman fuel to be poured around the compound (audio available)
b) The order was given to light the place up as the FBI encroached on the building. (audio available)
c) Koresh (by testimony of at least one of his own followers) had ordered women to kill themselves via firearm.

I mean...it's pretty simple...if the guy was into doing his own worship, that is fine...but, he was getting Colt AR-15s, he was receiving conversion kits...I guess he was gonna use the conversion kits to play checkers with?
It's simple...he was converting weapons.

The guy was a loon. He had little, if any, concern for the others if he was telling people inside the compound to commit suicide instead of surrendering to save them.

And once again...I won't state that I thought the raid was right, especially since a bunch of innocent kids (who had no choice in the matter) were killed. But, I'm not gonna even think Koresh was right for putting all those people in harms way by refusing to surrender to the police. If he was innocent and they weren't converting weapons, he could have let them search and have been done with it and made fools of them through the press.

Like I said...I'll probably not convince you otherwise that the guy was wrong for not surrendering. But the truth of it is...he could have come out the door with his hands up just as easy as the FBI went into the compound with a CEV.

No one had to die that day...not him...not ATF...not FBI...not innocent kids. Koresh had the real power to end it all and refused.

Jesus...I feel like I just gave birth.

Can I submit that for a Master's degree or something?

Well, it could be; but even if what you say were true, I wouldn't affirm it without something solid to back me up.

BY far the funniest yet, so far. Sunday nights on FoxTV (not Fox News).

PAPA DEUCE!!! Damn you all to Hell!

The Scotch-Irish have historically been exceedingly willing to take up arms to defend their country.

During the Civil War, there was little need to recruit them; they readily volunteered, on both sides.

Unfortunately I've been finding that more and more High School and College students oppose and protest recruiters:

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-861303.php

http://www.koin.com/news.asp?RECORD_KEY%5bnews%5d=ID&ID%5Bnews%5D=936

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_2603424

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/collegenotcombat.mov2hgqn2.mov

http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127~2896~2840551,00.html#

http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1678

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050308/ts_usatoday/counterrecruitersshadowingthemilitary

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/04/21/wh.html

I wonder if this trend will continue to increase in the coming months.

I don't always get a chance to see it but I try not to miss it as much as possible.

And, as a Vet, though I disagree with your statement, I did, and will, defend your right to make it.

If you ask anyone from Scotland, and if you want to google soc.culture.scottish you can find this issue has been discussed before, they tend to be offended by the term.

If you want to be americanocentric, feel free to use the term, just know that others are not at all fond of your usage.

James

those who emmigrated to the US, I would submit that it is the opinion of those here which carries the greater weight.

So let me get this straight. The Scots who left Scotland for Ireland, and from there may have stayed in Ireland, or migrated to Canada, we don't have a right to define a term that you apply to all of us? Or is this really only the people who came to America - if so, please change the term to Scotch-Irish Americans....

I am being faceteous simply to point out that you are using an American centric term, and that the rest of the world may not agree, and some may be offended. I've been communicating on soc.culture.scottish for years, and I know they resent the term.

James

When in Scotland you would be tossed like a caber out of the pub for using the term Scotch for anything other than a drink order.

Last time I visited Scotland was for a show with a US based touring company. Everyone was talking about the Scotch this and the Scotch-men that, when we finally got to the show in Edinborough, I was saying it too, and got more than my fair share of stern corrections.

Perhaps it is a regional thing in the US but there's no question that it is very offensive to the Scots.

I quite clearly stated that I was using the term with respects to those who emmigrated to the US.

I made [b]no[/b] mention of Scots elsewhere.

Sorry for being somewhat off-topic, but has anybody noticed anything strange about the No Child Left Behind Act, other than the provision for recruiting schoolchildren with the help of the schools?

The clause "No Child Left Behind" ends with a preposition!

Who left Dubya *behind*? Maybe they don't teach grammar at Yale, but isn't that because they are expected to already know it at matriculation?

No we don't have signs that promote drugs, well we do but not in schools, they simplay aren't needed. Weed is as common as a cigarrette in many parts of Canada.

And still nobody has died from it yet.

...

After retiring from 28 years in the military my husband has been greatly disappointed at some of the tactics used by recruiters. I think it will be difficult to improve the Army's image at this point (war in Iraq)and will be years before a positive image is intact. However, there are still many young people who are willing to serve if they can trust the promises of their recruiter.
Recruiters should be prosecuted just like any other serviceman if they break the law.