George Bush And Stem Cells

[mrdannyg 274]

this is a common myth about warshere's the only article i could find online about it:http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/l/aa032003a.htmthe us economy was great before wwi, and was already rising 3-4 prior to wwii.also, w/ the current war in iraq, our standing military and reserves were sufficient that a new economic shift to a war society was not needed. if war truly stimulated the country into economic growth, the value of the us dollar would be gaining ground compared to countries at peace... on the contrary, the dollar has been losing steady value to most asian and european currencies.

not completely true - war does increase the velocity of money, as more money is being spent. typically it increases overall productivity as well, though generally only in certain areas that are not particularly beneficial to non-war uses.War and economic success are not as linked as most people think, but war most certainly helps provoke an economy.the bolded statement is simply untrue. there are far too many factors involved to say that with any certainty.

[mrdannyg 274]

the points were pretty well-made, so i'll respond to them if anyone cares.

1) Don't blame others for the US destroying the potential for world unity and a lack of war. 2) The United States is simply a warmongering nation 3) [The United States] has achieved a stand-alone status as military, political and economic leader, despite being extremely inefficient on all three counts. 4) You are warmongering, murdering and absolutely selfish I'm a pretty cynical guy. I'm a very VERY Liberal-American. As far as social issues, I'm as far to the left as it gets. Economically, despite being raised in a pretty well-to-do household, I lean to the left as well. And as much as I appreciate my country, I wion't defend it blindly. "Jingoistic" is not a word anyone would ever use to describe me. Just so we have a little background.1) In no way to I support our unilateral military effort against Iraq. I hope that's what you're referring to here. The Afghan war effort was necessary. But what we did in Iraq was opportunistic, irresponsible, and- yes- dangerous. At the same time, however, suggesting that the US is SINGLEHANDEDLY destroying "the potential for world unity and lack of war"? That's just stupid. Say what you will about our role as PoliceState, we've been the FIRST country to defend freedom more than any other. It may have been, most of the time, to our own benefit, but there are few other countries with the military and economic might to defend the helpless. (shrug) We're self interested jerks most of the time, but we still do the jobs most countries can't even consider.2) Yeah, WWII is a great example of our War Mongering. We were STUPIDLY Isolationist for years, and only entered the war when attacked. It was (see above) STUPID to wait that long, but to suggest the US actively SEEKS war is ridiculous. Vietnam is probably the best example of American Military "Overreach." When the war began, however, there was a real fear of the spread of Communism. Think: "Domino Effect." We were villified for Vietnam, and likely rightly so, but most of the Western World's hopes depended on the United States during the Cold War.3) (shrug) Silly. I hate to be a jerk, but the US has a proven track record as the most effective economic, military, and political nation in the history of the modern world. 4) If you want to be taken seriously, referring to a nation as "murderous" (not to metnion "warmongering" for a second time) won't get you anywhere. Ever. It's inflammatory and absurd.Wang

1 - I never used the term "singlehandedly." (or if i did, i accept that it was wrong) The US is the major contributor to my undefined term "lack of world unity," which is undefined enough to not really be arguable. Basically I'm just trying to say the US looks out for themselves as opposed to the wellbeing of other countries more so than most other countries. They also donate billions in foreign aid and other benefits, so its by no means a singleminded effort.2 - I guess I'd have to qualify that my statements referred to post-WWII. I'm young, and not a history student, so most of what I say is pretty lacking in context. The US has seeked out wars since WWII, most of them varying from completely unnecessary to arguably having some necessity.We can argue about how much the freedom of others has to do with where they choose their wars, but it is pretty easy to look at places where they have not gotten involved to show that they only do get involved where it is significantly to their benefit. The fact that it also allows for increased freedoms of the citizens of that country is a byproduct, not a goal.3 - I disagree. Military, yes. Political, no. I guess on a grand scale, they're a pretty effective democracy, but if you only want to look at developed countries they are certainly not. I can present no evidence to this, I just thought a country where a president received less than half the votes (in a 2-party system) and governors of states included retired wrestlers and actors could be considered inefficient.economic is simply not close. the US is one of the least efficient of the developed countries economically, and probably the least. efficient refers to the best use of resources, not best outcome. the US has such a huge amount of resources and productive capabilities, that their actual performance is unbelievably poor. one only needs to look at the automotive industry for an example of how despite far less experience and resources, other countries are already producing much more efficiently.4 - Inflammatory and irresponsible those terms certainly are. But they also happen to be correct. So in a political discussion that is already using inflammatory terms, and is using (until the participation of you, mk, sbriand and others) absurd, fallacious, incorrect or usually nonexistant logics/proofs, i didn't think it was out of place.I don't see how the term 'warmongering' is absurd. I think we agree that the US has seeked out wars (since WWII), largely for its own benefits. They arguably create the need for war. To me, this qualifies them as 'warmongering.' It isn't a term usable in a proper political argument perhaps, but the use of it is correct and valid enough to not dismiss and entire argument based on its usage.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Bush will support stem cell research soon, but he probably won't have a say by then.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=43...+speech+changed

[Shimmering Wang 1]

the points were pretty well-made, so i'll respond to them if anyone cares.1 - Basically I'm just trying to say the US looks out for themselves as opposed to the wellbeing of other countries more so than most other countries. 2 - We can argue about how much the freedom of others has to do with where they choose their wars, but it is pretty easy to look at places where they have not gotten involved to show that they only do get involved where it is significantly to their benefit. The fact that it also allows for increased freedoms of the citizens of that country is a byproduct, not a goal.3 - I disagree. Military, yes. Political, no. I just thought a country where a president received less than half the votes (in a 2-party system) and governors of states included retired wrestlers and actors could be considered inefficient.economic is simply not close. the US is one of the least efficient of the developed countries economically, and probably the least. efficient refers to the best use of resources, not best outcome. 4 - Inflammatory and irresponsible those terms certainly are. But they also happen to be correct. So in a political discussion that is already using inflammatory terms, and is using (until the participation of you, mk, sbriand and others) absurd, fallacious, incorrect or usually nonexistant logics/proofs, i didn't think it was out of place.I don't see how the term 'warmongering' is absurd. I think we agree that the US has seeked out wars (since WWII), largely for its own benefits. They arguably create the need for war. To me, this qualifies them as 'warmongering.'

1) I'm not sure what the point of this is. Of course we're a "me-first" nation. Every single nation is a me-first nation. I don't see how you could disagree. It just so happens that we're the most powerful country in the world. To suggest that we're somehow worse than Germany, France, England, China, Canada, etc. is kind of silly. We just happen to have more resources to devote to keeping our position of power. Capitalism kinda does that to world politics.2) I'm not so naive as to suggest we fight wars out of some humanitarian concern, but we DO fight wars in an attempt to stabilize situations longterm. We might be wrong, but that's the goal. I think our goal in the Middle East was to remove destabilizing influences and replace them over time with semi-democracies more amenable to US and Western interests. We're just not doing it well. By your same logic, Canada is incredibly selfish because they're spreading themselves thing fixing the AIDS problem in Africa. Why won't you guys get involved? Even if freedoms are just a side effect of our military actions (which they may not even be, much of the time), it's still perfectly legitimate to tally that in the "plus column" of US foreign politics.3) Getting a little semantical. I think we're a pretty effective Democracy, historically. We protect and preserve many of the rights and freedoms of our citizens, and only have a few "rough patches" in our history (Slavery, McCarthyism... ha). Our Constitution is pretty much THE model worldwide now for a Democratic Republic. Economically, we're super ultra rich. Fine, we're inefficient, but then your point doesn't even make much sense. Sure, but we're still super rich and good at making money. Better than most countries. 4) This is the stupidest number in the argument, and if we continue the discussion let's just leave this one offWang

[mrdannyg 274]

1) I'm not sure what the point of this is. Of course we're a "me-first" nation. Every single nation is a me-first nation. I don't see how you could disagree. It just so happens that we're the most powerful country in the world. To suggest that we're somehow worse than Germany, France, England, China, Canada, etc. is kind of silly. We just happen to have more resources to devote to keeping our position of power. Capitalism kinda does that to world politics.2) I'm not so naive as to suggest we fight wars out of some humanitarian concern, but we DO fight wars in an attempt to stabilize situations longterm. We might be wrong, but that's the goal. I think our goal in the Middle East was to remove destabilizing influences and replace them over time with semi-democracies more amenable to US and Western interests. We're just not doing it well. By your same logic, Canada is incredibly selfish because they're spreading themselves thing fixing the AIDS problem in Africa. Why won't you guys get involved? Even if freedoms are just a side effect of our military actions (which they may not even be, much of the time), it's still perfectly legitimate to tally that in the "plus column" of US foreign politics.3) Getting a little semantical. I think we're a pretty effective Democracy, historically. We protect and preserve many of the rights and freedoms of our citizens, and only have a few "rough patches" in our history (Slavery, McCarthyism... ha). Our Constitution is pretty much THE model worldwide now for a Democratic Republic. Economically, we're super ultra rich. Fine, we're inefficient, but then your point doesn't even make much sense. Sure, but we're still super rich and good at making money. Better than most countries. 4) This is the stupidest number in the argument, and if we continue the discussion let's just leave this one offWang

1 - Every country is 'me-first' of course. My point was that the US devotes far more resources to their own development relative to others than most other countries. For this to be true though, it implies my point in 2:2 - I disagree with the point that if something is a byproduct and not a goal, you can 'count it' in the plus side. Most would argue that the freedom of other nations is simply a subordinate goal, and not a byproduct, and although I don't agree, that's simply my cynical personal opinion.I agree that your wars are to stabilize your own situations long-term, which is a logical goal. I don't see how any of the logic implies your point about Canada. Almost none of Canada's foreign work is done for our own direct benefit, but for far more altruistic purposes, IMO. obviously, my allegiances and stereotypes are the cause of my opinions on the goals of the US and Canada.3 - can't make too many arguments here because I simply don't have the knowledge or historical background. I would argue that while your constitution may be an excellent base, it is often not correctly or accurately adhered to.One only needs to look at the Patriot Act and other recent legislation to show that it is constantly ignored. Now that I reconsider it however, as a pure democracy, it is pretty efficient, though I don't think that point has much meaning.Yes, you guys are good at making money. The best. Inefficiency is a huge deal, since the US has such a large portion of the resources. Lots of money is good, but more money is better. More efficiency would increase the standard of living of the US, and the entire world. While large size and efficiency often are inversely related, if the US was nearly as efficient as many smaller developed countries, they would see a huge increase in standard of living.4 - Numbermonger

[digitalmonkey 929]

Bush will support stem cell research soon, but he probably won't have a say by then.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=43...+speech+changed

Seriously, watch the video. It's alarming, but not a slam against him at all.

[SexyBlondeGuy 0]

Newsflash: Chris Reeves is dead! It's too late for stem cell research. What we need is research on how to bring him back to life.

[SBriand 4]

2 We can argue about how much the freedom of others has to do with where they choose their wars, but it is pretty easy to look at places where they have not gotten involved to show that they only do get involved where it is significantly to their benefit. The fact that it also allows for increased freedoms of the citizens of that country is a byproduct, not a goal.

I don't know why I post. My wife keeps telling me to stay out of topics like this but I am a masochist at heart I guess. I agree with this statement. One thing I have always found funny and my republican Bush loving friends can't seem to remember is Bush's stance on "Nation Building". In both elections Nation Buidling was brought up numerous times during the debates and one thing the US likes to do is this. Go into a country they feel is not doing things correctly and try and change their government. Bush was adamant about saying that he DOES NOT believe in nation Building and would NEVER do such a thing as it is not our place to change peoples styles of government. That's some funny **** right there cause that is what Iraq is. A Nation Building project. We don't like how Saddam runs the government so we capture him, kill others and turn it into a Democracy. Noone asked us. Bush and his peeps decided to do that under their own free will. Saddam was not a threat to us. Saddam was not with the Al Queda. Some of you can sit there and try and prove that to be wrong but you won't change my stance on that given all the evidence. He wasn't working with Al Queda. Now that we got Saddam out Al Queda has started to grow there because the person they didn't want to **** with is now in our possession and on trail. We made matters worse. I have two friends from Iraq. Worked with them in my last job for 5 years. Things are way worse now in Baghdad then they were before we invaded. They continue to worry about their family members who are stuck there. One went there to see his mom and dad and he had a orrific experience. Things are worse because of us. And for what? Because we want to be the bad *** country. The world hates us. They have every reason too. Call me un patriotic. I won't disagree with that statement.

[MasterLJ 0]

Just an FYI...Researchers have found ways to extract stem cells from blood and bone marrow, so it's a moot point.Btw, Bush doesn't dismiss stem cell research (even embryonic) he just advocates that there shouldn't be Federal funding. In other words, he's not trying to ban the practice.As a parent of a child who could one day benefit from research being done with stem cells, I'm sickened at any road blocks, and therefore dislike Bush.As the cousin of a Marine slain in Iraq, I also dislike Bush.As a poker player who will no longer be able to have the same success as he used to once the the Senate has there way, I dislike the Repubs.So yeah... as much as I make fun of Canadians, Canada is looking pretty damn good.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Just an FYI...Researchers have found ways to extract stem cells from blood and bone marrow, so it's a moot point.Btw, Bush doesn't dismiss stem cell research (even embryonic) he just advocates that there shouldn't be Federal funding. In other words, he's not trying to ban the practice.As a parent of a child who could one day benefit from research being done with stem cells, I'm sickened at any road blocks, and therefore dislike Bush.As the cousin of a Marine slain in Iraq, I also dislike Bush.As a poker player who will no longer be able to have the same success as he used to once the the Senate has there way, I dislike the Repubs.So yeah... as much as I make fun of Canadians, Canada is looking pretty damn good.

Plus the weed up here is damn good! And poutine, we have poutine. Can you get poutine in the States?

[MasterLJ 0]

Plus the weed up here is damn good! And poutine, we have poutine. Can you get poutine in the States?

If you know Canadians, which I do =D.That stuff is awesome. I'm surprised that something of that gross-caloric content was not invented in America.BTW, as an ex-pot smoker, the best weed comes through Central California, AINEC. We are a distribution hub for much of the US. It's not necessarily grown here, but the schwag you can land here is better than anywhere else.

[76clubs 0]

Newsflash: Chris Reeves is dead! It's too late for stem cell research. What we need is research on how to bring him back to life.

Die

[digitalmonkey 929]

If you know Canadians, which I do =D.That stuff is awesome. I'm surprised that something of that gross-caloric content was not invented in America.BTW, as an ex-pot smoker, the best weed comes through Central California, AINEC. We are a distribution hub for much of the US. It's not necessarily grown here, but the schwag you can land here is better than anywhere else.

Better than BC, cause some of that stuff would knock up a horse.

[DonkSlayer 1]

the points were pretty well-made, so i'll respond to them if anyone cares.1 - I never used the term "singlehandedly." (or if i did, i accept that it was wrong) The US is the major contributor to my undefined term "lack of world unity," which is undefined enough to not really be arguable. Basically I'm just trying to say the US looks out for themselves as opposed to the wellbeing of other countries more so than most other countries. They also donate billions in foreign aid and other benefits, so its by no means a singleminded effort.

My question to this would be, What is the point of being a nation if not for the self-interest of its citizens? Do you support each country working toward a world-unity community? If so, you must state that before you make a comment like that.

2 - I guess I'd have to qualify that my statements referred to post-WWII. I'm young, and not a history student, so most of what I say is pretty lacking in context. The US has seeked out wars since WWII, most of them varying from completely unnecessary to arguably having some necessity.We can argue about how much the freedom of others has to do with where they choose their wars, but it is pretty easy to look at places where they have not gotten involved to show that they only do get involved where it is significantly to their benefit. The fact that it also allows for increased freedoms of the citizens of that country is a byproduct, not a goal.

"Sought out" is a bit of a gray-area term to use. If you firmly believed someone was going to come harm you, your family, or your close friend, you firmly, firmly believed it, and there was no police to call, would you choose to do something about it or wait until it happened? Of course I'm assuming the Roman-esque mindset of pre-emptive action for protection, and you could say "oh they just wanted oil", which is neither here nor there.

3 - I disagree. Military, yes. Political, no. I guess on a grand scale, they're a pretty effective democracy, but if you only want to look at developed countries they are certainly not. I can present no evidence to this, I just thought a country where a president received less than half the votes (in a 2-party system) and governors of states included retired wrestlers and actors could be considered inefficient.economic is simply not close. the US is one of the least efficient of the developed countries economically, and probably the least. efficient refers to the best use of resources, not best outcome. the US has such a huge amount of resources and productive capabilities, that their actual performance is unbelievably poor. one only needs to look at the automotive industry for an example of how despite far less experience and resources, other countries are already producing much more efficiently.

The US is not a pure democracy. It is more accurately described as a "republic" or "representative democracy". "Democracy" is a term used much too loosely, as it really refers to a spirit in our nation, rather than a reality. I would completely disagree with you on the political point. Most other Western nations are bogged down in multi-party, coalition-based governments that are EXTREMELY slow and inefficient. A vast majority of them also have higher unemployment and a weaker economy than ours.

4 - Inflammatory and irresponsible those terms certainly are. But they also happen to be correct. So in a political discussion that is already using inflammatory terms, and is using (until the participation of you, mk, sbriand and others) absurd, fallacious, incorrect or usually nonexistant logics/proofs, i didn't think it was out of place.I don't see how the term 'warmongering' is absurd. I think we agree that the US has seeked out wars (since WWII), largely for its own benefits. They arguably create the need for war. To me, this qualifies them as 'warmongering.' It isn't a term usable in a proper political argument perhaps, but the use of it is correct and valid enough to not dismiss and entire argument based on its usage.

If you believe that the US has "sought" war "for its own benefit", than "warmongering" is a correct term, IF the benefit is not ethically defensible in terms of justifying a war. If it is, "mongering" implies some sort of dereliction of humanity and is incorrect.

[digitalmonkey 929]

My question to this would be, What is the point of being a nation if not for the self-interest of its citizens? Do you support each country working toward a world-unity community? If so, you must state that before you make a comment like that. "Sought out" is a bit of a gray-area term to use. If you firmly believed someone was going to come harm you, your family, or your close friend, you firmly, firmly believed it, and there was no police to call, would you choose to do something about it or wait until it happened? Of course I'm assuming the Roman-esque mindset of pre-emptive action for protection, and you could say "oh they just wanted oil", which is neither here nor there.The US is not a pure democracy. It is more accurately described as a "republic" or "representative democracy". "Democracy" is a term used much too loosely, as it really refers to a spirit in our nation, rather than a reality. I would completely disagree with you on the political point. Most other Western nations are bogged down in multi-party, coalition-based governments that are EXTREMELY slow and inefficient. A vast majority of them also have higher unemployment and a weaker economy than ours.If you believe that the US has "sought" war "for its own benefit", than "warmongering" is a correct term, IF the benefit is not ethically defensible in terms of justifying a war. If it is, "mongering" implies some sort of dereliction of humanity and is incorrect.

Hey, I believe this thread is about weed and poutine now.

[fckthis 0]

Hmm. Just going to throw my thoughts on here, hopefully I dont get called out hardcore.First OP's arguement is valid. Bush is contradictory in the sense, that killing embyros is wrong, but starting wars with other nations over shiet normal people dont care about is right. Second, the US in its current administration is one of the worst administrations to ever have reigns in the history of the country. Not only have they narrowly won 2 controversial elections, they started a war in Iraq over supposed WMD, only later to claim that there werent any. This was in the aftermath of 9/11, which again, has been dowsed in controversy, over the the legitimacy of who was truly behind it. The economy has fallen, and the US has arguably, become the most loathed country in the world.And somehow, amongst all of this, I am surprised, that people still adore/support Bush.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Hmm. Just going to throw my thoughts on here, hopefully I dont get called out hardcore.First OP's arguement is valid. Bush is contradictory in the sense, that killing embyros is wrong, but starting wars with other nations over shiet normal people dont care about is right. Second, the US in its current administration is one of the worst administrations to ever have reigns in the history of the country. Not only have they narrowly won 2 controversial elections, they started a war in Iraq over supposed WMD, only later to claim that there werent any. This was in the aftermath of 9/11, which again, has been dowsed in controversy, over the the legitimacy of who was truly behind it. The economy has fallen, and the US has arguably, become the most loathed country in the world.And somehow, amongst all of this, I am surprised, that people still adore/support Bush.

Ah, why friends should not discuss politics.Bush was/is not the best president to ever preside. Average at Best.Certainly not worst. Get a history book and read about Buchanan, and most of the guys between 1880 and 1930, including Hoover.If you are on the other side of opinions about the events you've listed, then you like Bush. A lot.

[fckthis 0]

Ah, why friends should not discuss politics.Bush was/is not the best president to ever preside. Average at Best.Certainly not worst. Get a history book and read about Buchanan, and most of the guys between 1880 and 1930, including Hoover.If you are on the other side of opinions about the events you've listed, then you like Bush. A lot.

LOL, now on the topic of weed and poutine, I enjoy both, but can u guess in which order?BTW I had some jamaician shiet recently. Now that **** is face numbingly awesome.

[Tritz 0]

But fight on... because I know you democrats love to kill anything human that hasn't been born yet.Fetuses should only be allowed to be aborted in the zygoat stage.At this point they are not a living, breathing, thinking...human.

[Golden 2]

At least stem cell research has a noble purpose.

QFT, IMHO.

[mrdannyg 274]

My question to this would be, What is the point of being a nation if not for the self-interest of its citizens? Do you support each country working toward a world-unity community? If so, you must state that before you make a comment like that. A nation should work both for its own benefit, and towards world-unity, if only for the reason that world-unity is to every nations individual long-term goals. I'm using too many undefined terms, but it should suffice that my personal opinion is that nations should place a heavy emphasis on global rather than individual benefit."Sought out" is a bit of a gray-area term to use. If you firmly believed someone was going to come harm you, your family, or your close friend, you firmly, firmly believed it, and there was no police to call, would you choose to do something about it or wait until it happened? I agree it is a problematic term. I think the US has several times acted without that certainty, or anything resembling it. It participated/encouraged/began wars for its own long-term benefits, rather than defense. This isn't necessarily a problem, just a clarification.Of course I'm assuming the Roman-esque mindset of pre-emptive action for protection, and you could say "oh they just wanted oil", which is neither here nor there.I guess that is what I'm saying, but I won't make the argument that "war=oil' or such things. I don't think the wars were pre-emptive defense.The US is not a pure democracy. It is more accurately described as a "republic" or "representative democracy". "Democracy" is a term used much too loosely, as it really refers to a spirit in our nation, rather than a reality. I realize it is not a "pure democracy," my point was that I think it can only be considered efficient in that respect. Personally, I have a big problem with offering only two candidates, but I'm not exactly preparing treatises on alternate efficient forms of government. I think that in terms of a pure democratic process, the current US model does not act as efficiently as many other developed countries, but I am unable to cite evidence.I would completely disagree with you on the political point. Most other Western nations are bogged down in multi-party, coalition-based governments that are EXTREMELY slow and inefficient. A vast majority of them also have higher unemployment and a weaker economy than ours.Sort of related to the last point. The last sentence is completely unrelated. Most statistics you see in newspapers are simply aggregate statistics - in these the US are generally the leaders. However, according to most economic measures, the US is very near the bottom (and often the worst) of all developed nations. Also, unemployment is a nearly useless statistic.If you believe that the US has "sought" war "for its own benefit", than "warmongering" is a correct term, IF the benefit is not ethically defensible in terms of justifying a war. If it is, "mongering" implies some sort of dereliction of humanity and is incorrect.You said it better than I tried several times. That is basically the background with which I used the term. The benefits were not ethically defensible in my personal opinion.

sorry, i'm not totally sober, so fixing up the bolding might've been beyond my capabilities. I tried, with my comments unbolded.

Ah, why friends should not discuss politics.Bush was/is not the best president to ever preside. Average at Best.Certainly not worst. Get a history book and read about Buchanan, and most of the guys between 1880 and 1930, including Hoover.If you are on the other side of opinions about the events you've listed, then you like Bush. A lot.

Hoover especially and most guys in the early 1900's were terrible in their economic impact. Bush's presidency has had extremely poor economic impact, but nothing comparable to those guys.As you can see, basically all my points are undefined, uncited, and related to my personal opinions. Thanks mostly to Wang and Donk's clarifications, I think they are now pretty well made. I can't argue that they're generally acceptable, but I think they are pretty valid, and representative of a lot of non-US liberalistic thinkers.

[disorderlyDj 0]

Bush DID NOT make it illegal to do research on stem cells he just made it that the government is not going to pay for it.I dont agree on abortion because I dont feel it is right thing to do in America.I could care less about what other countries do or think as long as it doesnt effect me or my family.Who gives a sht about Iraqis anyway.As long as they are wiping each other out instead of planning to kill Americans,I sleep better at night.