NationStates Jolt Archive

St Louis, MO..and my reasons are mostly military, combined with the fact I agree with him that there is such a thing as good and evil in the world, I have seen enough of both.As for Green card, my wife is here on one, so I support immigrants(legal ones)
For the record i support immigration with intent to naturalize and not to send money to family abroad.
As the military goes, then are you saying you are blue-collar (currently) employed as military, or retired, or you are in a military environment and support military populace with blue-collar enterprise?
As far as evil goes, everyone i know has the capacity for it but most that i keep company with choose better. No black/white about it whatsoever, i see it more as a case of opportunity and judgment. I also see greed as the core source of evil as i know it, as well as all seven of the revered "deadly sins".

Rather, what you find offensive is, the "general attitude" of "all Americans?" How elitist, how stereotying, how arrogant, how supercilious can you get? And by "you," I mean, actually, you, who are so grand, and great, and all-knowing, to post that all-encompassing remark. Thank you for throwing me in a pit with hundreds of millions of people about whom you know nothing. You must be a great, wise, strong, brave person to be able to stereotype so grandiosly. You have no moral authority to judge anyone, because you lay such all-encompassing judgements on such a huge swath of peoples, in all of your grand ignorance.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

Well, I was saying "nice post" at the beginning. Near the end I didn't realizing you were a stupid Bush-hater. You were complaining about them making generalizations, and then what do you do? You call all republicans stupid rednecks. A generalization.

And I thought I'd be reading an intelligent post.... :rolleyes:

Don't let these armchair generals and leftist perfectionists ( for everyone but themselves ) goad you, soldier. I've been watching these pathetic dweebs ever since they spit on us and called us "babykillers" when we came back from Vietnam. They're noisy and mean-spirited and virtually without redeeming qualities. Say your piece and then let 'em stew in their own stagnant juices. :D
So one half of your country is comprised of "pathetic dweebs" as you so declare, and yet you can find no fault with sending your troops abroad to spread the wings.....er wing (the other one is broken) of the American eagle to give comfort and "freedom" to those so very less fortunate then yourselves? Tell me sir, did you ask the party affiliation of those who were spitting on you, and those of them who were calling you "baby killers"?

Spare me the hollow rhetoric please.

For the record i support immigration with intent to naturalize and not to send money to family abroad.
As the military goes, then are you saying you are blue-collar (currently) employed as military, or retired, or you are in a military environment and support military populace with blue-collar enterprise?
As far as evil goes, everyone i know has the capacity for it but most that i keep company with choose better. No black/white about it whatsoever, i see it more as a case of opportunity and judgment. I also see greed as the core source of evil as i know it, as well as all seven of the revered "deadly sins".

My family grew up in the steel industry. Hard work. Myself, I am an officer in the US Army. I have seen what the Commander-in-Chiefs during my time have done(Clinton, GW) and I prefer the latter.
As to the causes of evil, I agree...greed however is not only about money, as much of the "left"seem to think..greed includes greed for power,etc.
And to clarify my own position, I do not really believe in a "Left" or a "right" which is why I use the "". I believe the vast majority of people are pretty much in the middle, and may only have one or two issues they really slide to one or the other side on.

Because the average, working class American doesn't want a government that takes more money from his weekly paycheck to pay for socialized health care, for welfare, for any of the left's numerous social programs. Like it or not, this country is made up for the most part of Christians. The average American likes a president who mentions god in the things he does. Look at a polls already. In the middle of a bloody and what many Americans now think was an unneccesary war in Iraq, Bush is leading in every major poll. The left is being guided by people like Carter and Kennedy who the average joe American relates to not at all. Just look around on this board...all the libs you will find are primarily high school and college students whose mom and dad or student loans pay all their bills, who complain about how smart they are and how ignorant Bush supporters are, and yet most have barely ever worked an honest day in their life.
An average working class american, as far as that generality goes, probably doesn't want a government that takes more $ from his/her paycheck for ANYTHING, not just social programs. They also don't want to pay as much as they do now for what it costs at the pump but they are all agreeing to utilize it as their fuel so they can continue to commune in their fashion, socially.
You're desperately grasping that the general populace wants a zealot to mention god-ordainment for his f*ckups to the integrity of the nation. Don't impose THAT bullsh*t on people who still believe in the relative seperation of church & state. NOTHING will make that line right to cross in any kind of representative democracy, no matter what others might want of it.

So one half of your country is comprised of "pathetic dweebs" as you so declare, and yet you can find no fault with sending your troops abroad to spread the wings.....er wing (the other one is broken) of the American eagle to give comfort and "freedom" to those so very less fortunate then yourselves? Tell me sir, did you ask the party affiliation of those who were spitting on you, and those of them who were calling you "baby killers"?

Spare me the hollow rhetoric please.

Actually..our wings are fine. His post was to me, because he was what I am now, a soldier. As for the party affiliation, likely they had no party, but it is for certain that even those who did, did not represent their party well. Hell, a Democrat started the war in Vietnam. It is also certain that no Republican WOULD spit on our troops. I have had to deal with alot(no bodily fluids, thanks) and most has been from those with no party affiliation, who just always want to complain. The rest has been from Dems,who usually cover it by stating their concern for our troops, before they bash what we do. Not once has a Republican, to me anyway, ever expressed anything except gratitude for the freedoms that often I feel people in general take for granted.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

These trolls will always find something to complain about. You have every right to be sick of it.

An average working class american, as far as that generality goes, probably doesn't want a government that takes more $ from his/her paycheck for ANYTHING, not just social programs. They also don't want to pay as much as they do now for what it costs at the pump but they are all agreeing to utilize it as their fuel so they can continue to commune in their fashion, socially.
You're desperately grasping that the general populace wants a zealot to mention god-ordainment for his f*ckups to the integrity of the nation. Don't impose THAT bullsh*t on people who still believe in the relative seperation of church & state. NOTHING will make that line right to cross in any kind of representative democracy, no matter what others might want of it.

I agree with you both..the average AMerican DOES believe in God, and feels more comfortable with a president who does as well. That said, NO right thinking American is in favor of Church-state jointness...however, this does NOT imply "anti-religion"it merely implies what the constitution says, no preference of religion will be ENFORCED by law

Actually..our wings are fine. His post was to me, because he was what I am now, a soldier. As for the party affiliation, likely they had no party, but it is for certain that even those who did, did not represent their party well. Hell, a Democrat started the war in Vietnam. It is also certain that no Republican WOULD spit on our troops. I have had to deal with alot(no bodily fluids, thanks) and most has been from those with no party affiliation, who just always want to complain. The rest has been from Dems,who usually cover it by stating their concern for our troops, before they bash what we do. Not once has a Republican, to me anyway, ever expressed anything except gratitude for the freedoms that often I feel people in general take for granted.
So you are trying to say that Democrats generally spit and Republicans generally express gratitude? Or maybe I got that wrong? The people who spit are "those with no party affiliation, who just always want to complain", because of course right after they spit on you, you ask them what party they are affliated with?

Methinks thou doth use the brush of generalization far too liberally, if you will excuse the pun?

My family grew up in the steel industry. Hard work. Myself, I am an officer in the US Army. I have seen what the Commander-in-Chiefs during my time have done(Clinton, GW) and I prefer the latter.
As to the causes of evil, I agree...greed however is not only about money, as much of the "left"seem to think..greed includes greed for power,etc.
And to clarify my own position, I do not really believe in a "Left" or a "right" which is why I use the "". I believe the vast majority of people are pretty much in the middle, and may only have one or two issues they really slide to one or the other side on.
That industry, as i understand it, is indeed hard and dangerous to one's health. I have to use it in my line of work but thankfully don't have to breathe it much (unless welding).
As for c-i-c's go, i disliked something integral Clinton did in '96 regarding the 4th amendment, a change that made the more nefarious aspects of PATRIOT and PATRIOT II easier to implement w/out due process. I also agree that from a military perspective Clinton made things much harder for many people. As a civilian however, i can see the future of this country challenged unnecessarily by the current c-i-c and his Iraq/PNAC pursuit. If he really wanted to accompish something to make us safer i would thinnk he wouldn't have distracted the issue from Afghanistan and he would've considered Syria and a few other countries considerably earlier than Iraq. I can see some of what appears to be the grand plan although i don't see it being accomplished in the manner it's being waged.
Like i'd said about evil, all of it goes to an extension of greed - avarice, sloth, envy, et cetera, all of them center from a disproportionate judgment of value and worth, tested in a forum of opportunity.
And i wholly agree with you as to what the general populace seems to be on the left-right stance.
I appreciate your candor and lucidity, more people here should try as you do to engage in mature conversation about these kinds of issues.
Good luck to you.

So you are trying to say that Democrats generally spit and Republicans generally express gratitude? Or maybe I got that wrong? The people who spit are "those with no party affiliation, who just always want to complain", because of course right after they spit on you, you ask them what party they are affliated with?

Methinks thou doth use the brush of generalization far to liberally, if you will excuse the pun?
Actually, with the ability to actually READ English, you could see I was never spit on. Vietnam Vets, however, were.
As for the affiliation of those who have done their best to give me a hard time, I knew it BEFORE they ever chose to do so. I m ake a habit of knowing who exactly my enemies and friends are.
Actually this is kind of out of line, I apologize. The overall point still stands however, which was that I accused NEITHER party of "slamming" soldiers.

Off the subject, but it really must suck this year in Canada with no hockey.I am in withdrawal here even.

Actually, with the ability to actually READ English, you could see I was never spit on. Vietnam Vets, however, were.
As for the affiliation of those who have done their best to give me a hard time, I knew it BEFORE they ever chose to do so. I m ake a habit of knowing who exactly my enemies and friends are.
Actually this is kind of out of line, I apologize. The overall point still stands however, which was that I accused NEITHER party of "slamming" soldiers.
Actually I believe I read quite well, yet you chose to undertake a post that I had directed to him based on his generalizations and you picked up the torch and brought it forth, and carried on with the theme of generalizing a specific situation. Yet you still have not qualified your assertion that....

"I have had to deal with alot(no bodily fluids, thanks) and most has been from those with no party affiliation, who just always want to complain."

Which in itself, was an attempt to back up the comment of Eutrusca:

"Don't let these armchair generals and leftist perfectionists ( for everyone but themselves ) goad you, soldier. I've been watching these pathetic dweebs ever since they spit on us and called us "babykillers" when we came back from Vietnam."

Which is a painfully condemnation of the many, for the actions of but a few?

Actually I believe I read quite well, yet you chose to undertake a post that I had directed to him based on his generalizations and you picked up the torch and brought it forth, and carried on with the theme of generalizing a specific situation. Yet you still have not qualified your assertion that....

"I have had to deal with alot(no bodily fluids, thanks) and most has been from those with no party affiliation, who just always want to complain."

Which in itself, was an attempt to back up the comment of Eutrusca:

"Don't let these armchair generals and leftist perfectionists ( for everyone but themselves ) goad you, soldier. I've been watching these pathetic dweebs ever since they spit on us and called us "babykillers" when we came back from Vietnam."

Which is a painfully condemnation of the many, for the actions of but a few?
Actually, I condemn no one, not even the few. I state fact. I believe in the right to dissent. What I find unfortunate is that MOST dissenters, do not believe in OTHERS right to dissent..yet even then, I support THEIR right to dissent.
As for my own experiences, they come from all walks of life, but most of those who are unwilling to discuss topics intelligently,regardless of whether they agree or not, usually have no affiliation as far as parties. Does that mean I am condemning those with no affiliation?not at all.I apologize if it seemed so.

bah who cares what europeans think anymore. they don't matter at ALL. the more important countries nowadays are the asian countries. At least they are PROgressing, not REgressing. Europeans think they know everything...and they dont. Although i admit, Americans are the same way. but at least our GOVERNMENT doesnt just sit around on their asses. Now, mind you, im not anti-european. but when it comes to world affairs they can shut the hell up. Hell, even their pitiful UN (which i can't believe the U.S. is still in) has no real power. Power equals influence. The european nations do not have it, so they have no influence over american policy, or anyone's policy for that matter. now im not saying i totally agree with the iraq war, but when they criticize EVERY foreign action the US does, it annoys me. the average european, just like the average american, does not understand foreign policy and that is why they do not run it.

Actually, I condemn no one, not even the few. I state fact. I believe in the right to dissent. What I find unfortunate is that MOST dissenters, do not believe in OTHERS right to dissent..yet even then, I support THEIR right to dissent.
As for my own experiences, they come from all walks of life, but most of those who are unwilling to discuss topics intelligently,regardless of whether they agree or not, usually have no affiliation as far as parties. Does that mean I am condemning those with no affiliation?not at all.I apologize if it seemed so.
Well that is the whole issue here in a nutshell isn't it?

When America was attacked on 9/11, most of the world demonstrated a sincere outpouring of sympathy towards the good people of America. When Bush decided to attack Afghanistan, most of the world backed that action and Bush's approval rating was in the stratosphere (90%)?

Yet when Bush decided to give up the hunt for Osama and his band, and run off to attack Iraq, most supporters got off the bus? What you had was a worldwide condemnation of such an action. Americans became very divided over this issue as well and I totally agree with them.

To turn around and condemn them as "pathetic dweebs" as was suggested, clearly suggests a level of intolerance and lack of undertanding. The so called "armchair generals and leftist perfectionists", only comes into play, when they don't choose to follow the entire playbook of der leader, as if it is unpatriotic to actually have a mind of their own?

Sad commentary to say the least.

Hail democracy and freedom of speech!!

Aren't you making an assumption right now about the left?
It's very easy to speak in generalizations, since they don't have to be backed up in fact, and therefore generalizations are best left to people who shouldn't be bothered with facts. If a person is concerned therefore with specifics then they shouldn't be responded to with generalizations, since that sets the integrity of the argument itself and obviously the integrity of the participants. When two happy generalizing people meet, though, it's a beautiful thing, IN GENERAL, so they can share their mutual delusion with each other and curse everyone else for their intrusive perspectives/evidence.
"Very true!" itself is dubious, since although it only agrees with your perspective it speaks little of reality other than your way of seeing it.
What an amazing way to make a point for the parties you say you disagree with.
To be fair, your last statement is accurate, IMHO.
Well stated!! :)

PS. Europeans can say whatever they want, just remeber all those times we saved you.


Oh yes, and let's forget when the French saved us, as well. In fact, let's forget about that statute thing or whatever it is that they gave us, too. Y'know.. the one that stands somewhere on the east coast. The Statute of Liberation, or Liberia.. whatever. I'm an ignorant American, and I think that everyone owes me for what I have done, but I quickly forget what others have done for me.

And to your four more years, I respond, 4 more months.

The republicans saying that Kerry can't make up his mind is just their way of twisting around the facts about JFK, in order to win votes. It's just dirty politics, everyone practices it.

Now I would also like to add, in regards to a comment made by someone earlier about Europe centering on the US, it's true. They really have nothing better to do. In the 6 weeks total I have spent in Europe I think I saw more news about America than I see here in a normal 6 weeks. (Keep in mind, three of the weeks I spent over there were during the Summer Olympics... which is astounding that I would see any news other than Olympic news.)

I witnessed the news coverage of Huricane Charlie while I was over there. (At which my British friend Harry commented, "Charlie really is everywhere, isn't he?") I saw many American movies of there. Naturally, as the closest thing that Europe has to Hollywood is in GB. I saw news about the upcoming presidential election. Christ, half of their TV focuses on the US!!!

But the fact that they are b!tching about it should alarm us! They had nearly no complaints when Clinton was in office. They roared in happiness when Kennedy was in office. Now I know, the president doesn't make up what America is. The fact still remains, he is indeed our figurehead. Much in the same way that the Queen of England has almost no power, but she still influences greatly how people perceive GB.

So it becomes obvious to me that Europeans in general do not like Bush. They complain about "the Americans" invading countries and killing innocent people, because our military is supposed to represent our nation! What are they fighting for? They should be fighting in the name of the United States of America. I know that's why I joined the Marines. Not to fight poor, uneducated, diseased, ravaged, angry, and frightened enemies who we deemed as possible threats to our nations security!

Good god, what have they done to us? The Iraqi people... what have they done? What has Saddam done? He learned his lesson in the Golf Wars. (I would like to comment that Operation Iraqi Freedom is the dumbest name for a war ever...) Saddam clearly had no weapons of mass destruction. Yes, he tortured many citizens of his country. Yes, he gained power in a very militaristic way. Yes he was quite the ruthless dictator. No, he had not assisted, and I believe, had no plans of any attacks on the US.

And the fact is people... Saddam kept that country in check. He assured that no other terrorists could take power. I am certain that many of the citizens he killed were either involved in opposing forces to him, or were families of, or he just wanted to kill off possible recruits, and make sure the other terrorists organizations knew they couldn't defeat Saddam. Now, I don't agree with the morals that the man had, but we've created a massive breeding ground to harbor more terrorist organizations than any other country in the world.

Worse yet, there is oil there! The US wants the oil, and everyone knows that. So now we can either just leave Iraq, stop our troop losses, and give an enormous amount of power and networth to the many terrorist groups currently in Iraq.... or we can stay, and continue to lose troops needlessly.

I know it sounds crazy to some of you, but we were better off leaving Saddam be. We aren't ruthless dictators. We have to be careful about how we kill (and we are doing a bad job at it.) We simply can not use the same methods of war fare that the terrorist can. We can't kidnap random people from supposed terrorist groups and threaten to behead them if the terrorist group doesn't leave the country! Put simply, we have f'd ourselves.

In regards to someone saying that the Muslims will attack no matter what. Yes, that's life. But there are other ways to go about reducing the risk of terrorist attacks. For instance, if we, along with the other richer nations of the world, spent just a small portion of our income (especially when compare to our military spending, and the US's cost of war on Iraq) we could help to rebuild and revitalize all of these countries. We could give them good roads, a great education system, hospitals, more jobs. The point is, it would eliminate 90% of the hate they have for us, wouldn't cost any lives, and would actually boost the economy of the world as a whole. Of course, this puts our trust in the hands of their leaders... so it isn't too reasonable. All I am saying is there are other way around the problem. We don't have to kill.

No matter how many terrorist leaders we kill, their plans, morals, and ideals will live on. Someone will always be there to kill. I think the way to change them is not through war, rather, through better foreign relations. Right now, I am sure that terrorist groups are having absolutely no problem recruiting more members in Iraq. We've simply invaded their country and been as much of a$$ holes as possible. We have bombed residential areas, invaded their homes... for what?

(Well I have done too much rambling. Keep in mind that when you talk about the Europeans hating us, these facts are all things the Europeans have considered. And yes, they do see GWB as a large reason for 90% of what's wrong. For god's sake... invade Iraq on falsified evidence?)

To save space I won't quote you, but while I admire your beliefs, if they are what you stated, I find it hard to believe you were a Marine. Mostly as you do not seem any more in touch with what is going on in Iraq. We ARE building schools, hospitals, etc. The terrorists are for the most part, NOT Iraqi, they are a hodge podge of other nationalities in the area, and THEY are the ones targetting the Iraqis.

Ahh well I never said I was a former Marine. I enlisted last March. And by helping out these other nations, I mean more than just Iraq... and I also believe that many of the Iraqi people see the Americans as harming them and bringing "bad weather" more so than us helping.

Ahh well I never said I was a former Marine. I enlisted last March. And by helping out these other nations, I mean more than just Iraq... and I also believe that many of the Iraqi people see the Americans as harming them and bringing "bad weather" more so than us helping.

That makes more sense then. Good luck in your enlistment. I do believe it will open your eyes so to speak. As for the Iraqis, those I met, who were angry(very few) were angry because we did not do MORE to eradicate the continual terrorism by outsiders. For the most part, you have Iraqis only to happy to show you mass graves where children,moms,dads,brothers,etc were dragged off and shot by Hussein. There is anger there, at Saddam, at European nations who they perceive as aiding Saddam to stay in power, and at the US, for not moving faster. Most of the large scale protests that I saw
(4 total) were egged on by clerics to impress media types, and when the media left, so did the protestors.

To save space I won't quote you, but while I admire your beliefs, if they are what you stated, I find it hard to believe you were a Marine. Mostly as you do not seem any more in touch with what is going on in Iraq. We ARE building schools, hospitals, etc. The terrorists are for the most part, NOT Iraqi, they are a hodge podge of other nationalities in the area, and THEY are the ones targetting the Iraqis.
Isn't the correct word "insurgents"? According to this article, your estimation is incorrect?

Insurgents in Iraq show signs of acting as a network

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0428/p03s01-usmi.html

Bolstered by former Iraqi military and security personnel, today's insurgents are at the least conducting increasingly sophisticated coordinated attacks. In addition, they have built networks to recruit fighters, make weapons, and funnel funds from Iraqi businesses and charitable groups, military experts say.

Perhaps most important, insurgents are now motivated primarily by nationalism and Islam, rather than by loyalty to Saddam Hussein, they say........

In Sunni areas, disgruntled, jobless Iraqi military and intelligence personnel used their expertise in weaponry and explosives to bolster the proficiency of insurgents.

Their ranks have swollen with young men from Sunni Arab tribes that felt both disenfranchised and angered by harsh US military tactics in the Sunni Triangle. Meanwhile, an influx of small numbers of foreign terrorists and Sunni extremists willing to carry out suicide attacks served as a "force multiplier" for the insurgency.

If you are defending your country against an invader, are you a loyalist, an insurgent or a terrorist? These words get bandied about most often and the Bush administration would most likely prefer to trot out the word "terrorist" to bolster support, for his preceived war on terrorists?

This sounds very interesting. Where abouts where you when you witnessed this, and around what time? (I am not accusing you of being a liar, I am just curious ;-))

Isn't the correct word "insurgents"? According to this article, your estimation is incorrect?

Insurgents in Iraq show signs of acting as a network

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0428/p03s01-usmi.html

Bolstered by former Iraqi military and security personnel, today's insurgents are at the least conducting increasingly sophisticated coordinated attacks. In addition, they have built networks to recruit fighters, make weapons, and funnel funds from Iraqi businesses and charitable groups, military experts say.

Perhaps most important, insurgents are now motivated primarily by nationalism and Islam, rather than by loyalty to Saddam Hussein, they say........

In Sunni areas, disgruntled, jobless Iraqi military and intelligence personnel used their expertise in weaponry and explosives to bolster the proficiency of insurgents.

Their ranks have swollen with young men from Sunni Arab tribes that felt both disenfranchised and angered by harsh US military tactics in the Sunni Triangle. Meanwhile, an influx of small numbers of foreign terrorists and Sunni extremists willing to carry out suicide attacks served as a "force multiplier" for the insurgency.

If you are defending your country against an invader, are you a loyalist, an insurgent or a terrorist? These words get bandied about most often and the Bush administration would most likely prefer to trot out the word "terrorist" to bolster support, for his preceived war on terrorists?
True, insurgent would be the word for those from Iraq. MOST of the ones I personally fought were not Iraqi. The word for foreign people who come to a country specifically to terrorize that country's citizens, is terrorist.

This sounds very interesting. Where abouts where you when you witnessed this, and around what time? (I am not accusing you of being a liar, I am just curious ;-))

vic Kirkuk over the past 12 months. And have you actually begun your enlistment and seen any action in Iraq? Or in the basic training portion?
I am a Captain with 4th Inf Div Staff at present and at the end of my time there, prior was with 2nd Bde Rec.

nay. I am in DEP right now. I actually have yet to graduate from HS. Once that is done, I have a short break. Then it's off to bootcamp.

True, insurgent would be the word for those from Iraq. MOST of the ones I personally fought were not Iraqi. The word for foreign people who come to a country specifically to terrorize that country's citizens, is terrorist.
Well that is not exactly what you had stated earlier? I tend to believe that you are trying to suggest that what is happening in Iraq is mostly due to outside terrorists, and not Iraqis?


"The terrorists are for the most part, NOT Iraqi, they are a hodge podge of other nationalities in the area, and THEY are the ones targetting the Iraqis."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040709/news_1n9iraq.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq – The Iraq insurgency is far larger than the 5,000 fighters previously thought to be at its core, U.S. military officials say, and is led by well-armed Iraqi Sunnis angry at having been pushed from power along with Saddam Hussein.

Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact number of rebels, they say dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams, can call upon part-time fighters to boost forces as high as 20,000 – an estimate reflected in the insurgency's continued strength after U.S. troops killed as many as 4,000 in April alone.

The article goes on to further state what I had suggested before, in that the Bush administration would have us believe that the majority of problems in Iraq was due to outside "terrorists".

The developing intelligence picture of the insurgency contrasts with the Bush administration's commonly stated view that the fighting is fueled by foreign warriors intent on creating an Islamic state........

Most of the insurgents are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society, not a Taliban-like Islamic state, the military official said. Almost all the fighters are Iraqis, even those launching some of the devastating car bombings normally blamed on foreigners, usually al-Zarqawi.

This last comment, tends to refute what you have stated?

And of course Bush would want us all to believe that Iraqi is bogged down by outside terrorists?

Well that is not exactly what you had stated earlier? I tend to believe that you are trying to suggest that what is happening in Iraq is mostly due to outside terrorists, and not Iraqis?



http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040709/news_1n9iraq.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq – The Iraq insurgency is far larger than the 5,000 fighters previously thought to be at its core, U.S. military officials say, and is led by well-armed Iraqi Sunnis angry at having been pushed from power along with Saddam Hussein.

Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact number of rebels, they say dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams, can call upon part-time fighters to boost forces as high as 20,000 – an estimate reflected in the insurgency's continued strength after U.S. troops killed as many as 4,000 in April alone.

The article goes on to further state what I had suggested before, in that the Bush administration would have us believe that the majority of problems in Iraq was due to outside "terrorists".

The developing intelligence picture of the insurgency contrasts with the Bush administration's commonly stated view that the fighting is fueled by foreign warriors intent on creating an Islamic state........

Most of the insurgents are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society, not a Taliban-like Islamic state, the military official said. Almost all the fighters are Iraqis, even those launching some of the devastating car bombings normally blamed on foreigners, usually al-Zarqawi.

This last comment, tends to refute what you have stated?

And of course Bush would want us all to believe that Iraqi is bogged down by outside terrorists?

Actually I speak from my own personal experience regardless of what sources outside the battle areas *believe* And it was intelligence reports that initially led us INTO Iraq, so, you prefer accepting the ones that agree with you, and dropping the ones that don't? Ok, here is more news then
....

http://www.kumawar.com/FallujahPoli...id/overview.php

While according to local officials, Iranians were among the dead assailants, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmet asserts that the Fallujah actions are the work of homegrown loyalists.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040408/world.htm#1

KARBALA: Five Iranians and three Iraqis were killed and 16 wounded during overnight clashes between the US troops and militiamen of radical cleric Moqtada Sadr in this central city, an official said. “There were eight killed, including five Iranians, and 16 wounded, including four Iranians, during the overnight clashes in Karbala,” said Saleh al-Hasnawi, Health Ministry official responsible for hospitals in Karbala.

In my own experience the ratio ran roughly 2:1 foreign fighters to Iraqi.

I think it figures there would be many foreign fighters/terrorists in Iraq right now. They wouldn't miss such a good occasion to wage their 'Jihad' against the USA.

Actually I speak from my own personal experience regardless of what sources outside the battle areas *believe* And it was intelligence reports that initially led us INTO Iraq, so, you prefer accepting the ones that agree with you, and dropping the ones that don't? In my own experience the ratio ran roughly 2:1 foreign fighters to Iraqi.

Good luck debating with that guy....all he sees is "America Bad!!" Canada great. What he fails to realize is that Canada, like the European countries has relied on the US for it's own defense and is now posturing from a position of weakness because of that. He, like many europeans will point out flaws in America and hold those up as some divine sign that their view of the US is correct and thats fine. It shows that their minds are closed and that makes them all the easier to defeat. Such are the teachings of Sun Tsu.

Of course most of them are pre-pubescent and have never been to the US so their view is clouded by their own scewed world-view and it's obvious limitations.

I think it figures there would be many foreign fighters/terrorists in Iraq right now. They wouldn't miss such a good occasion to wage their 'Jihad' against the USA.

Exactly....let them come to Iraq and fight the US. Better there than in New York is it not? All these reports of us creating new terrorists.....and how they are flocking to Iraq to fight us. With a kill ratio of 10-20 to 1, let them come. ;)

Rather, what you find offensive is, the "general attitude" of "all Americans?" How elitist, how stereotying, how arrogant, how supercilious can you get? And by "you," I mean, actually, you, who are so grand, and great, and all-knowing, to post that all-encompassing remark. Thank you for throwing me in a pit with hundreds of millions of people about whom you know nothing. You must be a great, wise, strong, brave person to be able to stereotype so grandiosly. You have no moral authority to judge anyone, because you lay such all-encompassing judgements on such a huge swath of peoples, in all of your grand ignorance.
Yeowch!
Howdy there Of States, may i be (one of the) first to welcome you to the forum. Good luck to you.

Well stated!! :)
Thank you!

Actually I speak from my own personal experience regardless of what sources outside the battle areas *believe* And it was intelligence reports that initially led us INTO Iraq, so, you prefer accepting the ones that agree with you, and dropping the ones that don't? Ok, here is more news then
....

http://www.kumawar.com/FallujahPoli...id/overview.php

While according to local officials, Iranians were among the dead assailants, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmet asserts that the Fallujah actions are the work of homegrown loyalists.
The link is outdated but did you read this statement? I have bolded the relevant words. It tends to refute your assertion?

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040408/world.htm#1

KARBALA: Five Iranians and three Iraqis were killed and 16 wounded during overnight clashes between the US troops and militiamen of radical cleric Moqtada Sadr in this central city, an official said. “There were eight killed, including five Iranians, and 16 wounded, including four Iranians, during the overnight clashes in Karbala,” said Saleh al-Hasnawi, Health Ministry official responsible for hospitals in Karbala.

In my own experience the ratio ran roughly 2:1 foreign fighters to Iraqi.
If you read at the top of the article that you posted, you would see this:

Overnight fighting between the US forces and Iraqi insurgents killed 60 Iraqis and wounded more than 130, hospital officials said today. Mosques in this besieged city called for a holy war against Americans and women were seen carrying weapons in the streets........

Among the dead were 26 persons, including 16 children and eight women, when warplanes struck four houses late yesterday.....

KIRKUK: Eight Iraqis were killed and 12 wounded in an exchange of gunfire with the US troops during a demonstration west of here in protest against the US attacks on Fallujah, the police said.

Most of these reports refute your following claim:

In my own experience the ratio ran roughly 2:1 foreign fighters to Iraqi.
Today 12:33 AM

So where were you fighting, KARBALA?

Also on the same web site that you posted, I noticed this interesting article:

UN downplaying Taliban threats, says India
Dharam Shourie

United Nations, April 7
Asserting that regrouped Taliban and Al-Qaida constituted the primary threat to the stability of Afghanistan, especially in areas bordering Pakistan, India has criticised the United Nations secretariat for “downplaying” threats from these groups and demanded its reports reflect ground realities. “We would like to understand the reasons for such downplaying of threats to Afghanistan from terrorist groups, particularly in the south and southeast of the country,” Indian Ambassador V.K. Nambiar said.

It appears that Afghanistan is not as "secure" as the US would like us to believe, according to this article that you posted?

Good luck debating with that guy....all he sees is "America Bad!!" Canada great.
You obviously have not read the many posts that stated that I like America and even supported the attack against Afghanistan? However, when Bush decided to attack Iraq, I lost all respect for the current administration. Never once did I say that America was "bad". I have visited America numerous times on vaction, as recent as this Feb., and I also have some American friends so cut the BS rhetoric?

BTW, Canada is a great country, and when you guys get rid of Bush and company, the US can proceed forward again?

What he fails to realize is that Canada, like the European countries has relied on the US for it's own defense and is now posturing from a position of weakness because of that. He, like many europeans will point out flaws in America and hold those up as some divine sign that their view of the US is correct and thats fine. It shows that their minds are closed and that makes them all the easier to defeat.
Well if it you feel that this type of rhetoric offers any kind of relevance to a debate, then you are sadly mistaken. BTW, that is what you do most of the time, offer up hollow rhetoric and rarely do I see you try to offer facts as a way to support your arguments.

Of course most of them are pre-pubescent and have never been to the US so their view is clouded by their own scewed world-view and it's obvious limitations.
Surely, you have reached for and achieved the bottom with this type of comment? I think you are capable of better debate if you try a little harder?

I hope someone hasn't posted this yet...
"Why leave America to visit America Jr.?"

it is kind of bullshit that other people in the world would judge america as a whole, thinking that everyone has the same ideals as george bush. but rather than to get upset at those people, just say fuck it. let them think that. there are people out there who do recognize that many people in this country oppose the bush administrations morals and actions. you cant let ignorant people piss you off. that just makes them stronger. instead, maybe you could tell them your side of the story and try to make them think twice about their statement. that is the only way progress can be made, by listening to one another, and talking about it.

So it is only independent thought if they agree with you? Haha, you gotta love the left in America. They are all about Free speech....as long as it is decenting speech. If you are the right, you are "following blindly," but if you are on the left, you are an "independent thinker." They accuse Bush supporters of being stupid.....but then they accuse Bush as being the politician of the rich.....if they are so stupid, well how did they get so rich? And if Democrats are such smart, independent thinkers, why aren't they all wealthy?
You are twisting what I said. I specifically said "blind support". That would be from the right wingers who have somehow managed to confuse politics with patriotism. They think that patriotism is to support any action the authoritarian figurehead of their country takes, rather than exercising their right to vote in an informed and analytical manner. There are some conservatives with well thought out reasons for supporting Bush, like tax cuts that will allow them to keep more of their multi-million dollar pay check.

People don't accuse the "elite" supporters of Bush of being stupid, per say. They accuse them of acting only in their own self interest with no thought given to the good of the common man. They aren't rich because they're conservative, they're conservative because they're rich.

I am for all forms of free speach, barring shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. But I only feel the need to defend the speech which people are being persecuted for in a country which garauntees the right to free speech. Those who voice support for the current administration generally don't fall into that catagory.

I may not like what you say, but I would die in defense of your right to say it. If that were necessary. In the cases you complain about, it's not. In the cases of "decenting" speech, a fight is sometimes required to ensure them that right.

he WON THREE PURPLE HEARTS

Hehe funny thing about those purple hearts he got them for self-afflicted wounds that only took one band-aid for one of em, and he got one for being too close when he shot a mortar. cant remember the other one but i think it was about as mild as a paper-cut.


(just adding in comments when i see something)

~Free Will Is An Illusion~ ~The Wheel Of Fate Is Unstoppable~

Hehe funny thing about those purple hearts he got them for self-afflicted wounds that only took one band-aid for one of em, and he got one for being too close when he shot a mortar. cant remember the other one but i think it was about as mild as a paper-cut.

(just adding in comments when i see something)

~Free Will Is An Illusion~ ~The Wheel Of Fate Is Unstoppable~
True, plus he threw away his medals which act itself disgraces everyone who EARNED theirs

I'm not saying it's all Europeans. But there are certainly a few who seem to think that every one of us is exactly like our "elected" leader, and it's extremely frustrating.

To be fair for every European who writes that on here, there's an American telling us that we Europeans are all sitting at home on our arses on state benefits whilst voting for the communist party in every election and burning American flags at the weekend.
Of course, I agree with you, the viewpoint of some ignorant Europeans that all Americans are like George Bush Jnr is utterly stupid, but so is the viewpoint I've just described by some ignorant Americans towards Europeans. I think the rest of us should ignore both these ignorant groups on these boards. I'm all for a lively debate, but arguments should be reasoned and not totally made-up in my opinion...

The link is outdated but did you read this statement? I have bolded the relevant words. It tends to refute your assertion?

If you read at the top of the article that you posted, you would see this:

Overnight fighting between the US forces and Iraqi insurgents killed 60 Iraqis and wounded more than 130, hospital officials said today. Mosques in this besieged city called for a holy war against Americans and women were seen carrying weapons in the streets........

Among the dead were 26 persons, including 16 children and eight women, when warplanes struck four houses late yesterday.....

KIRKUK: Eight Iraqis were killed and 12 wounded in an exchange of gunfire with the US troops during a demonstration west of here in protest against the US attacks on Fallujah, the police said.

Most of these reports refute your following claim:

So where were you fighting, KARBALA?

Also on the same web site that you posted, I noticed this interesting article:

UN downplaying Taliban threats, says India
Dharam Shourie

United Nations, April 7
Asserting that regrouped Taliban and Al-Qaida constituted the primary threat to the stability of Afghanistan, especially in areas bordering Pakistan, India has criticised the United Nations secretariat for “downplaying” threats from these groups and demanded its reports reflect ground realities. “We would like to understand the reasons for such downplaying of threats to Afghanistan from terrorist groups, particularly in the south and southeast of the country,” Indian Ambassador V.K. Nambiar said.

It appears that Afghanistan is not as "secure" as the US would like us to believe, according to this article that you posted?

No, as I believe I mentioned, nearer to Kirkuk. Also the reports I showed were merely, as I stated, to show that you can get any info from news reports...
And as I stated, I took mine from my own PERSONAL experience, which is not subject to being"refuted". Every body (KIA) is IDed in the field if possible. Every prisoner is IDed. The numbers I gave were from 36 separate engagements in which my unit took part. Some as small as a single sniper attack.
Lastly, on Afghanistan.. I stated several times that yes, it has a long ways to go, but it is on the road there. The people there welcome the sight of American(and coalition)troops. Much has been done, the fact that there is much yet to do, as I stated before, should not discourage people from doing it, as also the Indian minister in your report is intending, to get the UN off it's collective asses to do more, instead of pretending it is solved. It is BEING solved, but the world(ie UN) is doing squat to help for the most part. Instead they probably have other side deals somewhere like they did with Iraq and oil for food. It is the UN the Indians are complaining about here, not the US.
Note:
"Mr Nambiar criticised the latest report by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and briefing by the peacekeeping department for making “scant” reference to the security threat by Taliban and Al-Qaida terrorists “preferring” to refer to them as “extremists”.

His critisism was that the UN, with it's soft touch approach to everything, was calling terrorists extremists instead of terrorists..sound familiar?(insurgents,loyalists,terrorists?)

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

why does it bother you so much??? thats why people do it :headbang:

You obviously have not read the many posts that stated that I like America and even supported the attack against Afghanistan? However, when Bush decided to attack Iraq, I lost all respect for the current administration. Never once did I say that America was "bad". I have visited America numerous times on vaction, as recent as this Feb., and I also have some American friends so cut the BS rhetoric?

Ok, I will give you this one.

BTW, Canada is a great country, and when you guys get rid of Bush and company, the US can proceed forward again?

Canada is ok, I have been there several times, but only during the summer. Winter is no time to be anywhere up north.

Well if it you feel that this type of rhetoric offers any kind of relevance to a debate, then you are sadly mistaken. BTW, that is what you do most of the time, offer up hollow rhetoric and rarely do I see you try to offer facts as a way to support your arguments.

Actually this is factual. The US has, for many years, tried to get it's "allies" to spend more on their own defense, but to no avail. Why is the US the only country that can project power globally? Look at Britain, it took them 6 weeks to get to the Falklands. Is that the measure of a country that has an adequate defense for itself? Canada, as recently as 5 years ago had 18 tanks in the whole country....18. Is this the measure of Canada's defense spending? Relying on the US for it's defense has caused Canada's military to atrophy. The same is true of Europe. Soon the US will pull out of Europe completely and the Europeans will be responsible for their own defense for a change. Sure, NATO will still exist, but even regional conflicts like Bosnia are too much for them to tackle on their own.

Surely, you have reached for and achieved the bottom with this type of comment? I think you are capable of better debate if you try a little harder?

Oh, I can reach high and low as my mood dictates, as can anyone.

BTW, Canada is a great country, and when you guys get rid of Bush and company, the US can proceed forward again?

If he gets re-elected... me and my hubbie come live with you?

If he gets re-elected... me and my hubbie come live with you?

:)

America is a one party system, both aim to serve the best interests of the corporations. They are a corporate 1 party state.

Both aim to serve their ppl. Corporations actually are composed of people. Rich?yes..they actually invest the most into the country..higher taxes, job creation,etc.

Well said. The left has shown a penchant for wanting no killing, no violence, etc...but all to often has been willing to kill those opposed to them..ie leftist govts such as the former Soviet Union,present day PRC, DPRK,Cuba, etc.
Most lefties, including me, members of this forum and people I know condemn atrocities committed by USSR, China, Cuba etc. just as much as those carried out by the US or other right-wing countries.

Assuming that left liberals are apologists for communist genocide is like assuming that conservatives are apologists for Hitler.

Most lefties, including me, members of this forum and people I know condemn atrocities committed by USSR, China, Cuba etc. just as much as those carried out by the US or other right-wing countries.

Assuming that left liberals are apologists for communist genocide is like assuming that conservatives are apologists for Hitler.

Actually, most that I have seen, work into their sentence basically what you just did ;) "as well as those carried out by the US etc..."
The US is not "right" wing, pretty much in the middle. To be honest, I was referring also to "leftist" governments. And finally I have just spent a good 2 weeks almost of my leave on these boards, where I have seen "leftist" slant including axis of evil..listing the USA :rolleyes: while excusing the PRC ...along with plenty of the leftists who seem openly to wish for a form of government that may seem perfect on paper, but in EVERY SINGLE one of its tries as a working model, has been bloody, as well as a simple disaster, which any of those who risked and risk death to escape from is only too glad to talk about..Besides that any nation that has to keep its people IN on pain of death, has real problems anyway ;)

Actually this is factual. The US has, for many years, tried to get it's "allies" to spend more on their own defense, but to no avail. Why is the US the only country that can project power globally? Look at Britain, it took them 6 weeks to get to the Falklands. Is that the measure of a country that has an adequate defense for itself? Canada, as recently as 5 years ago had 18 tanks in the whole country....18. Is this the measure of Canada's defense spending? Relying on the US for it's defense has caused Canada's military to atrophy. The same is true of Europe. Soon the US will pull out of Europe completely and the Europeans will be responsible for their own defense for a change. Sure, NATO will still exist, but even regional conflicts like Bosnia are too much for them to tackle on their own.


This seems to already be in the works, the funny thing is how many European governments, after doing their best to antagonize the US, now will try to make all sorts of concessions to get our troops to stay. However, with all the restrictions put on training,operations, etc in most of the US bases in western Europe(Germany,Italy, Spain, Iceland, and UK) the advice of the military for several years has been it is not worth it to us to be there. US government under Clinton caved and kept open bases that really have no use, because the European governments basically begged..that likely will not work this time, and we can actually save ALOT of money, as well as have bases where our training is not so regulated as to be unworth the effort, and where the host country actually remembers we are helping them as well, so does not try to limit the operations troops based there can conduct outside of the country. Eastern Europe, just recently freed of oppression themselves with heavy American help in the cold war, is much happier to host US troops than our traditional"allies" in the west right now as far as its citizens also. SO hopefully no matter what type of bribes are attempted by the W. European governments this next year, our Pentagon is allowed to go ahead and close down some real unneeded bases.

You are twisting what I said. I specifically said "blind support". That would be from the right wingers who have somehow managed to confuse politics with patriotism. They think that patriotism is to support any action the authoritarian figurehead of their country takes, rather than exercising their right to vote in an informed and analytical manner. There are some conservatives with well thought out reasons for supporting Bush, like tax cuts that will allow them to keep more of their multi-million dollar pay check.

People don't accuse the "elite" supporters of Bush of being stupid, per say. They accuse them of acting only in their own self interest with no thought given to the good of the common man. They aren't rich because they're conservative, they're conservative because they're rich.

I am for all forms of free speach, barring shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. But I only feel the need to defend the speech which people are being persecuted for in a country which garauntees the right to free speech. Those who voice support for the current administration generally don't fall into that catagory.

I may not like what you say, but I would die in defense of your right to say it. If that were necessary. In the cases you complain about, it's not. In the cases of "decenting" speech, a fight is sometimes required to ensure them that right.

You still qualify Bush supporters as basically greedy rich people. This is totally inaccurate. I know very few greedy rich people, and those I do know are split even Republican/Democrat. I know many normal middle America people, and of these(that I know) from discussions and coffee talk, etc, have seen pretty much 65-35% swing in favor of Bush.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

Actually, usually there are Americans posting those kinds of topics too, Ah, the wonders of free speech...

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

I don't know, but I do know that I'm getting sick and tired of foreigners trying to tell us how to vote. I don't tell them who to vote for.

I don't know, but I do know that I'm getting sick and tired of foreigners trying to tell us how to vote. I don't tell them who to vote for.

very true

I don't know, but I do know that I'm getting sick and tired of foreigners trying to tell us how to vote. I don't tell them who to vote for.

Ah, but America involves itself in many outside votes. How many elections has America meddled in? Answer: A lot. There have been several times America has supported a dictator over an elected leader too.

As an American, I really wish our government wouldn't do that, but if they are going to continue in that regard, then this false indignation about other countries showing a preference has got to stop.

Ah, but America involves itself in many outside votes. How many elections has America meddled in? Answer: A lot. There have been several times America has supported a dictator over an elected leader too.

As an American, I really wish our government wouldn't do that, but if they are going to continue in that regard, then this false indignation about other countries showing a preference has got to stop.

Good point. I wish the U.S. would just stay the hell out of other countries' businesses.

Ah, but America involves itself in many outside votes. How many elections has America meddled in? Answer: A lot. There have been several times America has supported a dictator over an elected leader too.

As an American, I really wish our government wouldn't do that, but if they are going to continue in that regard, then this false indignation about other countries showing a preference has got to stop.

It is natural to have a preference. I think the indignation(not "false indignation") comes at countries who change their whole relations with us depending on who is elected.(None really do at higher levels, but I have read TONS of posts from this board, kids probably, who state"when you dump Bush, it will be better")
It is also worth remembering that foreign interference in our election, such as that by the PRCs intelligence services pumping money to the Clinton campaign(allegedly, anyway) is illegal.

It is natural to have a preference. I think the indignation(not "false indignation") comes at countries who change their whole relations with us depending on who is elected.(None really do at higher levels, but I have read TONS of posts from this board, kids probably, who state"when you dump Bush, it will be better")
It is also worth remembering that foreign interference in our election, such as that by the PRCs intelligence services pumping money to the Clinton campaign(allegedly, anyway) is illegal.
There are many outside posters here, who are not kids, and definitely would like to see Bush get dumped. He has been bad for America and bad for the world and the sooner that he is toast, the better!! :eek:

And as you watch the news, you can watch, either mournfully or gleefully, as that same Democratic party implodes in on itself. They even stopped putting out issue commercials and instead have gone to almost entirely scare tactic commercials aimed at minorities in key states. Its very simliar to the collapse of the Whigs (minus the Civil War of course). Personally, I think its funny. As a historian, I'm taking notes.

And as you watch the news, you can watch, either mournfully or gleefully, as that same Democratic party implodes in on itself. They even stopped putting out issue commercials and instead have gone to almost entirely scare tactic commercials aimed at minorities in key states. Its very simliar to the collapse of the Whigs (minus the Civil War of course). Personally, I think its funny. As a historian, I'm taking notes.

4 more years:)

There are many outside posters here, who are not kids, and definitely would like to see Bush get dumped. He has been bad for America and bad for the world and the sooner that he is toast, the better!! :eek:

All I can say, as I said before, thank God our country is not in these outsider's hands.

And as you watch the news, you can watch, either mournfully or gleefully, as that same Democratic party implodes in on itself. They even stopped putting out issue commercials and instead have gone to almost entirely scare tactic commercials aimed at minorities in key states. Its very simliar to the collapse of the Whigs (minus the Civil War of course). Personally, I think its funny. As a historian, I'm taking notes.

It's yet another funny point in American politics that minorities are blindly Dem.. forgetting that Abe Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents, who freed the slaves, etc, was a Republican..can't think of ANYTHING remotely close to freeing your ancestors Dems did for them, except always promise the moon to get their vote, then never once deliver. Our current administration is the FIRST to have an African-American SecState, African American NatlSecAdv, etc. Bush's father appointed the only current African-American Supreme Court Justice.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

the only american news i've seen that shows anything of any real interest or some level of intellect, is the naked news.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

I'm new here so I haven't a clue how long this has been going on. Well anyways. I apologise on behalf of any of my ignorant neigbours.

Actually, not sure how it is in Europe, but in the US, the liberals are the ones who generally want more power over more things..they want you to give them more taxes, so they can decide how to spend it. The main place where many Republicans differ is on abortion..and in this case, I also understand however..murder(in their opinion, not really mine) is wrong..it is not a matter of controlling the womans life. It comes down to a question, too deep for this , on when life begins.
High taxes can be justified just as anti-abortion laws can.

Your point seems to be that liberals restrict economic freedom. My point is that conservatives restrict personal freedom. I don't know which is more valuable to you, but I would choose personal freedom any time.

High taxes can be justified just as anti-abortion laws can.

Your point seems to be that liberals restrict economic freedom. My point is that conservatives restrict personal freedom. I don't know which is more valuable to you, but I would choose personal freedom any time.


Actually, the ideal for conservatives in the USA is not merely economic..it is that the government should as much as possible stay OUT of personal affairs.
Liberals seem to believe the government can make better decisions than individuals can..many many cases in point..the anti-tobacco lawsuits and legislation in much of the country, pushed by liberals who somehow see fit usually to in many areas push for legalization of marijuana..liberals would prefer to take away the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms (own guns) Liberals would prefer there to be programs in place, where if a person of European ethnic background were to take a test for a promotion or acceptance into a college, and score a 100%, and a person of minority background took the same test, and scored 80%, the minority background person would be admitted/promoted over the Euro-ethnic background (affirmative action)..really the ONLY personal freedoms liberals push for in their programs are the ones they want themselves..freedom of speech (for them) while anyone who disagrees in many areas can be sued or much trouble caused to them for discrimination, etc...freedom to have abortions, freedom to to conduct gay marriages(both of which, for the record, while myself, a conservative, oppose, I also believe NEITHER should involve government action)while any personal freedoms they do not want, they quite viciously attack.

how come no one ever jumped on the kofi annon and the un scandel in here it almost allways seems to beat the hell out of the yanks in any of these threads...wtf?