NationStates Jolt Archive

So true... the only thing it could ever be could for is to learn the lies Moore has said and refute them.

Yeah, I don't know. I did read the book Dude Where's My Country as it was on special in the airport transit lounge and comes without the whining narration.

I do reckon Michael Moore is counter-productive if he is trying to change the minds of Bush supporters.

Forget Moore, there are plenty of other books out there. Newspapers too.

This is a war over wills. The enemy think we do not have the stomach to fight on (in part because of Kerry) but also in part because we do not use all the weapons at our disposal. If we used nukes, the enemy will know our will is strong to win. Regardless of international opinion.

Our enemy is not one you can nuke! There's not a target in the world where you wouldn't just be hitting innocents. It's not just international opinion. I'd say 98% of THIS country would oppose such action!

The enemy don't think we don't have "the stomach to fight on" they think we're trying to force our democracies on them. They fight for their beliefs. We back down, they calm down, not the opposite as you suggest.

I agree with you on the nukes issue. But Bush, who throws them into an "axis of evil" has no chance BARGAINING with them. He's branded them evil! We'll need world support for our policies, and that's something Bush cannot provide.
oooooo now we're branding people *you here that babe we're brandin people go grab the stick and start the fire i wanna make the new kid on the block learn not to mess with my car* ;)

i think arnold swartzenager he would be great and hey we could just drop him on the front lines o if only silvester stallon were still young and rambo (personally i liked rambo 1) but arnold would fight back against the robots so i think he should be president.

You've got to be kidding! :fluffle:

You've got to be kidding! :fluffle:
nope i really do like rambo 1 ;)

Yes he can. Also Bush bargined with them long enough, how long should you bargain and make threats before you carry them out? Accouding to Kerry, Forever!

I'm sorry to insult you dude, but your arguments are starting to get a little thin. A simple "nuh-uh" aint gonna cut it. Bush HASN'T bargained with them. Cuz he can't. Don't you see? And when has Kerry bargained with these countries forever? Has he said that? You did use the term "according to Kerry" What does that even mean?

Our enemy is not one you can nuke! There's not a target in the world where you wouldn't just be hitting innocents. It's not just international opinion. I'd say 98% of THIS country would oppose such action!

The enemy don't think we don't have "the stomach to fight on" they think we're trying to force our democracies on them. They fight for their beliefs. We back down, they calm down, not the opposite as you suggest.

To do as you suggest would be like committing suicide. We back down, they come to America, slash out throats, burn our cities and fill them with blood. Better for their cities to flow with blood.

To do as you suggest would be like committing suicide. We back down, they come to America, slash out throats, burn our cities and fill them with blood. Better for their cities to flow with blood.

... do I have to respond to this?

You think if we leave... the middle east.... then we'll allow... them to come here.... (head explodes)

I'm sorry to insult you dude, but your arguments are starting to get a little thin. A simple "nuh-uh" aint gonna cut it. Bush HASN'T bargained with them. Cuz he can't. Don't you see? And when has Kerry bargained with these countries forever? Has he said that? You did use the term "according to Kerry" What does that even mean?
well let's look at the word Kerry... well that rhymes with hairy... that one guy at school has lot of hair nd hairy rhymes with berry... so he's saying that the hairy guy at school eats berries ;)

I'm sorry to insult you dude, but your arguments are starting to get a little thin. A simple "nuh-uh" aint gonna cut it. Bush HASN'T bargained with them. Cuz he can't. Don't you see? And when has Kerry bargained with these countries forever? Has he said that? You did use the term "according to Kerry" What does that even mean?
I mean that no matter how much bargining takes place John Kerry would still refuse to take action, and if he did he would change his mind like everone knows he does and its rediculous when they say he doesn't. I'm trying to study for a very important test tomarrow and argue at the same time so I don't have time to type out those past arguments.

... do I have to respond to this?

You think if we leave... the middle east.... then we'll allow... them to come here.... (head explodes)

Neither the Republicans (who want to feed businesses with cheap labor) nor the Democrats (who are looking for millions of new citizens to vote) are willing to control the border. To withdraw from the Middle East is to bring the 7th century "religion of peace" to a neighborhood near you. Here is where you hear the wailing of your scream when a practitioner of the religion of peace slashes your throat and your sisters, brothers, mother and father are all forced to get on prayer rugs or their throats will be slashed too by those fanatics. We have to stop them in the Middle East. I am afraid that they only leave one tactic for us to use to win decisively. Nukes. I don't like that option either, but at this point it is the only one that will save us.

If you would consider everything and realise everything with all the facts you come to the conclusion that Gearge W is a very good pres.
:headbang:

Our enemy is not one you can nuke! There's not a target in the world where you wouldn't just be hitting innocents. It's not just international opinion. I'd say 98% of THIS country would oppose such action!

The enemy don't think we don't have "the stomach to fight on" they think we're trying to force our democracies on them. They fight for their beliefs. We back down, they calm down, not the opposite as you suggest.

You're right to say that when the West backs down, they calm down.

Maybe not the "force our democracy" bit though.

To be honest I wouldn't have a clue of what the mindset of your average terrorist recruit is - apart from they are young & angry. In terms of what their beliefs that they are fighting for are, who the hell knows? I wouldn't claim to understand the Middle Eastern mindset, or Islam.

We do know that virtually every country in history has not really liked it much when a foreign power occupies them. From pre-revolutionary America to Vietnam to Iraq, locals have risen up against the occupier. Eventually they will win too, either thru war (America, Vietnam) or peacefully (India & the British Empire)

Either that or they get assimilated by the colonists (New Zealand, America) but it will be mightily difficult to kill off 22 million Iraqis to the point where Americans can start retiring in sunny Iraq.

The enemy though DO think that Americans don't have the stomach to fight on. More than that, they KNOW that Americans won't have the stomach to fight on forever. It is a basic premise of all revolutionary theory, that the occupying power will eventually give up in a war of attrition, because they have much more to lost.

The only way is to crush the Insurrection while it is small. The longer the Iraq war drags on, the less chance America has of "winning". At the rate it is going, the US will have to withdraw eventually, defeated. Even though they will have won every single battle.

I mean that no matter how much bargining takes place John Kerry would still refuse to take action, and if he did he would change his mind like everone knows he does and its rediculous when they say he doesn't. I'm trying to study for a very important test tomarrow and argue at the same time so I don't have time to type out those past arguments.

Oh I understand dude, I'm also doing homework! (let's see... first 3 term of the series...)

John doesn't change his mind on things religeously, he changes as he feels is needed. I alctually prefer it over a "refuse to admit you were wrong and adjust accordingly" stance. So it aint rediculous. It's not just us that takes action here. My argument is that bargaining that takes place is upheld by the international community. Not just us. Really, talking with other nations is a possibility. We don't have to invade every country we feel disagrees with our stance on terror. Colin Powell (a moderate) agrees with me here, and has been harping it over all 4 years.

I've taken several years of World Politics in college... just trust me on this one. lol.

Then again it is very likely that Iraq gave all it's most powerful weapons to Iran. After all those two countries have always been buddies right?
I know I'm a little back in the thread, however, I had to respond to this. I had heard the whole "Iraq sent their WMDs to Iran" thing. Now that I think about it, those countries have been at war. :mp5:
Heh.

Whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or not he was a son of a bitch that massacred his people. He openly funded Palestinian terrorists in Israel, and had he had the chance, would have done what Bin Laden did on 9-11. On the other hand, the way we handled the Iraq situation was terrible. I do not believe that we efficiently protected Syrian or Iraniana borders, and I do believe that we lacked a war plan other than taking Bagdhad. I believe the Iraq war was necessary but poorly handled. Yes, we could have gone somewhere like North Korea and oil interests were involved, but regardless, how does this relate to Bush. Kerry himself supported going to war in Iraq, and I do not think we could have garnered a larger coalition than we already had; the French have oil interests too you know.

To do as you suggest would be like committing suicide. We back down, they come to America, slash out throats, burn our cities and fill them with blood. Better for their cities to flow with blood. :rolleyes:
either way...The Vampires are going to be happy.

You're right to say that when the West backs down, they calm down.

Maybe not the "force our democracy" bit though.



I see what you mean. I didn't mean that they dont want democracy, I meant our brand of democracy. Their religeon is kinda based on monarchy, and they view us as invaders. I think that a democracy could flourish in the middle east, and that the majority of their people want it. But the terrorists don't like us installing it right now. (that help any?)

You're right to say that when the West backs down, they calm down.

Maybe not the "force our democracy" bit though.

To be honest I wouldn't have a clue of what the mindset of your average terrorist recruit is - apart from they are young & angry. In terms of what their beliefs that they are fighting for are, who the hell knows? I wouldn't claim to understand the Middle Eastern mindset, or Islam.

We do know that virtually every country in history has not really liked it much when a foreign power occupies them. From pre-revolutionary America to Vietnam to Iraq, locals have risen up against the occupier. Eventually they will win too, either thru war (America, Vietnam) or peacefully (India & the British Empire)

Either that or they get assimilated by the colonists (New Zealand, America) but it will be mightily difficult to kill off 22 million Iraqis to the point where Americans can start retiring in sunny Iraq.

The enemy though DO think that Americans don't have the stomach to fight on. More than that, they KNOW that Americans won't have the stomach to fight on forever. It is a basic premise of all revolutionary theory, that the occupying power will eventually give up in a war of attrition, because they have much more to lost.

The only way is to crush the Insurrection while it is small. The longer the Iraq war drags on, the less chance America has of "winning". At the rate it is going, the US will have to withdraw eventually, defeated. Even though they will have won every single battle.

You are absolutely right when you say we have to crush the Insurrection while it is still small and that we should not let it drag on? How? I don't like the nuclear option, but that is the only option that shows we mean business and that we have the "will" to win. The enemy may despise us, but they only bring it on themselves. Eventually, like the Japanese, they will have to get over it. Again, I don't propose hitting their biggest cities first, but we have to start small and use all means including nuclear blackmail to end the insurgency.

Neither the Republicans (who want to feed businesses with cheap labor) nor the Democrats (who are looking for millions of new citizens to vote) are willing to control the border. To withdraw from the Middle East is to bring the 7th century "religion of peace" to a neighborhood near you. Here is where you hear the wailing of your scream when a practitioner of the religion of peace slashes your throat and your sisters, brothers, mother and father are all forced to get on prayer rugs or their throats will be slashed too by those fanatics. We have to stop them in the Middle East. I am afraid that they only leave one tactic for us to use to win decisively. Nukes. I don't like that option either, but at this point it is the only one that will save us.

Yeah that world domination plan those 7th century islamofascists are running is really going well for them huh?

With their powers combined, they control over 1/12th of the total world econcomy !! And 1/8th of the military!!

Man what a threat! If they ever stopped fighting each other long enough to get together, they might even be able to put together an army big enough to... to... lose to Israel in 6 days of fighting!!!

And the Project For A New American Century, the other plan for world domination, has hit a couple of snags in Iraq when they found that the world doesn't quite believe the whole "American Leadership is good for the world" hype.

You are right. Nukes are the only answer. I suggest getting rid of places like Spain, Morocco and Turkey first as they may provide an example to the rest of the world of how Westerners & Muslims can live together in peace. Which would kind of make it difficult to convince people of how EVIL the others are.

I see what you mean. I didn't mean that they dont want democracy, I meant our brand of democracy. Their religeon is kinda based on monarchy, and they view us as invaders. I think that a democracy could flourish in the middle east, and that the majority of their people want it. But the terrorists don't like us installing it right now. (that help any?)
o come on now we all know that they just need baseball... i mean with baseball they could get rid of allthere anger get drunk and paint there bodies and root for there team also we need racetracks then we could throw in a muslim version of country music(it could happen) and we would have mideast rednecks then it would all be great...

Oh I understand dude, I'm also doing homework! (let's see... first 3 term of the series...)

John doesn't change his mind on things religeously, he changes as he feels is needed. I alctually prefer it over a "refuse to admit you were wrong and adjust accordingly" stance. So it aint rediculous. It's not just us that takes action here. My argument is that bargaining that takes place is upheld by the international community. Not just us. Really, talking with other nations is a possibility. We don't have to invade every country we feel disagrees with our stance on terror. Colin Powell (a moderate) agrees with me here, and has been harping it over all 4 years.

I've taken several years of World Politics in college... just trust me on this one. lol.

Smart people can make mistakes (refering to you and others with colleges couses in politics). Didn't John Kerry go for the war then opposes it then go for it then oppose it? Also doesn't Bush talk with other nations. Also Bush did bargain in a sense but of course those people like Hussein wouldn't just give up so there's only one course of action, force. Not more bargaining (talking to a wall).

I can't keep up with what eveyone is writing and study I have to go. Bye, also you don't seem to be doing a very good job of being a moderate.

THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ BY THE TIME WE INVADED!

A roadside bomb defused by US EOD experts happened to be one of the missing chemical artillery rounds, a "dual weapon" that was part of Saddam's WMD arsenal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html

THERE WERE NO CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AL-QAIDA AND SADDAM HUSSEIN!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html

That's the problem, see? Leftists have such an incredibly bad track record for the truth, that even if they "proved" there were no WMDs or al Qaeda connections through a historical rewrite I'd still vote for Bush. Because, you see, there were WMDs and there were al Qaeda connections - as well as strong links between the Western Leftist activists and the Ba'athist regime of Iraq since at least teh first Gulf War, and likely well before. It's already well documented.

Yeah that world domination plan those 7th century islamofascists are running is really going well for them huh?

With their powers combined, they control over 1/12th of the total world econcomy !! And 1/8th of the military!!

Man what a threat! If they ever stopped fighting each other long enough to get together, they might even be able to put together an army big enough to... to... lose to Israel in 6 days of fighting!!!

And the Project For A New American Century, the other plan for world domination, has hit a couple of snags in Iraq when they found that the world doesn't quite believe the whole "American Leadership is good for the world" hype.

You are right. Nukes are the only answer. I suggest getting rid of places like Spain, Morocco and Turkey first as they may provide an example to the rest of the world of how Westerners & Muslims can live together in peace. Which would kind of make it difficult to convince people of how EVIL the others are.

Spain, Morocco, and Turkey? Now you are not being intellectually honest. Here is the plan to win in Iraq. We say to Fallujah (via leaflets or whatever) that we are sending in the Marines to establish law and order. IF, IF any Marine gets shot at, IED goes off, Vehicle borne bomb goes off or any coordinated aggressive action against our Marines, then this is how play the game: We back our Marines out, cordon off the city, put our Marines in proper protective gear, and then nuke the whole city of Fallujah. We then go to Ramadi and repeat. Any city that cowers before the might of the American military will be shown mercy. We win.

.... even if they "proved" there were no WMDs or al Qaeda connections through a historical rewrite I'd still vote for Bush. Because, you see, there were WMDs and there were al Qaeda connections...... It's already well documented.

and just like that Bush Will get 4 more years....Cos there is Illiterally Millions of Americans like Impunia....

and so....Bush wil win....
nope we all know it's gonna be arnold

nope we all know it's gonna be arnold

Arnold is cool! see www.joinarnold.com :sniper:

I see what you mean. I didn't mean that they dont want democracy, I meant our brand of democracy. Their religeon is kinda based on monarchy, and they view us as invaders. I think that a democracy could flourish in the middle east, and that the majority of their people want it. But the terrorists don't like us installing it right now. (that help any?)

Not sure what you mean by based on monarchy, but I think you are right in that democracy can work in the middle east, and in islamic societies.

However Islam is very very different to the pseudo-Christian societies most of us live in.

e.g. that women have to wear a full-length veil in public is weird to us
that everyone gives to beggars all the time, is weird to us
that you have to pray 6 times a day is weird
that everyone is trying to sell you a carpet or jewellery, is weird.

I think in hindsight it is pretty easy to see that trying to "force" democracy by invading a la Iraq, is the wrong way to go about it! And anyone serious about promoting democracy around the world would be looking seriously for new strategies.

Anyway I think I speak for most non-American developed democratic countries when I say we don't want American-flavoured democracy with the 2 parties, electoral college, disenfranchised voters, supreme court decisions etc. etc.

Spain, Morocco, and Turkey? Now you are not being intellectually honest. Here is the plan to win in Iraq. We say to Fallujah (via leaflets or whatever) that we are sending in the Marines to establish law and order. IF, IF any Marine gets shot at, IED goes off, Vehicle borne bomb goes off or any coordinated aggressive action against our Marines, then this is how play the game: We back our Marines out, cordon off the city, put our Marines in proper protective gear, and then nuke the whole city of Fallujah. We then go to Ramadi and repeat. Any city that cowers before the might of the American military will be shown mercy. We win.

You may be on to something here, what would you do with the wastelands afterwards though?

When sand gets nuked it turns to glass, making oil extraction more costly.

The French won't like your plan one bit! That should make UN meetings more exciting at least...

Not sure what you mean by based on monarchy, but I think you are right in that democracy can work in the middle east, and in islamic societies.

However Islam is very very different to the pseudo-Christian societies most of us live in.

e.g. that women have to wear a full-length veil in public is weird to us
that everyone gives to beggars all the time, is weird to us
that you have to pray 6 times a day is weird
that everyone is trying to sell you a carpet or jewellery, is weird.

I think in hindsight it is pretty easy to see that trying to "force" democracy by invading a la Iraq, is the wrong way to go about it! And anyone serious about promoting democracy around the world would be looking seriously for new strategies.

Anyway I think I speak for most non-American developed democratic countries when I say we don't want American-flavoured democracy with the 2 parties, electoral college, disenfranchised voters, supreme court decisions etc. etc.

I agree with you about democracy. Bush has this crazy idea that we can evangelize the world with democracy to make us safer. He has said that so many times I don't need to give you a URL to prove it. This is where I radically disagree with him. We can not force anyone to love us, even if we spend $80 Billion in Iraq on the people there. I sure don't expect an Iraqi to say "thank you". That is why the only solution is to show them we mean business with all our military might. Our American ultimatum should be this: Leave us alone in peace, or die. You hurt our Marines and Soldiers, you will die. This alone will make America safer.

You may be on to something here, what would you do with the wastelands afterwards though?

When sand gets nuked it turns to glass, making oil extraction more costly.

The French won't like your plan one bit! That should make UN meetings more exciting at least...

The sand, glass, and the oil belongs to the Iraqi people. You don't want to get me started on the French. That would be a whole other thread! :mad:

The sand, glass, and the oil belongs to the Iraqi people. You don't want to get me started on the French. That would be a whole other thread! :mad:

What Iraqi people? You nuked them all, remember?

What Iraqi people? You nuked them all, remember?

Only if they resist, we will show mercy to those who leave us alone, remember the plan:

Here is the plan to win in Iraq. We say to Fallujah (via leaflets or whatever) that we are sending in the Marines to establish law and order. IF, IF any Marine gets shot at, IED goes off, Vehicle borne bomb goes off or any coordinated aggressive action against our Marines, then this is how play the game: We back our Marines out, cordon off the city, put our Marines in proper protective gear, and then nuke the whole city of Fallujah. We then go to Ramadi and repeat. Any city that cowers before the might of the American military will be shown mercy. We win.

One more point is this: most of Iraq is currently under some semblance of law and order that can be expected. Of course, some level of criminality would remain, but we wouldn't nuke the city for criminality typical of any world city.

Only if they resist, we will show mercy to those who leave us alone, remember the plan:

Here is the plan to win in Iraq. We say to Fallujah (via leaflets or whatever) that we are sending in the Marines to establish law and order. IF, IF any Marine gets shot at, IED goes off, Vehicle borne bomb goes off or any coordinated aggressive action against our Marines, then this is how play the game: We back our Marines out, cordon off the city, put our Marines in proper protective gear, and then nuke the whole city of Fallujah. We then go to Ramadi and repeat. Any city that cowers before the might of the American military will be shown mercy. We win.

Cool.

What if they cower, get mercy, go about their daily lives for a while PRETENDING to be your friend.

Then when you are least expecting it they hijack a plane and fly it into the US embassy. Or another similar act of violence. And then go hide out in some other country.

Then what?

Cool.

What if they cower, get mercy, go about their daily lives for a while PRETENDING to be your friend.

Then when you are least expecting it they hijack a plane and fly it into the US embassy. Or another similar act of violence. And then go hide out in some other country.

Then what?

They can run, but they can't hide. Of course, that city would be spared if the insurgents left are were not harbored there. But any place that harbors the terrorists would not be spared the full military might of the US military.
And certainly my plan is no worse than Bush's weak plan, and Kerry's (lets wait until Jan 20th 2005) plan.

They can run, but they can't hide. Of course, that city would be spared if the insurgents left are were not harbored there. But any place that harbors the terrorists would not be spared the full military might of the US military.
And certainly my plan is no worse than Bush's weak plan, and Kerry's (lets wait until Jan 20th 2005) plan.

No you are right it isn't worse than Bush's plan. I don't know what Kerry's plan is but I am sure it is flexible.

Bush's plan is doomed to failure - not that anyone could necessarily have known that beforehand, but at the rate it is going the US will eventually withdraw when the American public gets sick of US soldiers dying for some Iraqis to supposedly get freedom.

The only problem with your plan is the human cost of all the innocent civilians you will kill. They aren't American though, and could potentially become future terrorists, so really it is less of a "problem" and more of an opportunity.

No you are right it isn't worse than Bush's plan. I don't know what Kerry's plan is but I am sure it is flexible.

Bush's plan is doomed to failure - not that anyone could necessarily have known that beforehand, but at the rate it is going the US will eventually withdraw when the American public gets sick of US soldiers dying for some Iraqis to supposedly get freedom.

The only problem with your plan is the human cost of all the innocent civilians you will kill. They aren't American though, and could potentially become future terrorists, so really it is less of a "problem" and more of an opportunity.

If we have another terrorist attack on America of the size of 9/11 or larger, I am actually concerned that my opinion about the use of nukes will not be in the minority anymore. I believe America will cry out for revenge. (Not rational at all, but I believe it will happen) I believe we are only at the beginning on the War on Terror and much closer to the beginning than the end. And you can forget the Patriot Act. Posse Comitatus law will be repealed by executive order and martial law will be declared. I can't agree more that the human cost will be high, but the early use of nukes will harden America's resolve and the enemy will see their fight against America as futile, hopefully preventing another 9/11 and the nightmare scenario I outlined above. I think it is the only rational way to prevent American irrationality from destroying the Constitution and launching an all out war with the world as the enemy.

Closing statement: It is late at night and I have to sign off. Thanks for the dialogue. Think about what I had to say about the plan to win in Iraq. It will probably come down to that eventually, but I argue better earlier than later.

My ancestors have lived here since the 1630s, and fought in every war except this one. Some were important Captains, and generals in the Civil War and WWII. I think I believe my own ancestors, you may have moved here from Hell, I dont know, but your ancestors wouldnt have been proud of you.


Kramers Intern, I have read enough of this thread. STOP FLAMING OTHERS. Consider this an OFFICIAL WARNING.

If we have another terrorist attack on America of the size of 9/11 or larger, I am actually concerned that my opinion about the use of nukes will not be in the minority anymore. I believe America will cry out for revenge. (Not rational at all, but I believe it will happen) I believe we are only at the beginning on the War on Terror and much closer to the beginning than the end. And you can forget the Patriot Act. Posse Comitatus law will be repealed by executive order and martial law will be declared. I can't agree more that the human cost will be high, but the early use of nukes will harden America's resolve and the enemy will see their fight against America as futile, hopefully preventing another 9/11 and the nightmare scenario I outlined above. I think it is the only rational way to prevent American irrationality from destroying the Constitution and launching an all out war with the world as the enemy.

yeah that would be extremely paranoid.

seeing as no-one is actually trying to invade america, or even defeat america in battle - they just want the right to rule their own piece of the world as screwed up dictators

america can be counted on to over-react and drive more people to the cause.

If we have another terrorist attack on America of the size of 9/11 or larger, I am actually concerned that my opinion about the use of nukes will not be in the minority anymore. I believe America will cry out for revenge. (Not rational at all, but I believe it will happen) I believe we are only at the beginning on the War on Terror and much closer to the beginning than the end. And you can forget the Patriot Act. Posse Comitatus law will be repealed by executive order and martial law will be declared. I can't agree more that the human cost will be high, but the early use of nukes will harden America's resolve and the enemy will see their fight against America as futile, hopefully preventing another 9/11 and the nightmare scenario I outlined above. I think it is the only rational way to prevent American irrationality from destroying the Constitution and launching an all out war with the world as the enemy.

*Dies from laughter*
Ok, I'm not sure you're on. But a couple points:
First, if you have another terrorist attack, chances are less people will die than you've killed in Iraq.
Second. Using a nuke would be quite out of the question, The international outrage would frankly kick your arse. If American nuked anyone, I would support a world trade ban with America. As well as any other measures taken to an extent.
Third.
War on Terror is a -JOKE-. J.O.K.E.
Why? It's an IDEAL. Terrorism is just what you define it as. Some people in the world think of 9/11 as an act of Freedom/Liberty. How is it any different than dropping a bomb on an Iraqi building?
You're trying to fight an idea. And no one has ever won a 'war' of that type.
As well, simply trying to stamp it out, as you're doing is just breeding more terrorism in the world.

Renewed American Might, you need to stop flaming too.

Since so many people on this thread seem to have new start dates, I'll be very clear and to the point. We do not tolerate insults directed towards other posters. We do not tolerate personal attacks. If you cannot make your point without resorting to profanity, making remarks about one's family, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, DON'T.

Clear?

Exactly, and only if they want liberation, apparently Iraqis do not, or at least not the majority.

Ok, it has been established that the majority of Iraqi's (about 60%) are shiite muslims. Saddam Hussein was a strong supporter of the Sunni muslim cause. Nearly all of the violence and insurgencies occur in the Sunni triangle. Sunni clerics in Saudi Arabia preach for the death of shiites nearly everyday. It has also been established that approximatly 15-20% of Iraqis are also Kurds, people who were gased and tortured by Saddam, could this mean they're friends? Do you really think that the majority of Iraqi people want the possibility of having a shitty regime all over again, because it is the majority that matters, right? American troops are the only glue that is holding that place together. :sniper:

Supporters of the current president of the United States I have two facts to bring to your attention.
1. People have begun attempting to find the civillian death count in the war in Iraq. By counting death certificates and by questioning in certain neighborhoods it has been found that over 200000 more people have died in Iraq due to the invasion than would have had Sadaam remained in Power. However several of the neighborhoods were in areas that have seen much more conflict such as Fallujah. But even of those areas are removed from the poll 100000 more people died than would have if we didn't invade and this is the most conservative estimate.
2. George Bush has said that the model for supreme court justices he wishes to appoint is Antonin Scalia. Just so you know there are several seats in the supreme court that could become open in the next four years. Antonin Scalia wants to reverse Brown vrs the Board of Education and has said, "Segragation was a good thing, done badly."
Therefore if Bush remains in control of the white house not only will abortion be banned but there is also a chance that segragation will be legalized again. What do you think of that?

hang on, i'm just gonna be brave enough to say that i don't know what you're talking about! lol

**

But if saddam did have WMDs then wouldn't a known mad dictator who has proven time and time again he has no problem slaughtering his own people and the enemy on their land or his no matter the cost? Well i'd say a Dictator like Saddam would most certainly have used those WMDs on our (brit and american) troops stationed in Kueit before the invasion or would have used them on our troops as they were advancing to baghdad.. you have to admit thats a point..

He may have certainly posessed them once (when the US was allies with saddam before '91, or,the brits and american weapons manufactururs kept the recipts), but not when we invaded, and that was the main argument for war.. we found sod all! haha

This person has a point, Saddam Hussein did have WMD at one point, there are records of countries selling them to him. But what happened to them? Who knows.....
But I have to disagree with one thing.
I don't think Saddam would have knowingly jeoperdised the survival of his regime in provoking superior troops to crush him, how was he to know that it was going to happen anyway? He was probably hoping that wasn't going to happen, that Russia or one of the european powers was going to come to his rescue, after all, they did srongly oppose the war.This despite Bushes ultimatum. :headbang: :sniper:

Just a piece of advice for Conservitives and Liberals: Dont trust every god-damn thing you hear on the news! Most of it is propaganda!

Anywho, back onto the subject. I am not a Bush or Kerry supporter; If i could vote, which i cant (Yet-Curses!) I would not vote at all. I'm not one of those "Anybody but Bush" People; I dont trust Kerry very much at all. However, Bush is such a disaster that I belive almost anyone would be better, even Nader! I find Bush to be such a super-christian that it sickens me to even think he is the President of the U.S.A.

Just a piece of advice for Conservitives and Liberals: Dont trust every god-damn thing you hear on the news! Most of it is propaganda!

who is this directed at exactly? :mp5: