NationStates Jolt Archive

Wait for the pole, than explain everything and anything.

Select other if you believe in more than one of those wars.

I said none of the above, I dont support Iraq. I mean, our only threat is Afghan and Saudi. Saudi would be impossible because if they got so pissed at us to attack us on 9/11 because there govt. invited us to stay there and help them out. Think what would happen if we declared war there! Although terrorists came from some of those other countrys, such as Egypt and Syria and Jordan, the govt. doesnt support terrorism, like Saudi and Afghan did, so it is pointless to attack there. That would be like attacking a country like France because they have some serial killers or something like that.

The only necesary war was the Afghanistan war. The govt. there supported terrorism and welcomed it.

Where's the war on New Zealand?

War on Monaco

Where's the war on New Zealand?

Death to New Zealand!

What future peace do you support?

I didn't support a war on Iraq, but I would support a war on Saudi. I know that it would be longer, costlier, more violent, and result in more terrorism than a war on Iraq, but Saudi is the ideological and financial source of modern Sunni terrorism. I say hit them where they live.

I personally support none. While the subject of military science could be an interesting thing to study, and while wars could affect the world in many ways, it will always involve death, destruction, and the loss of friends and family. The politics doesn't matter; the thing is, when will a war be necessary again, that will have the possible advantages outweigh its disadvantages?

Just some thoughts.

What future peace do you support?

you click on none. Future peace? Hell no, we had a right to attack Afghanistan.

no war but the class war, baby!

I support peace and reasoned discussion. Aggression and insult are the strategies that other species use, as they do not have our complex communication and abstract discussion skills. :D

I propose War On Mars!

True, there is no life there yet but there could be eventually, and then we'll show 'em, eh?

Incidentally, it would also force us to go create inter-planetary craft capable of transporting large amounts of humans at a relatively low cost, so it's a win-win situation, really.

What future peace do you support?
Peace is for hippie queers.

I personally support none. While the subject of military science could be an interesting thing to study, and while wars could affect the world in many ways, it will always involve death, destruction, and the loss of friends and family. The politics doesn't matter; the thing is, when will a war be necessary again, that will have the possible advantages outweigh its disadvantages?

Just some thoughts.

So you think that on 9/11 in responce to the attacks Bush should have handed the Taliban a nice letter saying "Please stop what you are doing :p ."

Yeah, thats a great solution.

you click on none. Future peace? Hell no, we had a right to attack Afghanistan.

No. you had the brute force and ignorance to oust a legally constituted government. If you argue that they were supporting terrorists, have a look at the history of the USA and the IRA.

I support peace and reasoned discussion. Aggression and insult are the strategies that other species use, as they do not have our complex communication and abstract discussion skills. :D

Yes, perhaps the Taliban and Al-Quida would discuse peace over a spot of tea!

No. you had the brute force and ignorance to oust a legally constituted government. If you argue that they were supporting terrorists, have a look at the history of the USA and the IRA.
They were supporting terrorists that attacked our home. That's the difference.

None of the above at the moment, but if sufficient reason comes up for me to support a war at that time, I'll consider it. Now there just doesn't seem to be sufficient reason, although, the NK's seem to be awfully close...

One nation's freedom fighters are another's terrorists.

No. you had the brute force and ignorance to oust a legally constituted government. If you argue that they were supporting terrorists, have a look at the history of the USA and the IRA.

Ok, than why did they house Osama Bin-Laden, your talking madness, I suppose you voted for Dave Cobb? Ok, maybe in this side of the world we are civilized enough for peace talks over tea and scones, but they dont want to hear about it. If you think they are like us in every way than YOU are the ignorant one!

...we had a right to attack Afghanistan.

Yea, we handled that real good. Put them back on top of world heroin production and turned the country into one big playground for warlords with a "national" government that's power doesn't extend beyond the city limits of Kabul.

And what was our goal?

To capture Osama bin Laden.

How did that work out?

What future peace do you support?
Which one...which one...pax Romana is over...so is the pax Brittania...so I guess the option is between a pax Americana, pax China and pax Europa. I'll go with the pax Americana please. I could stand a pax Europa admittedly, but a pax China is a no-no.

Yea, we handled that real good. Put them back on top of world heroin production and turned the country into one big playground for warlords with a "national" government that's power doesn't extend beyond the city limits of Kabul.

And what was our goal?

To capture Osama bin Laden.

How did that work out?

Im not supporting the way Bush carried it out! But it was definetely necesary!

Yes, perhaps the Taliban and Al-Quida would discuse peace over a spot of tea!

If the Americans (and the British) had not supported various illegal activities in the Middle East, and left other countries to run themselves as they wished to. There would never have been any Taliban or Al Queda to attack America.
When you start playing with fire, you will get burned. Something that the USA forgets over and over again.

This does not give you the right to provoke an action and then use this action as an excuse to wage war. Not everyone is as blind as NBA or NFL referees, some of us see what caused the reaction and atribute the blame where it should be.

However, as your posts, up to know have shown no sign of reasoning beyond the "he hit me, me hit him" level, I will leave you to your own endothermic beleifs. :headbang:

One nation's freedom fighters are another's terrorists.

This isnt about Freedom Fighting, I did not support the Afghanistan war to bring Democracy to them, but what other solution was there? Yes, bringing Democracy to Afghanistan was a bonus, we had to be there anyway and if we didnt give them some sort of govt. they would be totally screwed over. However I think the situation was handled terribly!

They were supporting terrorists that attacked our home. That's the difference.

The USA were supporting terrorists that attacked what was then my home, London, what difference?

If the Americans (and the British) had not supported various illegal activities in the Middle East, and left other countries to run themselves as they wished to. There would never have been any Taliban or Al Queda to attack America.
When you start playing with fire, you will get burned. Something that the USA forgets over and over again.

This does not give you the right to provoke an action and then use this action as an excuse to wage war. Not everyone is as blind as NBA or NFL referees, some of us see what caused the reaction and atribute the blame where it should be.

However, as your posts, up to know have shown no sign of reasoning beyond the "he hit me, me hit him" level, I will leave you to your own endothermic beleifs. :headbang:
I'm curious. What action did the USA provoke?

The USA were supporting terrorists that attacked what was then my home, London, what difference?
You should have declared war.

If the Americans (and the British) had not supported various illegal activities in the Middle East, and left other countries to run themselves as they wished to. There would never have been any Taliban or Al Queda to attack America.
When you start playing with fire, you will get burned. Something that the USA forgets over and over again.

This does not give you the right to provoke an action and then use this action as an excuse to wage war. Not everyone is as blind as NBA or NFL referees, some of us see what caused the reaction and atribute the blame where it should be.

However, as your posts, up to know have shown no sign of reasoning beyond the "he hit me, me hit him" level, I will leave you to your own endothermic beleifs. :headbang:


Ok so your saying we should have stayed at home, hung our head in shame, and said "Dang we let that one slip away, what to do now?" "Donno, we certainly cant attack Afghanistan, we started it, lets just sit down and draw, ok." *Another plane hits the empire state building* "Oh well."

The USA were supporting terrorists that attacked what was then my home, London, what difference?

So you went to Brazil???

This isnt about Freedom Fighting, I did not support the Afghanistan war to bring Democracy to them, but what other solution was there? Yes, bringing Democracy to Afghanistan was a bonus, we had to be there anyway and if we didnt give them some sort of govt. they would be totally screwed over. However I think the situation was handled terribly!
haha :)

There are more kinds of freedom than are dreamt of in your Presidential addresses.

You should have declared war.

Nuke New Jersey now! Die scum! :)

The 911 attack was a symptom of a generalised hatred of the USA, provoked to a large degree by the USA support of the illegal occupation of Palestine by the Israelis. This latter is a fact of history, and one that has caused the USA and the UK a lot of greif ever since. You may argue about the legality of the formation of Israel, but the muslim world will never accept that it was legal, regardless of the result of any discussion here.

Prior to this, the majority of the anti-western feeling in the middle east was directed towards the British, for their manipulation of Iraq under the Shah etc. The USA was not seen as a target.

If the Americans (and the British) had not supported various illegal activities in the Middle East, and left other countries to run themselves as they wished to. There would never have been any Taliban or Al Queda to attack America.
When you start playing with fire, you will get burned. Something that the USA forgets over and over again.

This does not give you the right to provoke an action and then use this action as an excuse to wage war. Not everyone is as blind as NBA or NFL referees, some of us see what caused the reaction and atribute the blame where it should be.

However, as your posts, up to know have shown no sign of reasoning beyond the "he hit me, me hit him" level, I will leave you to your own endothermic beleifs. :headbang:
What was the reason we were dicking around in the middle east? Yep, that's right, to prevent Soviet expansion into such an oil rich area. While that doesn't seem so bright now, we have to remember (or in my case, imagine) what it was like back then. Yeah, not pretty.

And the support of the US for the IRA was misplaced, instead we should have focused on more peaceful movements instead of radicals like them.

"What future war do you support?"

None. Wars should never be "supported," only fought in, survived, or endured.

To all the "peace seekers" if you are in a fight, like some drunk nutcase comes up to you, and starts hitting you do you just stand there. Heres a great ex. someone on this thread said "you started it by setting up govt. over there" well we didnt set up the Taliban, but I do know where you're coming from.

Your a bartender, you serve a guy some drinks, he goes out shoots you wife, would you just say "I brought it apon myself." Than go to bed? Or would you say, "Fuck! I should not have done that, my bad! Better call the cops!"

I support a war, Britain attacks Scandineavia, America attacks Canada. Both Britain and America then surrender unconditionally. Bingo, world = better place.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

So you think that on 9/11 in responce to the attacks Bush should have handed the Taliban a nice letter saying "Please stop what you are doing :p ."

Yeah, thats a great solution.
That's taken out of context: in the case of an Afghanistan, a lethal strike is needed in order to stop al-Qaeda from staying in their safe haven. While 9/11 is horrific at the minimum with thousands of lives lost, and action must be taken to reduce al-Qaeda/bin Laden's capabilities (and will to strike) the US, it in no way warrants an unprovoked attack on any other nation.

"What future war do you support?"

None. Wars should never be "supported," only fought in, survived, or endured.

I agree with you 99.99%


Why I didnt add the extra 0.01% we will never know.

I support a war, Britain attacks Scandineavia, America attacks Canada. Both Britain and America then surrender unconditionally. Bingo, world = better place.

That would only work if Canada and Scandinavia would then occupy America and Britain to bring freedom and democracy.

Unfortunately, they probably wouldn't.

That's taken out of context: in the case of an Afghanistan, a lethal strike is needed in order to stop al-Qaeda from staying in their safe haven. While 9/11 is horrific at the minimum with thousands of lives lost, and action must be taken to reduce al-Qaeda/bin Laden's capabilities (and will to strike) the US, it in no way warrants an unprovoked attack on any other nation.

You first said something like "I support discussion" Now your saying "A lethal strike was necesary."

Make up your mind.


So which is it? See below, you have two completely different thoughts apparently.



Here is what you first said:

"I personally support none. While the subject of military science could be an interesting thing to study, and while wars could affect the world in many ways, it will always involve death, destruction, and the loss of friends and family. The politics doesn't matter; the thing is, when will a war be necessary again, that will have the possible advantages outweigh its disadvantages?

Just some thoughts."

Nuke New Jersey now! Die scum! :)
Go ahead and try. We have VX nerve gas now (soon to be accidentally dumped into the Delaware river) thanks to Du Pont corporation, and I think we still have a few of those old Nike Hercules warheads laying around someplace. Where did I leave those things?

I agree with you 99.99%

Why I didnt add the extra 0.01% we will never know.

LOL! Well, is that anything like the old "99.44% Pure" Ivory Snow commercials? :D

Thank you for the endorsement, anyway. :)

You first said something like "I support discussion" Now your saying "A lethal strike was necesary."

Make up your mind.
Here's what I said: "when will a war be necessary again, that will have the possible advantages outweigh its disadvantages?". The Gulf War (1990-91) and the strike on Afghanistan are two of those cases where the opposing threat will not negotiate (and also in the case of bin Laden, use mass attacks on civilian targets). Something like a strike on Iraq in 2003 is not one of those cases, never.

please make this a poll that allows multiple choices to be selected, if you can.

I support a war, Britain attacks Scandineavia, America attacks Canada. Both Britain and America then surrender unconditionally. Bingo, world = better place.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

You say you live in England, you want England destroyed? Why cant you just be proud of where you live?

You missed China and France ;)

Which ones I support, seriously: Syria and Iran.

Here's what I said: "when will a war be necessary again, that will have the possible advantages outweigh its disadvantages?". The Gulf War (1990-91) and the strike on Afghanistan are two of those cases where the opposing threat will not negotiate (and also in the case of bin Laden, use mass attacks on civilian targets). Something like a strike on Iraq in 2003 is not one of those cases, never.

Well, your preaching to the wrong quire, if you are talking to me about how unnecesary the Iraq war is.

Iraq is out of this discussion practically, we are talking about something different.

You missed China and France ;)

Which ones I support, seriously: Syria and Iran.

From your earlier post. No it was not possible, I ran out of room for multiple choice.

Second of all. Warmonger!

Third of all; elaborate.

I'd have to say 'all of the above'. hell, bomb the whole world (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html) ("now we got missiles flying everywhere, passing each other 'yo'-'what up?'...") California will break off from the us ("bypass doom"!) and go hang with hawaii. and australia will be gone soon.
yup. that's the way to do it.

Well, your preaching to the wrong quire, if you are talking to me about how unnecesary the Iraq war is.

Iraq is out of this discussion practically, we are talking about something different.
I was using Iraq '03 as an example, not a subject. But the point here is that no war is necessary for the time being, and that terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda are already being chased down. The military power of the Americans itself, for example, is enough to deter both North Korea and Iran from any aggressive actions of theirs, but neither is there an imminent threat from any other nation that will require something like a full-scale military action.
Even if extremism is supported in some nations, such ideas are spread among the people, thus unless you are going to eliminate all people who holds such ideas, they will still exist even if the government is toppled. Invading some nation just because the people hold one particular ideal is neither a practical, nor a good, decision.

What irritates me is the constant "Bringing Democracy to the Middle East" bit. It [democaracy] may work well for us (in theory) but the system just doesn't work everywhere. Want an example of where democracy failed? Look at pre-world war two Germany. The treaty imposed democracy that brought about a melencholy attitute, and helped bring about the rise of Hitler, and we know how that turned out. I hate the US Administration's arrogant assumption that their way is the best way.

I'm not saying that I support the methoods used by the governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they worked. Could the same thing be said about the interm governments? Are they being as effective?

Otherwise, I think the US should stop dicking around in the middle east. Our international credit is now zero (not that it was that high to begin with) mainly because of that, and any more of it won't help us and it'll get more of our soldiers killed.

A war in Jordan would be laughable. I honestly see no reason for it. Having met the king personally, I can say he is a senseable, intelligent person who would know what to do to avoid such a conflict. Plus the fact that he's reasonable pro-US (tolerate would be a better word). I also believe he let some marines do desert exercises in Jordan, so there is trust there.

To all the "peace seekers" if you are in a fight, like some drunk nutcase comes up to you, and starts hitting you do you just stand there. Heres a great ex. someone on this thread said "you started it by setting up govt. over there" well we didnt set up the Taliban, but I do know where you're coming from.

Your a bartender, you serve a guy some drinks, he goes out shoots you wife, would you just say "I brought it apon myself." Than go to bed? Or would you say, "Fuck! I should not have done that, my bad! Better call the cops!"

There's a difference between a bar fight and a multi-national fight, you know. If you serve a guy a few drinks and he goes and kills your wife, thats kind of a different thing from arming thousands of bloodthirsty terrorists with U.S. made weapons who will probably kill a vast amount of innocent people.

I support a war in Afganistan to a certian point, but why, oh why couldn't we have tried earlier to prevent an attack on the U.S.? Did we really have to give Bin Laden CIA training and the Taliban AK's? What were we thinking?

And just for the record, if someone killed my wife(Or rather girlfriend) I'd kill 'em right back.

you click on none. Future peace? Hell no, we had a right to attack Afghanistan.you saying:
"we had a rigth to attack Afghanistan, but we did not have a rigth to attack Iraq"
???

There's a difference between a bar fight and a multi-national fight, you know. If you serve a guy a few drinks and he goes and kills your wife, thats kind of a different thing from arming thousands of bloodthirsty terrorists with U.S. made weapons who will probably kill a vast amount of innocent people.

I support a war in Afganistan to a certian point, but why, oh why couldn't we have tried earlier to prevent an attack on the U.S.? Did we really have to give Bin Laden CIA training and the Taliban AK's? What were we thinking?

And just for the record, if someone killed my wife(Or rather girlfriend) I'd kill 'em right back.



Its not like we were playing war games, ever heard the term "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? We did what we did to get rid of the Soviets, how could we have known how insane Bin-Laden was?

you saying:
"we had a rigth to attack Afghanistan, but we did not have a rigth to attack Iraq"
???

The Iraqi govt. did not train terrorists, on top of that, not a single terrorist who attacked us on 9/11 was from Iraq.

War On Bush!

What irritates me is the constant "Bringing Democracy to the Middle East" bit. It [democaracy] may work well for us (in theory) but the system just doesn't work everywhere. Want an example of where democracy failed? Look at pre-world war two Germany. The treaty imposed democracy that brought about a melencholy attitute, and helped bring about the rise of Hitler, and we know how that turned out. I hate the US Administration's arrogant assumption that their way is the best way.

Actually, it wasn't the insistence on democracy which brought down the Wiemar Republic, it was the excessive reparations which wrecked the German economy. People lost hope and Hitler offered them a panacea.

Democracy isn't the "best" way, it's the "only" way. Or would you prefer that people around the world continue to live as virtual slaves in their own nations?

I would prefer a way that doesn't end up losing more lives than the government it was supposed to be replacing. Sound familiar?

EDIT: And it was a mixture of the horrible economic aftershock and the imposed government, I should've said that earlier.

What irritates me is the constant "Bringing Democracy to the Middle East" bit. It [democaracy] may work well for us (in theory) but the system just doesn't work everywhere. Want an example of where democracy failed? Look at pre-world war two Germany. The treaty imposed democracy that brought about a melencholy attitute, and helped bring about the rise of Hitler, and we know how that turned out. I hate the US Administration's arrogant assumption that their way is the best way.

I'm not saying that I support the methoods used by the governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they worked. Could the same thing be said about the interm governments? Are they being as effective?

Otherwise, I think the US should stop dicking around in the middle east. Our international credit is now zero (not that it was that high to begin with) mainly because of that, and any more of it won't help us and it'll get more of our soldiers killed.

A war in Jordan would be laughable. I honestly see no reason for it. Having met the king personally, I can say he is a senseable, intelligent person who would know what to do to avoid such a conflict. Plus the fact that he's reasonable pro-US (tolerate would be a better word). I also believe he let some marines do desert exercises in Jordan, so there is trust there.


Here,here! (hear,hear!!...anybody know which you're supposed to use?) I quite agree with you, especially on the bringing democracy question, in fact (and I never thought I'd say this) I actually agree with Chirac who said that and I paraphrase:
"If democracy is to come to the Middle-east it must be a Middle-eastern democracy. It must not be an American democracy, a British democracy, a Russian democracy, a French democracy or anyone elses form of democracy. It must be a Middle-eastern democracy. Only then will it succeed; and only then will the people believe in it because it will be their democracy."

Heavily paraphrased since I read the article quite a while ago, but I still think it is correct.
But, it is debatable whether democracy failed in Weimar Germany. It is seen as a failure by many since the people voted in Hitler however, the important word there is voted. Although looking in hindsight it was a bad decision, at the time most of the leaders around the world thought he was a good choice.

Out of pure curiousity how/when/why did you meet the King of Jordan? :)

I met King Abdllah at a US Embassy function while I lived in Jordan.

Why don't we just fucking invade everyone?

Why don't we just fucking invade everyone?
yeah, it'd be like a rtw trip, just funner!

Actually, it wasn't the insistence on democracy which brought down the Wiemar Republic, it was the excessive reparations which wrecked the German economy. People lost hope and Hitler offered them a panacea.

Democracy isn't the "best" way, it's the "only" way. Or would you prefer that people around the world continue to live as virtual slaves in their own nations?


Actually the German economy under Weimar after the hyper inflation wasn't too bad, although it was supported by numerous American loans. The problem was in 1929 the Wall Street crash which brought all of the capitalist powers to their knees; and as such it could be argued that it was the Great Depression and not Weimar which paved the way for Hitler being voted in as Chancellor.

I chose NK, but I should have gone for heretics and unbelievers. :(

I met King Abdllah at a US Embassy function while I lived in Jordan.


*looks impressed* Wow! I think that is the only word that I can think of to describe how impressed I am! Must have been pretty nerve wracking.

I'm anxiously awaiting Lichtenstein vs. Luxembourg. It would be adorable.

It was pretty cool. About a month later I met Colin Powel (the only Bush Administration member whom I acutally thought good of). I like being a diplomat.

:D

What irritates me is the constant "Bringing Democracy to the Middle East" bit. It [democaracy] may work well for us (in theory) but the system just doesn't work everywhere. Want an example of where democracy failed? Look at pre-world war two Germany. The treaty imposed democracy that brought about a melencholy attitute, and helped bring about the rise of Hitler, and we know how that turned out. I hate the US Administration's arrogant assumption that their way is the best way.

I remember reading about this point of view before...where was it...where was it...

I remember now! During the closing days of WWII there was a massive debate as to what to do with Germany and Japan in the US. There was a large contingent of individuals who believed that neither nation was capable of sustaining a democratic style of government. Looks like they were wrong

Later on a group of folks believed that Asiatic cultures couldn't support democratic governments. Now look at South Korea and Japan, democratic governments as strong as any in the west.

The democracy won't work is a silly argument left over from the days of empire.

So you honestly think that the "democracy" in Iraq is actually working? How have you been so deluded?

So you honestly think that the "democracy" in Iraq is actually working? How have you been so deluded?
Democracy isn't an immediate thing. It takes time, 5 years, 10 years, whatever, but it will work. And if you're so impatient as to expect something like demcracy to start working in the space of a year or two, you are seriously deluded.

Problems like this aren't solved in the space of an hour like they are on television.

I would support a war in either Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran or North Korea. Due to the fact that all of my choices are in the poll, and I cant vote for more than one, I will not vote.

I'm anxiously awaiting Lichtenstein vs. Luxembourg. It would be adorable.

Best of all? They'd pretty much have to fight in France. :)

I'll put $50 that one or the other walks away with Alsace or Lorraine!!

Best of all? They'd pretty much have to fight in France. :)

I'll put $50 that one or the other walks away with Alsace or Lorraine!!
I'd bet Luxembourg because they have an airplane...

You heard the President today, he said that it's in America's interests if other nations are free. Well they don't cost very much when we invade them first.

Problems like this aren't solved in the space of an hour like they are on television.
Actually, most television solutions appear in the last 5 minutes of the hour. ;-)

I'd bet Luxembourg because they have an airplane...

Ah, but Lichtenstien has the cash to buy the Piedmontese and Dalmatian mercenaries...

I'm anxiously awaiting Lichtenstein vs. Luxembourg. It would be adorable.

They will play in a world cup qualifier. Does this count as a war if your population is so small?

North Korea. Though I'd support going against any of the others as well, except for Egypt. I don't see much reason, as of right now.

They will play in a world cup qualifier. Does this count as a war if your population is so small?

I know that in Lichtenstein, they actually post the % of the population at the game...

They will play in a world cup qualifier. Does this count as a war if your population is so small?

Nah, more of a domestic disturbance. The UN will just send the police to knock on their doors as ask them to calm down.

Ah, but Lichtenstien has the cash to buy the Piedmontese and Dalmatian mercenaries...

Are they white with back spots?

I support war with all of them.

A Civil War! ;)

Hah! SA shouldnt even be an option. The world would have so-called 'terrorist attacks' popping up everywhere. Imagine a 9/11 in every state simultaneously.

Hah! SA shouldnt even be an option. The world would have so-called 'terrorist attacks' popping up everywhere. Imagine a 9/11 in every state simultaneously.
So what? We can take the gloves off too. Plus we can hit harder.

So what? We can take the gloves off too. Plus we can hit harder.

Go for it. I know I'd be there fighting if SA was touched.

I propose War On Mars!

True, there is no life there yet but there could be eventually, and then we'll show 'em, eh?

Incidentally, it would also force us to go create inter-planetary craft capable of transporting large amounts of humans at a relatively low cost, so it's a win-win situation, really.

I was just thinking that! :O I second the War on Mars! Or perhaps the War against Drugs. Hmmm...

Go for it. I know I'd be there fighting if SA was touched.
When I say take the gloves off I mean using thermobaric, possibly nuclear weapons on major population centers. Do you really want a piece of that?

It was pretty cool. About a month later I met Colin Powel (the only Bush Administration member whom I acutally thought good of). I like being a diplomat.

:D

:) Personally I'm not sure about Powel, haven't really formed an opinion of him. Although, you have given me a greater inclination of joining the embassy's etc. :D I've been thinking about it for a while.

So you honestly think that the "democracy" in Iraq is actually working? How have you been so deluded? Democracy isn't an immediate thing. It takes time, 5 years, 10 years, whatever, but it will work. And if you're so impatient as to expect something like demcracy to start working in the space of a year or two, you are seriously deluded.

Problems like this aren't solved in the space of an hour like they are on television.

Yeah Parlim, consider the problems Ukraine just recently had in their presidential election. The Eastern Bloc is the perfect example of democracy's success through perserverance. Ugly as it may be, democracy could still very well work in Iraq.

If the upcoming elections are executed (as unsure or "unrepresenting" as they may be), it could strengthen Iraq's resolve in democracy quite a bit (whereas if they fail, or are postponed, it teaches those opposed to democracy in Iraq that they can stop democracy if they kill enough innocent people). Sure it won't be the most just or equal election in the world, but as long as it's moving Iraq closer to a democracy and further from anarchy or despotism, I'm all for it. It parallels a lot the post-communist movement from totalitarian to democratic regime.

I want the US to invade Saudi Arabia. Maybe they can bomb the hell out of Mecca and Medina.

North Korea has got to go down. That Jack Nicholson look-alike in charge is insane. He's threated to nuke the world on multiple occasions, and is the last bastion of stalinism in the world.

I want the US to invade Saudi Arabia. Maybe they can bomb the hell out of Mecca and Medina.

Ack! I used to live in Medina!

well...Medina, Ohio.

Where is the "War on America" option????

Ack! I used to live in Medina!

well...Medina, Ohio.
No. It must be the city in Sodding Arabia.

Where is the "War on America" option????

Ask Barbara Boxer. She knows.

Edit: Oh, and Nancy Pelosi too!

I want the US to invade Saudi Arabia. Maybe they can bomb the hell out of Mecca and Medina.

Got something against Muslims or something?[Non-threateaning/]

So you think that on 9/11 in responce to the attacks Bush should have handed the Taliban a nice letter saying "Please stop what you are doing :p ."

Yeah, thats a great solution.

Amen :)

hell, i'm Canadian and even i supported America in it's fight. when your country is attacked on it's own soil you must defend yourselves and i personally think my government should have done alot more to aid our allie.

no war but the class war, baby!

Fight war, not wars.

Fight war, not wars.

let the politicians fight the wars, those assholes aren't worth dying for.

Got something against Muslims or something?[Non-threateaning/]
Yes not my favorit people. And America as well. Kill two birds with one stone.

Fight war, not wars.

Bodies without organs huh, I cant believe Im on the same forum as Dick Cheney!!!

North Korea. Though I'd support going against any of the others as well, except for Egypt. I don't see much reason, as of right now.

Ohio.... YOU FUCKER! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???? EVEN IF YOU VOTED KERRY, WHY DIDNT YOU MAKE SURE OTHERS DID THE SAME! I HOPE YOUR STATE GETS AIRLIFTED TO FRANCE!!!!!!!!!

Not that I dont like France just that they will be pissed.

America. I would support a war to end the evil regime there.

"The evidence indicates that America has re-constitiuted its nuclear weapons program. We cannot wait for the final proof of a smoking gun. It could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

There's my rationale for war. Yet unlike the suprisingly similar argument made by George W. Bush, mine has some truth in it.

So you think that on 9/11 in responce to the attacks Bush should have handed the Taliban a nice letter saying "Please stop what you are doing :p ."

Yeah, thats a great solution.

Taliban did not attack America. On 9/11 Amercia was attcked the Saudi funded, Saudi run, Saudi religious, Saudi led - Al Quaeda terrorist group.

The response to this attack has been for Bush to send the Saudis a letter saying "Please stop what you are doing :p ."

Where's the option to support a war on gangsta rap?
I'm getting really sick of hearing the same song for 10 years now...

Where's the option to support a war on gangsta rap?
I'm getting really sick of hearing the same song for 10 years now...

I think that would fall into the "other" category. :)

I want the US to invade Saudi Arabia. Maybe they can bomb the hell out of Mecca and Medina.
I can't tell with you. Are you saying that because you don't like muslims, or because you want to see the US get into another long war?

War is the only answer. I think most people from the middle east should be taken out.

Something you're not telling us "Drunk Commies" I Found this
quote in another thread. All I can say is, war is not the only answer, and as for your racist views, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I can't tell with you. Are you saying that because you don't like muslims, or because you want to see the US get into another long war?
Both.

Ok, I did understand that you wanted Osama Bin Laden and his gang after 9/11 and I granted you a try to catch him in Afghanistan. No probs mister, go there and get him. He himself said that he was responsible. Take him to court.
But you didn't find him. :(

But you got rid of the terrible Taliban Rule and that was a bonus to all the liberal people of the world and most of all - to the Afghani women. Thanx for killing off the worst of the conservative manchauvinsts in the world who were against gay marriage, abortions, religious freedom and female emancipation in Afghanistan. Now it is a little bit more liberal, it's almost like in the deep south...but there are still Talibans hidden somewhere in the mountains...why can't you make a decent work? Just look at the mess you've made of Iraq! :rolleyes:

You all need to stop going to war all the time and get yourself a better hobby. :fluffle:

Ok, I did understand that you wanted Osama Bin Laden and his gang after 9/11 and I granted you a try to catch him in Afghanistan. No probs mister, go there and get him. He himself said that he was responsible. Take him to court.
But you didn't find him. :(

But you got rid of the terrible Taliban Rule and that was a bonus to all the liberal people of the world and most of all - to the Afghani women. Thanx for killing off the worst of the conservative manchauvinsts in the world who were against gay marriage, abortions, religious freedom and female emancipation in Afghanistan. Now it is a little bit more liberal, it's almost like in the deep south...but there are still Talibans hidden somewhere in the mountains...why can't you make a decent work? Just look at the mess you've made of Iraq! :rolleyes:

You all need to stop going to war all the time and get yourself a better hobby. :fluffle:

Too true.

Both.
Fair enough.

I want the US to invade Saudi Arabia. Maybe they can bomb the hell out of Mecca and Medina.

That's not very nice. Unless you're an atheist then what if the US bombed your religion's central holy place. If you are an atheist imagine if you were Catholic and the Vatican was bombed repeatedly. I don't think you would shrug and say 'Whatever'.

Something you're not telling us "Drunk Commies" I Found this
quote in another thread. All I can say is, war is not the only answer, and as for your racist views, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Something I'm not telling you? I think I've been honest.
That quote doesn't read like my writing, but I do agree with it. It's not about race, it's about religion. I don't really like any of them, but Islam strikes me as the worst. I think Arab Muslims are my enemies. They want me and my countrymen either dead, subject to their rule, or converted to their beleifs. I don't like any of those options. Racist? No. Prejudiced against Islam? Yes.

No. you had the brute force and ignorance to oust a legally constituted government. If you argue that they were supporting terrorists, have a look at the history of the USA and the IRA.
Yeah, but we're Americans!!!!!11 We can do what we want!!!! Homogenise society throughout the world in our image, Christianity and endless consumption of consumer goods!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!111111111111@@!

"DAY 1 OF IRAQI INVASION

Eliminate Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and the Ayatollah (while they're watching re-runs of the 9/11 attacks, of course.)

DAY 2 OF IRAQI INVASION

Build first Wal-Mart. Inspire mass revolutions in Middle East nations.

Iraqi 1: I'm registering as something called a Republican!
Iranian 1: We hereby re-name Tehran to Cheneyville!

DAY 3 OF IRAQI INVASION

Democracy in Middle East is complete.

Iraqi 1: WOW! I just accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour!
Iraqi 2: ME TOO!"

-http://www.derfcity.com/o/neocon.html

The US is a hellhole of war-mongers and "neo-cons" (read: fascists).

Something I'm not telling you? I think I've been honest.
That quote doesn't read like my writing, but I do agree with it. It's not about race, it's about religion. I don't really like any of them, but Islam strikes me as the worst. I think Arab Muslims are my enemies. They want me and my countrymen either dead, subject to their rule, or converted to their beleifs. I don't like any of those options. Racist? No. Prejudiced against Islam? Yes.

Don't you think you're being a bit stereotypical? After all, the VAST Majority of Arab Muslims aren't terrorists that try and fly planes into buildings. That's like saying everyone in China sings bad cause William Hung didn't do too good on American Idol.

you click on none. Future peace? Hell no, we had a right to attack Afghanistan.
Really? The Taliban offered to surrend OBL, but Bush would have none of it. Regime change in Afghanistan was already on the administration's agenda before 9/11. The terrorist attacks just gave them a perfect excuse to go to war.

Don't you think you're being a bit stereotypical? After all, the VAST Majority of Arab Muslims aren't terrorists that try and fly planes into buildings. That's like saying everyone in China sings bad cause William Hung didn't do too good on American Idol.
I know the vast majority aren't terrorists, but I beleive that the vast majority agree with the terrorists.

No. you had the brute force and ignorance to oust a legally constituted government. If you argue that they were supporting terrorists, have a look at the history of the USA and the IRA.
The legitimacy of the Taliban is arguable, since they took power by revolution. Yes, they supported terrorists, and the fact that the USA does the same does not diminish the Taliban's crime.

How about cleaning up Kosovo of the US sponsored KLA?

Trust me neither side can be called angels (serbians and albanians) but forcing out one side and keeping the other is just wrong.

Really? The Taliban offered to surrend OBL, but Bush would have none of it. Regime change in Afghanistan was already on the administration's agenda before 9/11. The terrorist attacks just gave them a perfect excuse to go to war.
That's simply not true.

Which one...which one...pax Romana is over...so is the pax Brittania...so I guess the option is between a pax Americana, pax China and pax Europa. I'll go with the pax Americana please. I could stand a pax Europa admittedly, but a pax China is a no-no.
Is pax "nobody" an option?

I know the vast majority aren't terrorists, but I beleive that the vast majority agree with the terrorists.

Only because America's constant violence gives them reason to agree with the terrorists. In a way, the Bush administration is proving bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Hamas (I don't think of them as a terrorist organization), Islamic Jihad, and every other Anti-western terrorist group right.

The legitimacy of the Taliban is arguable, since they took power by revolution.
And so the American Revolution was just a bunch of Brits and Yanks having tea, talking about independence, right?

I don't understand why it's okay for our country to be formed by violent revolution, but for others? WTF?! They don't know what's good for themselves!!!!!

Is pax "nobody" an option?

Pax Canadia! :p

I chose "war on other", because I've been waiting for the past four years for the UN to organize an army and invade the US. I don't know what's taking them so long, but I'm getting tired of waiting. If I don't see a big tank rolling down my street with a big "UN" on the side of it soon, I might just snap.

Only because America's constant violence gives them reason to agree with the terrorists. In a way, the Bush administration is proving bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Hamas (I don't think of them as a terrorist organization), Islamic Jihad, and every other Anti-western terrorist group right.
Prior to the Iraq war what violence has the US done to any Muslim country?

Prior to the Iraq war what violence has the US done to any Muslim country?

Invaded/Liberated (Depending on your view) Afghanistan
A bit way back but - the first Gulf War.
Somalia.

They've also attacked indirectly by demanding Muslim countries to withdraw from the UN and closing down many US embassies in Muslim countries.

I'm just trying to uphold peaceful/diplomatic views on things.

Invaded/Liberated (Depending on your view) Afghanistan
A bit way back but - the first Gulf War.
Somalia.

They've also attacked indirectly by demanding Muslim countries to withdraw from the UN and closing down many US embassies in Muslim countries.

I'm just trying to uphold peaceful/diplomatic views on things.
First gulf war was to protect Saudi and Kuait from Saddam. Saddam is secular, Saudi is muslim. We helped them.

Afghanistan was a necessary retaliation. Their Al Qada pals attacked us first.

Somalia was a war against a ruthless warlord who was hijacking food aid to starve his enemies and enrich himself.

First gulf war was to protect Saudi and Kuait from Saddam. Saddam is secular, Saudi is muslim. We helped them.

Afghanistan was a necessary retaliation. Their Al Qada pals attacked us first.

Somalia was a war against a ruthless warlord who was hijacking food aid to starve his enemies and enrich himself.

I agree but from what I've seen, wars like these don't leave a good impression with the Islamic nation

I am going to start a bloody war with my neighbor if he can't get his coughing fits under control while I am trying to sleep! He'd best watch himself.

I am going to start a bloody war with my neighbor if he can't get his coughing fits under control while I am trying to sleep! He'd best watch himself.
I support you.

WTF, I can only vote for one war?

so many of these national governments deserve to be beaten with a stick, I can't choose just one

what a bias poll

Pax Canadia! :p

I'd almost be willing to bite on a Pax Canadia... if they could end the NHL strike!! :(

Its not like we were playing war games, ever heard the term "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"? We did what we did to get rid of the Soviets, how could we have known how insane Bin-Laden was?

Friend eh?

Lets go back over the last 3 of Americas "friends" and major enemies

America + Soviet Union vs Nazi Germany
America + Islamic fundamentalists vs Soviet Union
America + Dictatorships vs Islamic fundamentalists

With friend like that, why do you need enemies?

I think we should find some puny nation (like the UK) to beat up upon.

Think of how satisfiying it would be to here the English squeal!

The legitimacy of the Taliban is arguable, since they took power by revolution. Yes, they supported terrorists, and the fact that the USA does the same does not diminish the Taliban's crime.

The legitimacy of the American government is arguable since they took power by revolution.

I think we should find some puny nation (like the UK) to beat up upon.

Think of how satisfiying it would be to here the English squeal!


Firstly I think you mean British.
Secondly, puny? You "beat up upon" the UK and you also beat "up upon" the rest of the European Union, and it is also quite possible that the UK may involve the Commonwealth. "Beat up upon" the UK and you may start World war 3. ;)

Stick with countries you know how to beat without armed uprisings starting like.... *thinks*.....uhhh....ummm....uhhh....on second thoughts like someone else said: "go find a new hobby" one that you might actually be good at. :)

For USA, right? Civil war. Think about it! Pure chaos and total anarchy all over, small fragments of what's left over of the old government does desperate things to retain control, Arnold trying to become the King and Queen of California, Canada and Mexico actually consider jumping in for some turf, several european countries fly over with troops and try to make America the productive little slave colony as it was mean't to be, McDonalds reveals it secret private army and takes over New York, french people have heart attacks from laughing too much and knowing your lovely yankee nature, this'll all be TELEVISED! Yes! There'll be a whole channel for it, which will air the greatest reality show in human history 24/7. It's a media orgasm!


...so here's a little yellow ball, shooting exploding boogers.
:gundge:

For USA, right? Civil war. Think about it! Pure chaos and total anarchy all over, small fragments of what's left over of the old government does desperate things to retain control, Arnold trying to become the King and Queen of California, Canada and Mexico actually consider jumping in for some turf, several european countries fly over with troops and try to make America the productive little slave colony as it was mean't to be, McDonalds reveals it secret private army and takes over New York, french people have heart attacks from laughing too much and knowing your lovely yankee nature, this'll all be TELEVISED! Yes! There'll be a whole channel for it, which will air the greatest reality show in human history 24/7. It's a media orgasm!


...so here's a little yellow ball, shooting exploding boogers.
:gundge:
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Gosh that was funny!!!!!! :D

dude! keep the peace in the pot. were all humans here dude. whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. time to paint things with our fingers. whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. those fingers are awesome inventions dude. and i mean they're like..............whoooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. dudeeeeeeeeeeee. they movvvvvvvvveeeeeeeee. isn't that tooootally radical man. cha. peace out dude. rock on. make love not war man.

I think we should find some puny nation (like the UK) to beat up upon.

Think of how satisfiying it would be to here the English squeal!

Eek. But I don't wanna squeal.

Don't forget we got some lovely nukes to hit you back with. But we need your permission/codes to launch em. damn! :p

The legitimacy of the American government is arguable since they took power by revolution.

Where did you learn History?!? :eek:

Ever hear of the Treaty of Paris? You know, that little document officially ending the American War of Independence which acknowledged the colonies as independent and set the border with British North America (which later became Canada)...

A quick overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281783%29

I'm just worried about the day the world wakes up to find itself ruled by Belgium. It's always the quiet ones...

Hey, back in the day Belgium was a pretty big deal! Right now though I'd be more worried about China.

In response to the topic, I would support military action in Sudan. You know that movie about the ethnic purging in Rwanda? Hotel Rwanda, I think it is called. Anyway, a similar genocide is going on right now in Sudan, and it never gets talked about.

I think we should find some puny nation (like the UK) to beat up upon.

Think of how satisfiying it would be to here the English squeal!

Puny is not a word I would describe the British, who I think you mean.

Not to mention the fact that Britain (it's government anyway) is the only friend you have in the world right now.

Invade Britain. I will look forward to capping my first Yank who walks down my street.

Not to mention the SAS, who would make Al-Zarqawi look like a cuddly teddy bear.

Hey, back in the day Belgium was a pretty big deal! Right now though I'd be more worried about China.

In response to the topic, I would support military action in Sudan. You know that movie about the ethnic purging in Rwanda? Hotel Rwanda, I think it is called. Anyway, a similar genocide is going on right now in Sudan, and it never gets talked about.

True Belgium had a large chunk of Western equatorial Africa.

I think military action along the lines of occupying Darfur to protect refugees could be a good thing.

I'm just worried about the day the world wakes up to find itself ruled by Belgium. It's always the quiet ones...
We're not quiet, no one just listens to us. :D

The war between Charlton Heston and those stinkin' dirty apes!

Where did you learn History?!? :eek:

Ever hear of the Treaty of Paris? You know, that little document officially ending the American War of Independence which acknowledged the colonies as independent and set the border with British North America (which later became Canada)...

A quick overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281783%29

*sighs* That wasn't what I was meaning. I was responding in kind to a post by Siljhouettes who said that the legitimacy of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was arguable since they took power by revolution. However, by stating such a thing one can then argue that until the Treaty of Paris the American government could be accounted illegitimate, likewise so could the French, German and Russian governments amongst many others.

And as for where I learnt history, in school, at home, reading books. I'm currently studying Stalinist Russia, the British reform acts granting the right of Suffrage between 1830 and 1952 and the birth of Protestantism in England and whether it was due to Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn or whether it was an inevitable act. You?

War on New Jersey.

Why? Oh, 'Tis quite simple.

See, New Jersey wouldn't expect it. They'd be sitting down on their lawns, have a BBQ, watching the game on T.V. etc. Then, when they see thousands of military units marching down the street, they'll wave to them and offer them food. Then, outta no where, the soldiers will blast em to bits. Newark will be destroyed, and then victory.

Easy conquest.

*sighs* That wasn't what I was meaning. I was responding in kind to a post by Siljhouettes who said that the legitimacy of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was arguable since they took power by revolution. However, by stating such a thing one can then argue that until the Treaty of Paris the American government could be accounted illegitimate, likewise so could the French, German and Russian governments amongst many others.

And as for where I learnt history, in school, at home, reading books. I'm currently studying Stalinist Russia, the British reform acts granting the right of Suffrage between 1830 and 1952 and the birth of Protestantism in England and whether it was due to Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn or whether it was an inevitable act. You?

Aha! That makes much more sense! :) Sorry I missed the context.
(& I don't have any problem with revolution as a means of forming a government.)

I've got a Bachelor's from the University of Connecticut, and read a LOT on my 2.5 daily commute to NYC via train. Mostly I'm concentrated in WW1 and Austria-Hungary in particular, though I dabble in Napoleonic and Rome.

War on New Jersey.

Why? Oh, 'Tis quite simple.

See, New Jersey wouldn't expect it. They'd be sitting down on their lawns, have a BBQ, watching the game on T.V. etc. Then, when they see thousands of military units marching down the street, they'll wave to them and offer them food. Then, outta no where, the soldiers will blast em to bits. Newark will be destroyed, and then victory.

Easy conquest.

You can't do it until the Jets move back to NYC!!