NationStates Jolt Archive

Why should we? Sorry but I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about our government. It isn't their government.

They might but since it is our government, I don't give a hoot in hell what the rest of the world thinks about it. We're not afraid to listen but since the rest of the world doesn't have a say in American Politics, I don't care.

When the rest of the world actually starts doing something then we'll talk. Until then, not a chance.

Riiiight. Sorry if you specifically haven't said anything of this sort, but the number of times I've heard Americans whine about the world hating them and at a complete loss as to why has kind of driven me nuts! If you really want to know why others have issues with you, then listen to them.

No, no one can have a say in US politics, but you do. If you don't want the world to despise you then elect someone with foriegn friendly foreign policies! It's pretty simple really. And try not to be hypocritical, don't jump in a decide to free people from dictatorships. When the people want to do something about their leader, they will. As France did, and Britain and the USA itself, along with every other current democracy on earth! Don't interfere in the politics of other nations.

And where have I been proven wrong? Surely you ain't talkin about the 2 wars we fought. Last I've studied, we beat you in the Revolutionary War and that 1812 was a draw so tell me where I have been proven wrong?
We didn't beat the British in the Revolutionary War--The British lost it. Also, we wouldn't be here today if it weren't for France. But in the end I guess you can say we still won the Revolutionary War. :)

We didn't beat the British in the Revolutionary War--The British lost it.

If they lost it, we won it because if we didnt win it, we wouldn't be independent. Again though, I'm not going to turn this into this debate. Feel free to start a new thread on it.

Also, we wouldn't be here today if it weren't for France. But in the end I guess you can say we still won the Revolutionary War. :)

I know the French Helped! As did Spain, Dutch, Sweden, Russia, and most of Europe with their Armed neutrality agreement that diplomatically isolated Great Britain. Face it! Britain wasn't well liked back then! Why? Because they were the superpower at the time.

I GOT IT! No one likes a super power and considers superpowers a threat to world peace! :D

Whcih country in your opinion is the greatest threat to world peace?


I personaly beleive america, as its military budget is something like the size of the next 33 military budgets combined.

As im new, i tried to get a poll, but my computer went weird, so i didnt do one, anyway, let your opinion be known!

I want to know if anyone actually thinks that the US is more dangerous than North Korea... or if you all simply put on the "I Hate America" glasses and voted blindly...

Ask yourself this:

Is it more likely that America or North Korea will attack my country?

If you think that what we've done for Iraqis is bad, remember all of them who braved bullets to vote. You say you value freedom and scoff at us for giving it to them.

One minor problem in this! General Assembly Resolutions are non-binding
No such problem. Supermajority votes of the emergency special session are, AFAIK, the only instance when they are.


:eek: Olantia agrees with me! Its the end of the world as we know it :p
:D

I GOT IT! No one likes a super power and considers superpowers a threat to world peace! :D
HE SEES THE LIGHT, EVERYBODY!! :D

Is it more likely that America or North Korea will attack my country?
At the moment, the U.S. is, seeing as how we carried out military operations in at least ten countries since North Korea's last military action.

No such problem. Supermajority votes of the emergency special session are, AFAIK, the only instance when they are.

If this is true then I stand corrected but everything I'm seeing is that they aren't binding.

:D

:D

I want to know if anyone actually thinks that the US is more dangerous than North Korea... or if you all simply put on the "I Hate America" glasses and voted blindly...

Ask yourself this:

Is it more likely that America or North Korea will attack my country?

If you think that what we've done for Iraqis is bad, remember all of them who braved bullets to vote. You say you value freedom and scoff at us for giving it to them.

The United States is much more likely to attack my country than anyone else.

Excuse me but we lose 3000 civilians, I expect the US to launch a full scale war on the people that did it or those that support those that did it. In this case, Afghanistan supported the people that launched 9/11 and due to this, we launched an attack on Afghanistan. We are not going to sit back and shrug our sholders. We're going to act. That is why, you shouldn't piss us off.

This is exactly my point, well done for putting it soooo well :-) The American attitude is to fight violence with violence. Not all of the casualties were American, and you may notice that when other countries suffer terrorist attacks (Spain last year, us just weeks ago) they don't go on a violent rampage, killing civilians in other countries to get to one guy! I am so proud of the people of London right now, they are all just getting on with life and trusting the government and police to tackle the problem rationally and coherently, rather than going to war over it.

As for your last statement, I'm taking that as a threat. Your threat to all nations that they should appease America or face being bombed into the stone age. You just want to stomp around, do whatever the hell you like and kill whoever stands in your way. That is why you are a threat to theroetical world peace and a barrier to actually acieving it. Well done for demonstrating it so admirably!

If this is true then I stand corrected but everything I'm seeing is that they aren't binding.
...

I'll quote the resolution.
...Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case wherethere appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriaterecommendations to Members for collective measures, includilig in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security...

This is exactly my point, well done for putting it soooo well :-) The American attitude is to fight violence with violence. Not all of the casualties were American, and you may notice that when other countries suffer terrorist attacks (Spain last year, us just weeks ago) they don't go on a violent rampage, killing civilians in other countries to get to one guy! I am so proud of the people of London right now, they are all just getting on with life and trusting the government and police to tackle the problem rationally and coherently, rather than going to war over it.
Which brings up this exciting quote:
"They act out of hatred. We don't seek revenge. We seek justice out of love."
-- And via cruise missile, GWB, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Aug. 29, 2002

The United States is much more likely to attack my country than anyone else.

What a load of absolute ignorant hogwash. All you p%ssy europeans do is talk about how everything is peaceful over there when it's only becuase you cower and lay down before people who want you dead......be that way, see where it gets you. If america wasn't around a lot of these nations (N korea, iraq, china, etc..) would not be scared to attack and take over other countries....are you that blind to it. London was just bombed the other day.....madrid before that....where were your peace talks then. YOU CANNOT BARGAIN WITH RADICAL PEOPLE WHO THINK YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE ON THIS EARTH!!!!!!! We didn't set the rules, THEY DID!!! They said it's either us or them, so what do you want us to do.....LET IT BE THEM!!!!??????? Grow some balls and stand up for your way of life sometime, you might just feel better about yourself in the end. Trust me, your false little sense of peace and happiness over there is running on borrowed time because you can only duck and hide and p*ssy out on conflict for so long before it hits you in the face (world war 2?)

This is exactly my point, well done for putting it soooo well :-) The American attitude is to fight violence with violence. Not all of the casualties were American, and you may notice that when other countries suffer terrorist attacks (Spain last year, us just weeks ago) they don't go on a violent rampage, killing civilians in other countries to get to one guy! I am so proud of the people of London right now, they are all just getting on with life and trusting the government and police to tackle the problem rationally and coherently, rather than going to war over it.

As for your last statement, I'm taking that as a threat. Your threat to all nations that they should appease America or face being bombed into the stone age. You just want to stomp around, do whatever the hell you like and kill whoever stands in your way. That is why you are a threat to theroetical world peace and a barrier to actually acieving it. Well done for demonstrating it so admirably!



And you think by catching the peons in the situation you are going to stop it..........LOL, have you ever heard of cutting something off at it's source. Do you think that if we had simply kicked the germans out of france in world war 2 and then stopped, that they would have given up? Your a freakin idiot....

This is exactly my point, well done for putting it soooo well :-) The American attitude is to fight violence with violence.

So what your saying is that its ok to lose 3000 people but not ok to strike back? Thank God I don't live in your world.

Not all of the casualties were American, and you may notice that when other countries suffer terrorist attacks (Spain last year, us just weeks ago) they don't go on a violent rampage, killing civilians in other countries to get to one guy!

I know not all the casualties were American but the majority of them where. As for Spain, don't get me started on their government. They showed themselves to be cowards by running out of Iraq because the terrorists said too.

I am so proud of the people of London right now, they are all just getting on with life and trusting the government and police to tackle the problem rationally and coherently, rather than going to war over it.

That's because most of their people where homegrown terrorists and not foreigners like the attacks on us were :rolleyes:

As for your last statement, I'm taking that as a threat.

Its a known fact. I think Yamato said it best. "All I feared we've done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve!"

Your threat to all nations that they should appease America or face being bombed into the stone age.

We all know appeasement doesn't work but attack us directly, and we'll come after you. Don't attack us, and we won't come after you.

You just want to stomp around, do whatever the hell you like and kill whoever stands in your way.

This is so wrong and its not even funny.

That is why you are a threat to theroetical world peace and a barrier to actually acieving it. Well done for demonstrating it so admirably!

Well done for showing your ignorance.

What a load of absolute ignorant hogwash. All you p%ssy europeans do is talk about how everything is peaceful over there when it's only becuase you cower and lay down before people who want you dead......be that way, see where it gets you. If america wasn't around a lot of these nations (N korea, iraq, china, etc..) would not be scared to attack and take over other countries....are you that blind to it. London was just bombed the other day.....madrid before that....where were your peace talks then. YOU CANNOT BARGAIN WITH RADICAL PEOPLE WHO THINK YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE ON THIS EARTH!!!!!!! We didn't set the rules, THEY DID!!! They said it's either us or them, so what do you want us to do.....LET IT BE THEM!!!!??????? Grow some balls and stand up for your way of life sometime, you might just feel better about yourself in the end. Trust me, your false little sense of peace and happiness over there is running on borrowed time because you can only duck and hide and p*ssy out on conflict for so long before it hits you in the face (world war 2?)

For starters I'm not european.



Are you really that blind? Can't you see what causes terrorists to attack? Why they haven't attacked germany or argentina for example?
Don't freaking spread havoc in their homeland or spread poverty there and I'll be almost sure that they won't have a reason to attacking you.
But you don't seem to get the message and just fight more and more, your bloodthirsty actions will ultimately lead you to your downfall.

This is exactly my point, well done for putting it soooo well :-) The American attitude is to fight violence with violence. Not all of the casualties were American, and you may notice that when other countries suffer terrorist attacks (Spain last year, us just weeks ago) they don't go on a violent rampage, killing civilians in other countries to get to one guy! I am so proud of the people of London right now, they are all just getting on with life and trusting the government and police to tackle the problem rationally and coherently, rather than going to war over it.

As for your last statement, I'm taking that as a threat. Your threat to all nations that they should appease America or face being bombed into the stone age. You just want to stomp around, do whatever the hell you like and kill whoever stands in your way. That is why you are a threat to theroetical world peace and a barrier to actually acieving it. Well done for demonstrating it so admirably!

um, no. We want to kill bad guys. That's it. And right now, that means terrorists and iraqi/afghani insurgents who either:

a)Threaten the peace in free countries or
b)Threten the new-found freedom/gov't in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And yes, it is best to kill terrorists, rather than appease them like a bunch of pussies.

You don't impress a bullie with words. You impress a bully by punching him in the mouth.

This is exactly my point, well done for putting it soooo well :-) The American attitude is to fight violence with violence. Not all of the casualties were American, and you may notice that when other countries suffer terrorist attacks (Spain last year, us just weeks ago) they don't go on a violent rampage, killing civilians in other countries to get to one guy! I am so proud of the people of London right now, they are all just getting on with life and trusting the government and police to tackle the problem rationally and coherently, rather than going to war over it.

As for your last statement, I'm taking that as a threat. Your threat to all nations that they should appease America or face being bombed into the stone age. You just want to stomp around, do whatever the hell you like and kill whoever stands in your way. That is why you are a threat to theroetical world peace and a barrier to actually acieving it. Well done for demonstrating it so admirably!

um, no. We want to kill bad guys. That's it. And right now, that means terrorists and iraqi/afghani insurgents who either:

a)Threaten the peace in free countries or
b)Threaten the new-found freedom/gov't in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And yes, it is best to kill terrorists, rather than appease them like a bunch of pussies.

You don't impress a bullie with words. You impress a bully by punching him in the mouth.

I want to know if anyone actually thinks that the US is more dangerous than North Korea... or if you all simply put on the "I Hate America" glasses and voted blindly...

Ask yourself this:

Is it more likely that America or North Korea will attack my country?

If you think that what we've done for Iraqis is bad, remember all of them who braved bullets to vote. You say you value freedom and scoff at us for giving it to them.

America is more likely to attack my country. Especially if we piss them off, they're nearer and have the military capability to do so. Although we needn't even piss them off, they might just decide to help themselves and invade anyway.

And Iraq is oh so grateful to you for helping them, while having to rebuild their homes all on their own. And isn't it a coincidence that the guy "won" the election is the guy the US government liked most?! I'm willing to bet he "won" the election in the same way the G. W. Bush "won" the 2000 election in the USA.

And you think by catching the peons in the situation you are going to stop it..........LOL, have you ever heard of cutting something off at it's source. Do you think that if we had simply kicked the germans out of france in world war 2 and then stopped, that they would have given up? Your a freakin idiot....
Excactly! The only way to win the "war on terror"--if that's indeed what we're fighting for in Iraq--is to get to the source. It's something most people don't understand though. By invading Iraq, we strengthened the source of terrorists. To avoid long complex paragraphs, I'll simplify it for you. Bush can be tearing up his most wanted cards all he wants, but there will be four more being compiled right behind his back and we won't discover those until the next major terror attack. Think about it. We're not addressing the root causes of terrorism, we're address the terrorists, which just adds to the root causes.

This is exactly my point, well done for putting it soooo well :-) The American attitude is to fight violence with violence. Not all of the casualties were American, and you may notice that when other countries suffer terrorist attacks (Spain last year, us just weeks ago) they don't go on a violent rampage, killing civilians in other countries to get to one guy! I am so proud of the people of London right now, they are all just getting on with life and trusting the government and police to tackle the problem rationally and coherently, rather than going to war over it.

As for your last statement, I'm taking that as a threat. Your threat to all nations that they should appease America or face being bombed into the stone age. You just want to stomp around, do whatever the hell you like and kill whoever stands in your way. That is why you are a threat to theroetical world peace and a barrier to actually acieving it. Well done for demonstrating it so admirably!

um, no. We want to kill bad guys. That's it. And right now, that means terrorists and iraqi/afghani insurgents who either:

a)Threaten the peace in free countries or
b)Threaten the new-found freedom/gov't in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And yes, it is best to kill terrorists, rather than appease them and simply hope they'll stop terrorizing us.

You don't impress a bully with words. You impress a bully by punching him in the mouth.

Well done for showing your ignorance.
And, as ever, your arrogance. Well done.

And, as ever, your arrogance. Well done.

I am eh? Sorry but I live in the real doggy dog world and not in a fantasy utopia as people on here think they live in and blame us for running their fantasy utopia which doesn't exist in the first place.

um, no. We want to kill bad guys. That's it. And right now, that means terrorists and iraqi/afghani insurgents who either:

a)Threaten the peace in free countries or
b)Threaten the new-found freedom/gov't in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And yes, it is best to kill terrorists, rather than appease them and simply hope they'll stop terrorizing us.

You don't impress a bully with words. You impress a bully by punching him in the mouth.
Then he punches you back, so you keep exchanging punches until you both are beaten into a bloody pulp. Very rational indeed. :rolleyes:

"An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind."--Mahatma Gandhi.

Then he punches you back, so you keep exchanging punches until you both are beaten into a bloody pulp. Very rational indeed. :rolleyes:

"An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind."--Mahatma Gandhi.

Funny thing is, I knocked out a school bully. You know what? Never had problems with him again. He left me alone.

Then he punches you back, so you keep exchanging punches until you both are beaten into a bloody pulp. Very rational indeed. :rolleyes:

"An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind."--Mahatma Gandhi.
Actually, it's more like a fight between a buff 20 year old guy and a wimpy 50 year old guy. We're not the ones worrying about being beaten into a bloody pulp.

Then he punches you back, so you keep exchanging punches until you both are beaten into a bloody pulp. Very rational indeed. :rolleyes:

"An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind."--Mahatma Gandhi.

at the moment we're fairly effective at offing them. we'll keep doing ti until they decide to leave the free world alone and go back to their caves.

Funny thing is, I knocked out a school bully. You know what? Never had problems with him again. He left me alone.
Hmm...you reminded me that I did the same to another bully.

Man that guy was pissing annoying.

Of course it didn't help his 3 friends were three times my size. But you get the picture. The original bully never messed with me again.

at the moment we're fairly effective at offing them. we'll keep doing ti until they decide to leave the free world alone and go back to their caves.
wow. If only it was that simple. But you fail to consider the fact that these terrorists are in it for the long haul, and their cause is not going to die out anytime soon. How do you get rid of an ant colony? Do you go around and destroy the trail of ants? Or do you kill the queen and get rid of their food sources? Right now, we're destroying the trail of terrorists, and failing to address the roots.

wow. If only it was that simple. But you fail to consider the fact that these terrorists are in it for the long haul, and their cause is not going to die out anytime soon. How do you get rid of an ant colony? Do you go around and destroy the trail of ants? Or do you kill the queen and get rid of their food sources? Right now, we're destroying the trail of terrorists, and failing to address the roots.

i bet we're trying to take care of UBL, but he's a sort of albino ant who blends with the sand.

and their cause (destruction of the West/Freedom) is the reason we need to get them, or put gaseous valium in their air supply. hehe

i bet we're trying to take care of UBL, but he's a sort of albino ant who blends with the sand.
Not according to Bush:
"I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama bin Laden]."--So much for "Wanted Dead or Alive", White House, Mar. 13, 2002
Your typical arrogance is entaining, please keep it up! :D

um, no. We want to kill bad guys. .

Yes, and you see anyone who disagrees with you as a bag guy. Your "President" said it himself with his famous "If you're not with us you're against us" line.

You don't impress a bullie with words. You impress a bully by punching him in the mouth.

By impress I assume you really mean defeat. And you just provided the key to getting through to the biggest bully of them all: America. It has honestly never occured to you that terrorists see you as the bully, has it? As someone else just said, don't give people cause to hate you and you won't get attacked, it's pretty simple.

And Europe doesn't just give in to people who hate us, mostly there aren't organisations dedicated to hating Europe like America has. But when we do face these situations we deal with it by strengthening our resolve to stick together and not rise to the bait. Or in theory we do, it doesn't help when you bully us into fighting your wars for you. I fully admit that our Prime Minister is a feeble coward.

As for the London bombings being homegrown terrorists, the authorites have pretty strong evidence that Al Qaeda was behind it. It may have been British nationals who activated the bombs, but they didn't organise it all on their own.

wow. If only it was that simple. But you fail to consider the fact that these terrorists are in it for the long haul, and their cause is not going to die out anytime soon. How do you get rid of an ant colony? Do you go around and destroy the trail of ants? Or do you kill the queen and get rid of their food sources? Right now, we're destroying the trail of terrorists, and failing to address the roots.
Actually I take a can of ant poison and spray right in the hole for a few good seconds. If the ants running out are having seizures, I just stomp on them so they don't make it very far.

What's with the real life comparisons? :confused:

Actually I take a can of ant poison and spray right in the hole for a few good seconds. If the ants running out are having seizures, I just stomp on them so they don't make it very far.

What's with the real life comparisons? :confused:
So your solution to terrorism is to use chemical weapons! lol!

I am eh? Sorry but I live in the real doggy dog world and not in a fantasy utopia as people on here think they live in and blame us for running their fantasy utopia which doesn't exist in the first place.
Or as the rest of the semi-literate world refers to it, a 'dog-eat-dog' world? What's the 'real doggy dog world'? Some canine theme park you once visited with your parents?

Yes, and you see anyone who disagrees with you as a bag guy. Your "President" said it himself with his famous "If you're not with us you're against us" line.

FOOLS! HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING? THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT REPRESENT US NOR DOES HE REPRESENT OUR OPINIONS! C'MON, IF YOUR GOING TO ACCUSE US OF BEING IGNORANT, DON'T BE IGNORANT YOURSELF!

The "fools" remark was more of a statement to add more taste to my words rather than an accusation. Didn't mean anything/

Or as the rest of the semi-literate world refers to it, a 'dog-eat-dog' world? What's the 'real doggy dog world'? Some canine theme park you once visited with your parents?
:D

This thread is getting better and better....;)

Actually I take a can of ant poison and spray right in the hole for a few good seconds. If the ants running out are having seizures, I just stomp on them so they don't make it very far.

What's with the real life comparisons? :confused:

you know what it is... but we won't use it... even though they would if they had it.

And jealousy is not a valid reason for hating a country.

Actually I take a can of ant poison and spray right in the hole for a few good seconds. If the ants running out are having seizures, I just stomp on them so they don't make it very far.

What's with the real life comparisons? :confused:

Erm... because most of us deal with real life on a daily basis. It's just you and a few other ignorant people who don't.

You mean ignorant like referring to a 'doggy dog world'?

That's one of the best laughs I've had all weekend.

Or as the rest of the semi-literate world refers to it, a 'dog-eat-dog' world? What's the 'real doggy dog world'? Some canine theme park you once visited with your parents?
It's funny how conservatives accuse liberals of living in a fantasy world, while there are experts on psycology that testify that Bush is living in a faith-based world, then you take into account that many conservatives, especially Corneliu here, repeat the same mantras the President does and steadfastly stand behind his every move. Bush's actions and his past further suggest if not prove that he is living in a faith-based reality.

Erm... because most of us deal with real life on a daily basis. It's just you and a few other ignorant people who don't.
:rolleyes:

Thanks for the statement. No matter how stupid it was. No matter how untrue it is.

You mean ignorant like referring to a 'doggy dog world'?

That's one of the best laughs I've had all weekend.
:confused:

What ARE you talking about?

(and weekend...? I'm pretty sure it's no longer the weekend anywhere as it is 11 am in the Pacific Timezone)

:confused:
Be confused no longer. :cool:
What ARE you talking about?
THIS is what I'M talkin' about:
I am eh? Sorry but I live in the real doggy dog world and not in a fantasy utopia as people on here think they live in and blame us for running their fantasy utopia which doesn't exist in the first place.
(and weekend...? I'm pretty sure it's no longer the weekend anywhere as it is 11 am in the Pacific Timezone)
It's a long weekend in this part of Canada. My bad.

Be confused no longer. :cool:

THIS is what I'M talkin' about:


It's a long weekend in this part of Canada. My bad.
Actually I was just referring that your post made me chuckle a bit.

FOOLS! HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING? THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT REPRESENT US NOR DOES HE REPRESENT OUR OPINIONS! C'MON, IF YOUR GOING TO ACCUSE US OF BEING IGNORANT, DON'T BE IGNORANT YOURSELF!

Ah, and yet you post on here with sentiments very much like his.

Don't get me wrong, I am probably more aware than some Americans that he doesn't represent you, after all, most of you have never voted for him. In 2000 he got 1% less of the popular vote than Gore, not to mention having members of his family announce his election on national tv before the votes had been counted! Oh and there's the whole issue of leaving black people of the electoral register in Florida and then last year those 90,000 extra votes that were faked. No, he most definately doesn't represent you all.

However, you as an individual seem to be very much behind him when it comes to the "if you piss us off we'll kill you" attitude that Corneliu expressed.

I would have to say the US, though China is probably a close second.

It's funny how conservatives accuse liberals of living in a fantasy world, while there are experts on psycology that testify that Bush is living in a faith-based world, then you take into account that many conservatives, especially Corneliu here, repeat the same mantras the President does and steadfastly stand behind his every move. Bush's actions and his past further suggest if not prove that he is living in a faith-based reality.

the term "ignorant" is part of the liberal left/PC jargon used to refer to anyone, namely conservatives, who don't agree with the bash-Bush/anti-American status quo.

As for what being a "faith-based" reality means... i figure it means he's going to heaven. hehe

And i do think there's something to the jealousy theory and how it pertains to why terrorists hate the West... they hate our success... they want to be successful, but generally are not. They have no money, while we do. It also pisses them off how our women have a whole slew of human rights, a large chunk of which the terrorists don't think they should have.

et al.

The same people who call Bush an idiot are the ones who accuse him of conspiring with Cheney to formulate a plan to take over the world. Talk about taking two extremes.

the term "ignorant" is part of the liberal left/PC jargon used to refer to anyone, namely conservatives, who don't agree with the bash-Bush/anti-American status quo.

As for what being a "faith-based" reality means... i figure it means he's going to heaven. hehe

And i do think there's something to the jealousy theory and how it pertains to why terrorists hate the West... they hate our success... they want to be successful, but generally are not. They have no money, while we do. It also pisses them off how our women have a whole slew of human rights, a large chunk of which the terrorists don't think they should have.

et al.
Wow, thank you for proving my point by spewing virtually the exact same phrase repeated over and over again by the Bush Administration. "They hate our freedoms" is hardly accurate. You, my friend, should read up on the West's impact on the Middle East during the past 70 or so years and you might understand that what Bush is saying is a big crock of shit. Maybe there is substance to the application of the word "ignorant," since apparently, you know nothing about the exploits of the Middle East by the West and believe they are killing Americans because "they hate our freedoms."
"[S]ee, in my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda."
-- GWB, Greece, New York, May 24, 2005

And don't you dare call me anti-American. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Being pro-America isn't blindly following whatever actions she takes, it's finding fault and doing everything within my power to try to correct that fault. You've learned well to hate the resistence, and blindly support Big Brother. Well done. :D

The same people who call Bush an idiot are the ones who accuse him of conspiring with Cheney to formulate a plan to take over the world. Talk about taking two extremes.
No, I've never been dumb enough to suppose that He and Cheney have formulated anything more substantial than how best to implement PNAC's wish-list.

Cheney might have the connections necessary to pull something off on his own, but no, they're both just PNAC's ciphers. Something to do with having the inventiveness and guile of a slab of granite. Go figure.

The same people who call Bush an idiot are the ones who accuse him of conspiring with Cheney to formulate a plan to take over the world. Talk about taking two extremes.
The same people who are pro-life are the ones who support the death penalty. Talk about talking two extremes.

Wow, thank you for proving my point by spewing virtually the exact same phrase repeated over and over again by the Bush Administration. "They hate our freedoms" is hardly accurate. You, my friend, should read up on the West's impact on the Middle East during the past 70 or so years and you might understand that what Bush is saying is a big crock of shit.
"[S]ee, in my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda."
-- GWB, Greece, New York, May 24, 2005

And don't you dare call me anti-American. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Being pro-America isn't blindly following whatever actions she takes, it's finding fault and doing everything within my power to try to correct that fault. You've learned well to hate the resistence, and blindly support Big Brother. Well done. :D

wrong. I blindly hate terrorists. I wish you'd get on our team.

As for blaming America for the problems of the Middle East, waa waa waa. We need oil, so we buy it from them. We (and others) gave Israel back to the Jews.

But I think their big beef is how we want the people they oppress (the 80% Kurd/Shi'a population in Iraq as an example) to be free... they can't stand losing that power.

If they spent more time helping their economies/people rather than trying to kill American civilians, maybe their countries wouldn't be considered third-world with literacy rates as atrocious as they have.

The same people who are pro-life are the ones who support the death penalty. Talk about talking two extremes.

akin to being pro-abortion and anti-DP...

how's this for an idea:

pro-life, anti-DP... you know, respect human life, unless it is a threat to you (as in the case of killing insurgents/terrorists).

akin to being pro-abortion and anti-DP...

how's this for an idea:

pro-life, anti-DP... you know, respect human life, unless it is a threat to you (as in the case of killing insurgents/terrorists).
Ooooorrr....my way...

Anti-Life (Pro-choice) and pro-death penalty.

wrong. I blindly hate terrorists. I wish you'd get on our team.Im either with you or against you right? If I don't blindly support the Bush Administration, I'm a terrorist conspirator. :rolleyes:

As for blaming America for the problems of the Middle East, waa waa waa. We need oil, so we buy it from them. We (and others) gave Israel back to the Jews. lol! And said "shove it" to the Palestinians. That's another reason why the terrorists are acting up. And I never said America was at fault for the problems in the Middle East, don't pull crap out of your ass, I said "the West" there is a difference.

But I think their big beef is how we want the people they oppress (the 80% Kurd/Shi'a population in Iraq as an example) to be free... they can't stand losing that power. When did that oppression start? Wasn't it when the Ba'ath party rose to power and Saddam was planted as dictator by the CIA?

Wow, thank you for proving my point by spewing virtually the exact same phrase repeated over and over again by the Bush Administration. "They hate our freedoms" is hardly accurate. You, my friend, should read up on the West's impact on the Middle East during the past 70 or so years and you might understand that what Bush is saying is a big crock of shit. Maybe there is substance to the application of the word "ignorant," since apparently, you know nothing about the exploits of the Middle East by the West and believe they are killing Americans because "they hate our freedoms."
"[S]ee, in my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda."
-- GWB, Greece, New York, May 24, 2005

And don't you dare call me anti-American. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Being pro-America isn't blindly following whatever actions she takes, it's finding fault and doing everything within my power to try to correct that fault. You've learned well to hate the resistence, and blindly support Big Brother. Well done. :D

Anti-american anti-american anti-american!! try siding with your country some time instead of mass murdering cave dwellers who want you dead also, ever think of that.

akin to being pro-abortion and anti-DP...

how's this for an idea:

pro-life, anti-DP... you know, respect human life, unless it is a threat to you (as in the case of killing insurgents/terrorists).
Because there are tens of thousands of trained killers waiting to attack us right? :rolleyes: And Bush will save us all.

Ooooorrr....my way...

Anti-Life (Pro-choice) and pro-death penalty.

hehe

...

When did that oppression start? Wasn't it when the Ba'ath party rose to power and Saddam was planted as dictator by the CIA?
Qassim wasn't much better than the Ba'athists... and was the CIA really involved in the palace coup of 1979? The Agency had a hand in Qassim's overthrowal in 1963, AFAIK.

Anti-american anti-american anti-american!! try siding with your country some time instead of mass murdering cave dwellers who want you dead also, ever think of that.
Wow, ignorance sure is bliss ain't it?

Because there are tens of thousands of trained killers waiting to attack us right? :rolleyes: And Bush will save us all.

how many terrorists are there?

how many terrorists are there?
TOO MANY!! GO JOIN THE ARMY RIGHT NOW!!! GET RID OF SOME OF THEM!!111!!11!!! :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

TOO MANY!! GO JOIN THE ARMY RIGHT NOW!!! GET RID OF SOME OF THEM!!111!!11!!! :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

I tried. got a 99 on the ASVAB but had asthma as a kid, so..

I tried. got a 99 on the ASVAB but had asthma as a kid, so..
Pulling a Corneliu, huh? "well, I would join but I can't."

Anti-american anti-american anti-american!! try siding with your country some time instead of mass murdering cave dwellers who want you dead also, ever think of that.
wow you're dumb

Pulling a Corneliu, huh? "well, I would join but I can't."
I'm too young :(

I really want to do ROTC in college after I graduate high school.

....In about 3 years...

Oh, lol, im sorry, i was being nagged by my girlfriend whislt doing that. GErmany and iran should of been added, sorry

Germany a threat to world peace??? WTF.

Germany fights for freedom and doesn't have the mood to kick the world's ass again, we have become a pacifist country.

If America dared to withdraw their troops from german soil and the rest of the world would stop checking on us every so often, we would re-arm sooner that you think and probably kick the world's ass again but this time for good.

We are peace-loving people but also courageus.

The real threat is China those communist are the threat, and those fucking russians need to be destroyed as well.

Peace ;)

Germany a threat to world peace??? WTF.

Germany fights for freedom and doesn't have the mood to kick the world's ass again, we have become a pacifist country.

If America dared to withdraw their troops from german soil and the rest of the world would stop checking on us every so often, we would re-arm sooner that you think and probably kick the world's ass again but this time for good.

We are peace-loving people but also courageus.

The real threat is China those communist are the threat, and those fucking russians need to be destroyed as well.

Peace ;)

If you fight for freedom, why weren't/aren't you in Iraq with us? We're helping them set up a free state this very minute...

whispering legs had a good idea..

We (the US) should let the UN take care of the world's problems. Everyone hates us despite all the good we do, so let's quit the job of mopping up the world's spills and let those wise Europeans do it. lmao.

I mean according to this poll people are actually afraid of the US.

Pulling a Corneliu, huh? "well, I would join but I can't."
Many of us are not allowed to join the military because of asthma.


On-topic:
I picked "other." I'd figure Iran would be a greater threat than anyone else at the moment.


And Germany. I don't trust you guys. :p Me thinks you use Oktoberfest as cover for building a new army of supersoldiers.

And if alcohol ever runs out: Ireland.

whispering legs had a good idea..

We (the US) should let the UN take care of the world's problems. Everyone hates us for all the good we do, so let's quit the job of mopping up the world's spills and let those wise Europeans do it. lmao.
Ah yes, the worderful world the U.S. is creating.

Ah yes, the worderful world the U.S. is creating.

...yah, sure as hell better without Saddam or the Taliban in power... unless you're an Islamic extremist, that is.

Seems as if the only people with reason to complain about the US's role in the Middle East are the bad guys... I mean we're not bombing Europe.

If you fight for freedom, why weren't/aren't you in Iraq with us? We're helping them set up a free state this very minute...

Free state? oh i assume you are talking about that juicy oil, don't you? in that case you are setting free lots of good oil, meanwhile look at all the civilian casualties, including the bombs you drop at civilian homes, torture to iraq prisioners, and shooting for fun to anything that moves god that is a free country now.

...yah, sure as hell better without Saddam or the Taliban in power... unless you're an Islamic extremist, that is.
You keep your eyes concentrated on that one shred of hope that will probably never come out of this. Isn't Iraq a great country now? Mothers are giving birth to healthy new Iraqis (http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html), who, in 10 or so years will be fighting the same insurgents the US fought. Isn't America doing a great job in Iraq?

DISCLAIMER: EXTREME PIC WARNING!!! viewer discresion is STRONGLY advised!

You keep your eyes concentrated on that one shred of hope that will probably never come out of this. Isn't Iraq a great country now? Mothers are giving birth to healthy new Iraqis (http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html), who, in 10 or so years will be fighting the same insurgents the US fought. Isn't America doing a great job in Iraq?

DISCLAIMER: EXTREME PIC WARNING!!! viewer discresion is STRONGLY advised!

i hope they'll find that having a voice in how their country is run will make this seem worth it to them. Saddam could not be allowed to keep oppressing/torturing/murdering people a la Stalin.

i hope they'll find that having a voice in how their country is run will make this seem worth it to them. Saddam could not be allowed to keep oppressing/torturing/murdering people a la Stalin.
In 10, 20, 30 or so years when this perpetual global war the US started dies down to a low boil.

In 10, 20, 30 or so years when this perpetual global war the US started dies down to a low boil.

hear, hear

So you all hate the United States just because of the Cold War and Capitalism and the fact that the Soviet Union is no more?

Believe it or not but Capitalism is the ultimate system of business and economies. Just about every economicly powerful nation uses some form of Capitalism. There is nothing wong about competition bringing out the best in all of us.

Communism is perhaps the most unrealistic form of economic and governmental system ever created. Not only has Communism failed but it will also never work due to human nature. It has always sucked, soon afterwards it always results in famine, poverty, and deterioration in human rights.

Is it not noticable that every time a Communist system rises to power that a naton's economy always plummets?

People due not want to work for the same wages no matter how well they have acheived. People want to be able to raise their standards of living by acquiring skills, opening businesses, competing, investing in the stock market and ecetera.

Israel had every right to exist as there was no such thing as a state of Palestine and that the UN set aside it. Anti-semitism is unjustified and they deserved a homeland after the Holocaust.

Calling me numbnuts only disproves your argument, if I am wrong please correct me. I am not a 'naive idealist' I am only trying to stick up for my country. I am sure you would if people continually criticised your country but maybe not.

The US is one of the founding members as the UN has five permanent members. I at least am right about the US funding more humanitarian aide.

Just because the Bush Administration is in the White House does not mean that it is the end of the world. Presidents come and go, many change and repeal changes made and they can be impeached if the nation so desires.

I never meant to imply that the UK is a great country because of its ties to the US. I am saying that overall, the most modern countries on earth are the US and the UK.

Also, you seem to only list the wrongs of the US when in fact it has done some good.

The US only used atomic bombs to save the lives of American Troops as an invasion of Japan would of caused extreme causalties.

After Japan was bombed the US occupied it, rebuilt it, then set up their own government. Now Japan is one of the most powerfully economic nations on earth all thanks to the United States.

You also must keep in mind, Japan was the one who attacked us forever sending United States out of an isolationist mood.

As far as I know the United States NEVER in its history bullied any nation by threatening to use nuclear weapons. Your reasoning that the US only wants a monopoly on nukes because of that is clearly unfounded and based on opinion.
Letting Iran and North Korea possess them is clearly not an option due to these countries insability and irresponsibility.

The Soviet Union also had wrongdoings of its own. It has a legacy of pollution, gulags, and it had no right to keep expanding its territory by invading Afghanistan, the local people of that nation didn't like the takeover so the US was willing to help at the time.

The US is not as bad as it is made out to be. It falls victim to media criticism and sterotypes because of its status as the world's remaining military superpower.

Is anyone even going to try and rebute my main post on this thread?
I want to continue debating with these anti-americanists.

hey evrybody..... you are all wrong..... :headbang:

denmark is the biggest threatend.. the have a super secret oginsation named ruffys band... the are going to rule the world mam... and i am siriusly.. because i am ruffy him self.... :mp5:

"dont worry be happy"

Anti-american anti-american anti-american!! try siding with your country some time instead of mass murdering cave dwellers who want you dead also, ever think of that.
How can anyone 'side with their country' when their country is totally polarized, politically speaking? And don't hand me that malarkey about 50% of American voters being the clear majority. You know as well as I do how moronic that Bush-enabling line of crap is.

Is anyone even going to try and rebute my main post on this thread?
I want to continue debating with these anti-americanists.

Originally Posted by Checheniya
So you all hate the United States just because of the Cold War and Capitalism and the fact that the Soviet Union is no more?

Believe it or not but Capitalism is the ultimate system of business and economies. Just about every economicly powerful nation uses some form of Capitalism. There is nothing wong about competition bringing out the best in all of us.

Communism is perhaps the most unrealistic form of economic and governmental system ever created. Not only has Communism failed but it will also never work due to human nature. It has always sucked, soon afterwards it always results in famine, poverty, and deterioration in human rights.

Is it not noticable that every time a Communist system rises to power that a naton's economy always plummets?

People due not want to work for the same wages no matter how well they have acheived. People want to be able to raise their standards of living by acquiring skills, opening businesses, competing, investing in the stock market and ecetera.

Israel had every right to exist as there was no such thing as a state of Palestine and that the UN set aside it. Anti-semitism is unjustified and they deserved a homeland after the Holocaust.

Calling me numbnuts only disproves your argument, if I am wrong please correct me. I am not a 'naive idealist' I am only trying to stick up for my country. I am sure you would if people continually criticised your country but maybe not.

The US is one of the founding members as the UN has five permanent members. I at least am right about the US funding more humanitarian aide.

Just because the Bush Administration is in the White House does not mean that it is the end of the world. Presidents come and go, many change and repeal changes made and they can be impeached if the nation so desires.

I never meant to imply that the UK is a great country because of its ties to the US. I am saying that overall, the most modern countries on earth are the US and the UK.

Also, you seem to only list the wrongs of the US when in fact it has done some good.

The US only used atomic bombs to save the lives of American Troops as an invasion of Japan would of caused extreme causalties.

After Japan was bombed the US occupied it, rebuilt it, then set up their own government. Now Japan is one of the most powerfully economic nations on earth all thanks to the United States.

You also must keep in mind, Japan was the one who attacked us forever sending United States out of an isolationist mood.

As far as I know the United States NEVER in its history bullied any nation by threatening to use nuclear weapons. Your reasoning that the US only wants a monopoly on nukes because of that is clearly unfounded and based on opinion.
Letting Iran and North Korea possess them is clearly not an option due to these countries insability and irresponsibility.

The Soviet Union also had wrongdoings of its own. It has a legacy of pollution, gulags, and it had no right to keep expanding its territory by invading Afghanistan, the local people of that nation didn't like the takeover so the US was willing to help at the time.

The US is not as bad as it is made out to be. It falls victim to media criticism and sterotypes because of its status as the world's remaining military superpower.

I won't comment all that thing about communism cause it has nothing to do with the topic.

I see mainly three points:

It's ridiculous to assume that the jews "deserved" a land on their own, the palestinians had nothing to do with the holocaust however they paid the price and had their ass kicked out of palestine so that "the world could repay its debts".

It's at least naive to think that the U.S used atomic bombs only to avoid more casualties, this was one of the reasons but probably not the main one, it was more of a power demonstration to the rest of the world, especially the U.S.S.R and was also a testing to see its true power.

Japan recuperated economically not out of american good will and charity, but to stop the spreading of comunism showing a rich capitalist country in the asia, pretty much like what happened to western europe which was rebuilt to wall off the comunism.

Denmark. Absolutely. And to know that they're only a bridge away from my home... :)

So you all hate the United States just because of the Cold War and Capitalism and the fact that the Soviet Union is no more?

Where did this come from?!

Believe it or not but Capitalism is the ultimate system of business and economies. Just about every economicly powerful nation uses some form of Capitalism. There is nothing wong about competition bringing out the best in all of us.

The best in all of us? Hmm, some maybe, but clearly not all. Clearly not the corporate leaders who pollute, destroy, kill and steal in the name of making money.

Communism is perhaps the most unrealistic form of economic and governmental system ever created. Not only has Communism failed but it will also never work due to human nature. It has always sucked, soon afterwards it always results in famine, poverty, and deterioration in human rights.

Is it not noticable that every time a Communist system rises to power that a naton's economy always plummets?

People due not want to work for the same wages no matter how well they have acheived. People want to be able to raise their standards of living by acquiring skills, opening businesses, competing, investing in the stock market and ecetera.

I think we're all in agreement about that to be honest!

Just because the Bush Administration is in the White House does not mean that it is the end of the world. Presidents come and go, many change and repeal changes made and they can be impeached if the nation so desires.

Absolutely! I can't wait for the day he is kicked out of office, I will be celebrating like much of America and most of the world! Although I'm not holding my breath that the next president will be much better.

Also, you seem to only list the wrongs of the US when in fact it has done some good.

Just have all nations, however, when the bad things are as bad as the ones under discussion they tend to dominate the debate.

The US only used atomic bombs to save the lives of American Troops as an invasion of Japan would of caused extreme causalties.

Well that's ok then because we all know that a few thousand US troops' lives are worth more than millions of Japanese civilians.

As far as I know the United States NEVER in its history bullied any nation by threatening to use nuclear weapons. Your reasoning that the US only wants a monopoly on nukes because of that is clearly unfounded and based on opinion.
Letting Iran and North Korea possess them is clearly not an option due to these countries insability and irresponsibility..

LOL! Yeah, they tend to stick to veiled threats and gradually increasing their nuclear arsenal. I love the way your last statement totally applies to the USA! Look at what the civilians do with all those guns lying around as well as your government bombing other countries every day. Such a responsible nation. I'm actually totally in favour of *all* countries being stripped of their WMDs, and prevented from building more, not just the ones America doesn't like.

I'm too young :(

I really want to do ROTC in college after I graduate high school.

....In about 3 years...

Well that explains A LOT! Thank goodness it's your age, you might grow out of it. By "it" I of course mean believing everything you're told without question. As you get older, hopefully you will learn to research these things and gain a deeper understanding of the way the world works. i.e. you can't just beat up everyone who disagrees with you! You have to learn the art of diplomacy if you truely want the world to be better.

However, there are many Americans who don't want a better world, they want a more American world. Hence the international animosity towards them, not everyone wants to live "the American way".

If only !!! Look at what happened in the friggin Balkans and in Dharphor the UN is should be charged with criminally negligent genocide.


whispering legs had a good idea..

We (the US) should let the UN take care of the world's problems. Everyone hates us despite all the good we do, so let's quit the job of mopping up the world's spills and let those wise Europeans do it. lmao.

I mean according to this poll people are actually afraid of the US.

If it were REALLY about oil we would have attacked Venezuala, it has plenty of oil it's smaller and closer too. :rolleyes:

Free state? oh i assume you are talking about that juicy oil, don't you? in that case you are setting free lots of good oil, meanwhile look at all the civilian casualties, including the bombs you drop at civilian homes, torture to iraq prisioners, and shooting for fun to anything that moves god that is a free country now.

If only !!! Look at what happened in the friggin Balkans and in Dharphor the UN is should be charged with criminally negligent genocide.

East timor is a complete UN sucess...

If it were REALLY about oil we would have attacked Venezuala, it has plenty of oil it's smaller and closer too. :rolleyes:
If it was REALLY about a threat to National Security, we would've invaded North Korea, they have plenty of nukes and it's closer too.

Military spending doesn't make a nation dangerous, it's the abuse of that power that makes it dangerous. Remember, the US military can also be a weapon of peace and stability, and has been one of the great champions of freedom in all of the world's greatest wars.

The nations most dangerous to world peace are North Korea, followed by Iran and China.


i 100% agree with this

Guys take it easy on americans they dont make the biggest threat, well... they support countries that became the biggest threat to the world, like who created taliban, who is suppling israel with all the heavy weapons.
but eventhough i cant say that the americans havent improved the world we live in today, at least for us arabs. like education, health, good diplomacy, military, science, techs...and a book of other stuff...
:headbang: :sniper:

No, it was about national security. The US decieded to pick a fight in "their" house. The US under Bush made the choice if a war on terror would be fought it would be fought as far from the US as possible. Islamic extremeism has been on the rise since the 70's partly fueled by petrodollars and the proxy wars fought during the Cold War. (Look at how many Ex-Soviet client stats are the home of Muslim extremeists) The US was had it's head in the sand until it was forcably pulled out on 9/11, then a pragmatic choice was made, where do we fight extreme Islam, we can fight it as a law enforcement issue here in the US with a greater loss of civil liberities and civilian casulties or we can fight it abroad to minimize US losses. So we invaded Afghanistan..when the flood of radicals to Jihad in Afghanistan didn't emerge we pick the only other Islamic country we could invade with the world completely going nuts. We now have what we want ...we are bleeding off the men and resources of the extremists and with a minimun risk to the homeland. It's a shame the people of Iraq have to suffer but better them than me. IF the US starts rebuilding both Afghanistan and Iraq the way we should we can end the war quicker by A) killing the extremeist but more importantly B) preventing more Muslims from becoming extremists. Before you lambaste the US for this tactic I will say this is the least violent option the US could take. If the US were to sustain many civilian death in the homeland it would not be too long before the great electorate would start screaming for revenge and I fear that if cooler head would not prevail it would mean nukes and camps. I think the US is the most dangerous country today because we are a big target and everybody wants to see us fail. I fear that one day a weaker more poll watching president would do much worse. I think if a Clintonesque man was President on 9/11 the final outcome would have been much worse long term.


If it was REALLY about a threat to National Security, we would've invaded North Korea, they have plenty of nukes and it's closer too.

It has to be Israel. And im suprised it wasnt an option.
Israel is the country that dictates a lot of Middle-Eastern policy of the United States. One of the main reasons the US went to war with Iraq was because Israel deemed Iraq a threat.
Not to mention the amount of senators and government officials in American that are Zionists or strongly pro-israel.

I dont think i'll ever understant why the American Government worships Israel so much.

Free state? oh i assume you are talking about that juicy oil, don't you?

Funny thing is, we aren't there for the Oil! I love it how the liberal left keeps trying to use that defunct piece of Propaganda.

this perpetual global war the US started dies down to a low boil.

Excuse me but you mean the terrorists started right?

No, it was about national security. The US decieded to pick a fight in "their" house. The US under Bush made the choice if a war on terror would be fought it would be fought as far from the US as possible. Islamic extremeism has been on the rise since the 70's partly fueled by petrodollars and the proxy wars fought during the Cold War. (Look at how many Ex-Soviet client stats are the home of Muslim extremeists) The US was had it's head in the sand until it was forcably pulled out on 9/11, then a pragmatic choice was made, where do we fight extreme Islam, we can fight it as a law enforcement issue here in the US with a greater loss of civil liberities and civilian casulties or we can fight it abroad to minimize US losses. So we invaded Afghanistan..when the flood of radicals to Jihad in Afghanistan didn't emerge we pick the only other Islamic country we could invade with the world completely going nuts. We now have what we want ...we are bleeding off the men and resources of the extremists and with a minimun risk to the homeland. It's a shame the people of Iraq have to suffer but better them than me. IF the US starts rebuilding both Afghanistan and Iraq the way we should we can end the war quicker by A) killing the extremeist but more importantly B) preventing more Muslims from becoming extremists. Before you lambaste the US for this tactic I will say this is the least violent option the US could take. If the US were to sustain many civilian death in the homeland it would not be too long before the great electorate would start screaming for revenge and I fear that if cooler head would not prevail it would mean nukes and camps. I think the US is the most dangerous country today because we are a big target and everybody wants to see us fail. I fear that one day a weaker more poll watching president would do much worse. I think if a Clintonesque man was President on 9/11 the final outcome would have been much worse long term.
And if Bush wasn't appointed in 2000 we'd all be speainking Arabic, right? :rolleyes:

Excuse me but you mean the terrorists started right?
No. They didn't start the War in Iraq. They asked for the "War on Terror" in Afghanistan, but they did nothing that made that U.S. invade Iraq.

And if Bush wasn't appointed in 2000 we'd all be speainking Arabic, right? :rolleyes:

Bush actually WON 2000 so Get over it.

No. They didn't start the War in Iraq. They asked for the "War on Terror" in Afghanistan, but they did nothing that made that U.S. invade Iraq.

No but they're the ones that started the Global War and Not the United States.

Funny thing is, we aren't there for the Oil! I love it how the liberal left keeps trying to use that defunct piece of Propaganda.

it's not the liberal left, is every world citizen who has not been brainwashed by right-wing media.

it's not the liberal left, is every world citizen who has not been brainwashed by right-wing media.

THen they got brainwashed by the liberal left media because we aren't there for the oil. Go figure. :rolleyes:

THen they got brainwashed by the liberal left media because we aren't there for the oil. Go figure. :rolleyes:

not there for the oil hmm..
if you really believe in this then I guess nothing I say shall change that after all you still believe that in saddam's underwear he has some mass destruction uh? :headbang:

not there for the oil hmm..
if you really believe in this then I guess nothing I say shall change that after all you still believe that in saddam's underwear he has some mass destruction uh? :headbang:

I never totally bought the WMD line. And on that same topic, it was bad intel that said he did and that was coming from most of this planet.

Bush actually WON 2000 so Get over it.
If by 'WON' you mean to say, 'paid for', you'd be right. And elections don't come cheap. Thus the incredible sense of entitlement.

Not over 2000 YET? PLEASE...No Gore may have done the same thing or may have done better,there's no way of knowing. Gore may have risen to the challange and became the American Churchill but probably not. The outcome that would have been worse (for the US) would NOT taking the war to a forgeign nation, while we wouldn't be speaking Arabic we would be looking for back to school flak jackets and kid sized gas/fire escape masks as domestic terror would increase exponentially.


And if Bush wasn't appointed in 2000 we'd all be speainking Arabic, right? :rolleyes:

I never totally bought the WMD line. And on that same topic, it was bad intel that said he did and that was coming from most of this planet.
There were many people, including people connected to the actual goddamn Iraqi weapons programs who were practically shouting their heads off about how the 'intel' was totally wrong, but strangely, you USians don't seem to have listened to those people. Instead you chose to believe idiots with vested interests, because they were clever enough to tell your people exactly what your leaders wanted to hear - justification for a damned illegal act.

Read my "big" post and you know why we (the US) are in Iraq.

No. They didn't start the War in Iraq. They asked for the "War on Terror" in Afghanistan, but they did nothing that made that U.S. invade Iraq.

So we get shot at and we punish them for shooting at us, are we a threat to world peace or are we doing the right thing by retaliating in response to being shot at?
They don't shoot at you though. That's the beauty of pre-emptive strikes.
It's about you thinking that they might shoot at you.

And why we won't be doing anything to them unless they do fire at us.
Let's hope so.
Strictly speaking, according to your argumentation, Iraq didn't do anything against you specifically either...unless you take violations of UN resolutions that personal.

Yep. Three nations that are a threat to world peace doing their best not to become the target of the US military assault.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Who would be violating the peace? Not the guys avoiding becoming the target, no?

How about I-S-R-A-E-L?
Ahh my friend. Your starting to show political ignorance. In case you have noticed the geography, there are nations that they would have to fly through or stage out of in order to do anything about it. They wouldn't give them permission.

Ahh my friend. Your starting to show political ignorance. In case you have noticed the geography, there are nations that we would've had to fly through or stage out of in order to do anything about it. They wouldn't give us permission.
It worked this time round, didn't it?
Point was, you tried to kick out the Russians by proxy. After that was done, you couldn't give a shit about what happened there afterwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Read the bit about the "rise to power".

Germany a threat to world peace??? WTF....those fucking russians need to be destroyed as well.
See! I told you we were dangerous!
:D

Read my "big" post and you know why we (the US) are in Iraq.
It says absolutely nothing new. You're just parroting the Bush Administration's rhetoric. You fail to realize that, although a good concept, the "War on Terror" cannot be won. Even someone as dumb as Bush has been able to admit it. This war in Iraq that the U.S. started, will go on indefinately. No Iraqi harmed or tried to harm any American civilian until Bush's "splendid little war."

why the hell isnt israel included?????


loads of countries should be included, such as ireland(IRA), israel, france (in west africa) south africa, egypt


u need to include them

u need to include them
10 is the maximum number of options.

It is not the USA, that is for sure.

What nation in the world do most nations
come running to, to help them when someone threatens them the USA.

If Europe were to be attacked by another power,
who would it turn to for help, the USA.

La Habana Cuba.

It's Monaco :)

China is the most powerful of the dangerous nations, but I have a feeling that its one-party system is headed for the grave.

In reality, the one most likely to start a war may be one that is not on the radar scope yet, But I'd say that Iran, NK, and China are all pretty close.

I discount the US because it's citizens (of which I am one) are tired of long slogs of military action. Bush simply does not have the political capital for fighting Iran or NK or any other nation (and I don't think he wants to anyway) unless they strike pre-emptively. It is doubtful that we would even engage in stopping a genocide militarily.

well i think you shouldv gave up monaco

although monaco is like a huge country of las vegas....
but i dont think they can fight with the gambling machines



or can they???

Funny thing is, we aren't there for the Oil! I love it how the liberal left keeps trying to use that defunct piece of Propaganda.

Are you telling me left wing?
(I don't live in america so i don't know everything that happens there, if you knew me i'm ultra right-wing and conservative.)

Are you telling me left wing?
(I don't live in america so i don't know everything that happens there, if you knew me i'm ultra right-wing and conservative.)

America has a different (AKA stupid) political scale than most of the rest of the world. Just like our measurement system!

Lashie is the greatest threat to world peace!

:eek: you found me out... :D

:eek: you found me out... :D
Did i say that? :confused:

I say America the biggest threat. I say this because when you stop and think about it we have the most advanced army in the world. Also with things like the Patriot Act that allows the government to invade your privacy. (Which in the Bill of Rights it says you have the right to.)
Also with pricks like Bush in power who is for big government and has shown he doesn't care about your rights. (ex. Patriot Act) I think that Americans need to see reality and realize that they are not the 100% free nation they use to be. They are a conservative and starting to be limiting rights country.

I voted "Other".

I believe that Israel's or Pakistan's policies will be the greatest threat to future peace. This is because Israel and Pakistan both have nuclear capabilities, which, of course, inspires their neighbors to develop nuclear arms as well.

Pakistan: the nation has an ongoing struggle with India over Kashmir, which isn't looking as though it will be resolved soon. There are also large scale, religious attacks from both the Hindu and Muslim populations in the countries. Pakistan also suffers from a weak, military based government. When Musharraf is assassinated or 'couped' out of office, the nuclear capabilities of Pakistan will be put in the hands of possibly very irresponsible parties. Add to that the fact that Pakistan is walking a difficult tight wire between supporting ex-Talibaners and exterminating them, the dynamics between Pakistan and terrorism seem likely to collapse soon. That is to say, I wouldn't be surprised if someday soon Pakistan goes back to pointing at terrorists the stocks of their guns rather than the barrels.

Israel: One of the largest reasons Iran is pursuing nuclear arms is to balance a threat against Israel. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict still, arguably, draws in more terrorists than the 'Iraq conflict'. Though Sharon is improving his policies, and moving towards peace, I'm not sure I see Israel's hard-liners letting him travel much further down the path to peace. Also, the general instability in the region (Syrian. Saudi, and Egyptian government instability) adds to danger of another conflict involving Israel and an extra-Canaan government.

I say America the biggest threat. I say this because when you stop and think about it we have the most advanced army in the world. Also with things like the Patriot Act that allows the government to invade your privacy. (Which in the Bill of Rights it says you have the right to.)
Also with pricks like Bush in power who is for big government and has shown he doesn't care about your rights. (ex. Patriot Act) I think that Americans need to see reality and realize that they are not the 100% free nation they use to be. They are a conservative and starting to be limiting rights country.The Patriot Act is largely irrelevant to the threat America could pose to world peace. Domestic policy =/= foreign policy. And before you go crucifying Bush for limiting civil freedoms at war-time (arguably), look back to Wilson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, etc other war-time presidents and recount all the infringements on civil liberty they made. I think you'll have to add a few spits to the barbecue before you begin your roast.

I agree... America. but not for the reasons you state.

America is the last remaining Superpower. Sure China will get up there but not yet, and the Soviet Union is rebuilding.

so, with America Standing tall, all the little jelous Nations will continually snipe and attack the US. Fringe groups will continuously attack her citizens and America will be forced to retaliate.

So it's America's fault that people attack it?

Whcih country in your opinion is the greatest threat to world peace?


I personaly beleive america, as its military budget is something like the size of the next 33 military budgets combined.

As im new, i tried to get a poll, but my computer went weird, so i didnt do one, anyway, let your opinion be known!

I'd say pretty much the entire Middle East is the greatest threat to world peace. They can't seem to just live and let live over there. Of course, I wish my own country didn't feel the need to police the rest of the world - that really isn't helping matters much. I say let them all kill each other off and then we'll finally be rid of the lousy warmongerers.

my horrible,destructive country america(I'm moving to amsterdam when I get older)

I'd say pretty much the entire Middle East is the greatest threat to world peace. They can't seem to just live and let live over there.
You know that the Middle East has pretty much been like that for some 2000 years right? Indeed, it has gotten much worse since the West's intervention there some 70 yeasr ago, but Muslims have always been a warring breed, it's written in the Qur'an that war to protect Islam is a duty.

Did i say that? :confused:

Hmm, it appears that you did :p

I've posted America.

While I am aware of ongoing warfare in places such as Africa (think DRCongo, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Angola (at least I think it's Angola) and Sudan), The Middle East (Generally centred around Israel and Palestine, but now extending to Afghanistan and Iraq - ooh, who breached international law to attack there??), the tensions across the Taiwan straits and the dispute over Kashmir (India/Pakistan)...I personally feel the country most likely to bring about GLOBAL imbalance in terms of war and peace is America.

America has the world's largest standing army - and there is continual pressure from corporations benefitting from multi-billion dollar defence contracts to keep it that way. This leaves America with an army it needs to justify - i.e. USE.

In recent times, America has had a history of propping up dictatorships of benefit to their national interest (Marcos of the Philippines and Saddam Hussein in Iraq), and of course, now some of that is coming back to bite them in the ass. They have a black and white view of the world (welcome in Dubya), and are proponents of pre-emptive action (see Iraq) and spin-doctoring. Despite everything the US has still failed to prove:

1) Iraq and Saddam Hussein were connected directly with Al Qaeda (evidence suggests that as a secular dictator, Hussein hated the religious extremism promoted by Bin-Laden) and/or the attacks of the 11th of September.
2) Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and/or the capability to create weapons of mass destruction.

America can talk of regime change until its media is blue in the face - but regime change was not the reason America gave when it started invading other countries and ignoring the national sovereignty it uses to protect Israel when it flouts UN resolutions regarding Palestine.

China is a contendor, but it has several things going against it:

1) The chinese mentality is too focused on making money. While China WILL build up its military if it sees the need to (and with the Anti-China noises Bush was making before Bin-Laden so conveniently gave him an ACTUAL enemy to fight against, they do see a need), they'd much prefer to run the US government deep into dept via trade. And they're doing just that. You can't get as much money out of the nation by invading.
2) China is moving towards a more democratic government. It's slow, and I'd expect it to take between 50 to 100 years, but it is happening. Of course, I don't believe China is ready for a full fledged democracy - that would likely kill it AND it's economy. It's not the ideal situation, I suppose. But that's the way it is.
3) As such, China and Taiwan are likely to unify EVENTUALLY without the need for war. As I mentioned, China prefers trade to war - especially with the US. The US has stated it will go ballistic over Taiwan. Therefore, as long as Taiwan doesn't make any ACTUAL moves towards full independence, nothing should happen except for increased trade between Taiwan and mainland China. There will continue to be posturing from both sides as they strive to avoid losing 'face', but that should be about it.

But really, my reasons go back to the economy. I don't know of any other country where corporations benefit so much from defence contracts. I don't know of any other country where those same corporations have so much lobbying power to prevent the downsizing of the army/investments in the army.

And I don't know of any other country that has such a trigger-happy president/leader with such an army at his disposal.

I suppose we have to be glad that Mugabe isn't running America, but that's small comfort with Bush sitting up there.

Poll: UK = 0 votes

Muahahahahaha. Our plan to lull everyone into a false sense of security is working.

Australia, the potential pre-emptive striker of Asia as the obedient lapdog of the USA. A vote for Australia is also a vote for the USA :D

You know that the Middle East has pretty much been like that for some 2000 years right? Indeed, it has gotten much worse since the West's intervention there some 70 yeasr ago, but Muslims have always been a warring breed, it's written in the Qur'an that war to protect Islam is a duty.

All of that may be true, but it still doesn't make them any less a threat to world peace.

And yet, one more inaccurate statement throughout this whole ordeal. If we went to war for oil then why is the price of things that is made from oil still up and not down here in the states?
Because the oil companys are rolling in even more dough, why waste a good thing with all these excuses they have

Because the oil companys are rolling in even more dough, why waste a good thing with all these excuses they have

Another thing. Why did you grave dig this up?

Also, why did Bush sign the energy bill that will eventually lower our dependency on Foriegn Oil if we went into Iraq for oil?

Another thing. Why did you grave dig this up?

Also, why did Bush sign the energy bill that will eventually lower our dependency on Foriegn Oil if we went into Iraq for oil?
Signing it is one thing, doing it is another

Signing it is one thing, doing it is another

I do believe this will be enforced inlight of recent events.

The biggest threat to World Peace, is France.

China is, but it is not because of its people or government. It's because of its new power for disruption. I sincerely believe that a major political crisis is likely in the next twenty years. Perhaps it will be an ultranationalist government that attacks Taiwan, or it could be a renewed civil war. Don't laugh, either. The greatest fear of a Chinese politician is disunity, as was often the case in Chinese history. Whatever happens, the world economy would implode, and East Asia would be destabilized.