NationStates Jolt Archive

That's because they didn't want these Jews to occupy land that they thought was theirs. I'm not saying the creation of Israel was a mistake, it was needed, but so was some consideration of those who occupied the land. The U.S. has continued to support Israel and not offer any rational compromises until just recently, and it's not moving that far that fast either.

I agree with that. Personally, I support the creation of an independent Palestinian state; it would give the Palestinian nationalists what they want, knock out one of the biggest recruitment tools for the terrorists in the area, make it easier to control said terrorism, provide economic opportunity and revitalization for the Palestinians, and lastly create another bastion of democracy in the Middle East. It's a win win situation; opposing it is more a matter of arrogant pride than anything.

I agree with that. Personally, I support the creation of an independent Palestinian state; it would give the Palestinian nationalists what they want, knock out one of the biggest recruitment tools for the terrorists in the area, make it easier to control said terrorism, provide economic opportunity and revitalization for the Palestinians, and lastly create another bastion of democracy in the Middle East. It's a win win situation; opposing it is more a matter of arrogant pride than anything.
But who gets Jerusalem? That is the real debate.

Funny thing is, the land Israel originally sat on was paid for. They bought form the people who were their and they gave it to them. now what?
BAM, way to go corn-man

Funny thing is, the land Israel originally sat on was paid for. They bought form the people who were their and they gave it to them. now what?
That doesn't make it any better. You know when Europe first colonized Africa and offered them money for the land, the tribesmen were confused at the concept of buying and selling land. Point is, radical Muslims think they have as much right to Israel/Jerusalem as Zionists.

But who gets Jerusalem? That is the real debate.

Between the two nations and three religions, I don't know. Personally, I'd make it a UN territory, so no one would own it and it would be open to the entire world as a religious heritage site. People living there would retain their citizenship in their perspective countries and would be allowed to live or mgrate there, but all policymaking in the territory would be overseen by the UN.

Between the two nations and three religions, I don't know. Personally, I'd make it a UN territory, so no one would own it and it would be open to the entire world as a religious heritage site. People living there would retain their citizenship in their perspective countries and would be allowed to live or mgrate there, but all policymaking in the territory would be overseen by the UN.
That's sort of what I've been thinking. Just make it sort of like the Vatican.

Bad rhetoric? Sorry but I know the cost of Freedom. I know what Saddam did to his people. They also know what is at stake as well.

I guess I struck a nerve with you.

I don't care if you were for or against it but to call someone an idiot is rather quite immaturish.
Are you saying your immature as well? Didn't you just say you did it too?

And wtf is immaturish? You silly contradictive hypocrit! How anti-american of you. And they know what is at stake to...ha your losing, Americans are dying Iraqies are dying, voting booths sucked and America is going down the shit hole in Iraq.

Funny thing is, the land Israel originally sat on was paid for. They bought form the people who were their and they gave it to them. now what?
This is true. The arabs and palestinians who lived there sold their land to the Jewish settlers for enormous sums, and are now murdering innocents to take it back.

This is true. The arabs and palestinians who lived there sold their land to the Jewish settlers for enormous sums, and are now murdering innocents to take it back.

Thank you.

Are you saying your immature as well? Didn't you just say you did it too?

Did I call you an idiot? If I did then yes and I'm sorry for calling you an idiot.

And wtf is immaturish? You silly contradictive hypocrit! How anti-american of you. And they know what is at stake to...ha your losing, Americans are dying Iraqies are dying, voting booths sucked and America is going down the shit hole in Iraq.

Anti-american? please. Yes they do know whats at stake just as I do just as my father does who is in the god damn theater of war. I know we have troops dying over there but considering how long we've been there, it hasn't been that bad. And before you drag out casualties, we suffered far more in ONE DAY of fighting in a few wars than in this war.

How did voting booths sucked? Because Bush won? Sorry but that's an illogical statement. And we are not going down either.

Did I call you an idiot? If I did then yes and I'm sorry for calling you an idiot.

Anti-american? please. Yes they do know whats at stake just as I do just as my father does who is in the god damn theater of war. I know we have troops dying over there but considering how long we've been there, it hasn't been that bad. And before you drag out casualties, we suffered far more in ONE DAY of fighting in a few wars than in this war.

How did voting booths sucked? Because Bush won? Sorry but that's an illogical statement. And we are not going down either.

theatre of war...yes you've been there for a long time and its still not working. SO I'd say your doing pretty bad. Nonetheless this isn't a war, no one has declared war, what are you talking about, it's not a war! (pulls off conservative mask).

So because there are less people dying...that makes it okay.

theatre of war...yes you've been there for a long time and its still not working. SO I'd say your doing pretty bad.

Schools are reopening
Constitution getting written
Kids playing soccer at night in MOSUL!
Terrorism is starting to decrease
The insurgency is losing steam

Yea we're pretty bad. Get a life.

Nonetheless this isn't a war, no one has declared war, what are you talking about, it's not a war! (pulls off conservative mask).

Your right, it isn't a war its a conflict.

So because there are less people dying...that makes it okay.

No it isn't ok but I'm tired of casualties being brought up like there's something new. WELCOME TO WAR!!!! People die in war. However, compared to some, this isn't that bad.

No it isn't ok but I'm tired of casualties being brought up like there's something new. WELCOME TO WAR!!!! People die in war. However, compared to some, this isn't that bad.
It's still worse than no war. And not going to war wouldn't have resulted in the dire consequences Bush and his right-wing propaganda machines were making it out to be. I think we've hashed and rehashed this argument so many times I've lost track of how many times we've gotten into it. I know your argument, you know mine, let's do us both a favor and not get into it again! :D Thank you!

Schools are reopening
Constitution getting written
Kids playing soccer at night in MOSUL!
Terrorism is starting to decrease
The insurgency is losing steam

Yea we're pretty bad. Get a life.



Your right, it isn't a war its a conflict.



No it isn't ok but I'm tired of casualties being brought up like there's something new. WELCOME TO WAR!!!! People die in war. However, compared to some, this isn't that bad.

Insurgency is in it's last throws...only 12 years says vice prez...mmm pretty shit especially comparing it to Bushs sayin g"It shouldn't last more than 6 months...yep you are pretty bad. And I have just as much life as you bantering over the internet. Glad we could agree.

You're tired of casualties being brought up because it's the only thing you can't rebut.

"Muslim Americans first began running for office in sizable numbers only in the 1990s, says Agha Saeed, national chairman of the American-Muslim Alliance, a civic education organization. But by the time elections rolled around in 2000, close to 700 Muslim Americans were candidates for a variety of offices.

That year, 153 Muslims - split almost equally between African-Americans and immigrants - were elected, including four to state senates and assemblies. And Muslims were coming out in increasingly large numbers to vote and support "their" candidates."

The US has representatives at municipal, state and federal levels. There are far more muslim representatives in our government than there are in the UK. Period.

any in congress?

any in congress?
Knock yourself out: http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html
Far more than in the UK, I'm sure. Must be those "Unspecified" ones then...

Insurgency is in it's last throws...only 12 years says vice prez...mmm pretty shit especially comparing it to Bushs sayin g"It shouldn't last more than 6 months...yep you are pretty bad. And I have just as much life as you bantering over the internet. Glad we could agree.

You're tired of casualties being brought up because it's the only thing you can't rebut.


That is asanine. In any war or conflict or any situation where lives are at stake, casualties are the one thing that cannot be justified. It shows a general lack of creativity and shows that you're losing the debate if you have to resort to it. And, I don't think we're doing too bad, considering how much luck Russia had with Afgahnistan. They were there for around 10 years, coated their bullets in pig's blood, and had less success than we've had in around 3 years. Not that I agree with the conflicts in the Middle East at all, I think they're a waste of life, money, and time. And I was in Iraq when it was actually called a war, in 2003, so don't even think of going that route.

by no means is President Bush a "moron", he is a very inteligent man, who happens to make some decisions you personally may disagree with. However, this says nothing as to his inteligence, rather it says more to invalidating your remarks..

He has below average IQ, thank you. He also has the lowest IQ of any president... and Bill Clinton had the highest. funny how we went from high to low

It's entertaining that the thread opened with people having a problem with making generalisations about Americans...and then in the same sentence use the word Europeans to sum all these people.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Stop making Israel into some sort of victim, it has invaded all of its neighbours in its history of less than 60 years. No wonder the Arabs hate it and yes, I would say that creating it (in the way in which they did) was a mistake.

Just to bring some numbers and facts about the Muslim communities in Britain in :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4139402.stm

He has below average IQ, thank you. He also has the lowest IQ of any president... and Bill Clinton had the highest. funny how we went from high to low

Heh - He's a man of his people.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?
Because widespread shock and disgust can never be underscored adequately enough where the ongoing perversion of democracy is concerned.

Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?
It's fun.

It's fun.

here here!

The biggest reason right now:

It's a generalization thing. It's a lot easier for people to paint all Americans (or Germans, French, etc, though I'm talking specifically of Americans right now) all with the same brush and, unfortunately, that brush is epitomized by people like Corneliu, so everyone finds it easier to just think all Americans are like that. And this is politics so, especially recently, the mud-slinging that matters of state and political philosophy now basically required is turned as a single cannon at the face of this generalized picture of America.

Same reason why so many foolish Americans seem to dislike the French: It really is a lot easier to imagine that everyone in France is a cowardly, snobby arts patron with little better to do than to blend goldfish all day and then call it art than it is to realize that it is a country of over 60 million different and unique people.

The biggest reason right now:

It's a generalization thing. It's a lot easier for people to paint all Americans (or Germans, French, etc, though I'm talking specifically of Americans right now) all with the same brush and, unfortunately, that brush is epitomized by people like Corneliu, so everyone finds it easier to just think all Americans are like that. And this is politics so, especially recently, the mud-slinging that matters of state and political philosophy now basically required is turned as a single cannon at the face of this generalized picture of America.

Same reason why so many foolish Americans seem to dislike the French: It really is a lot easier to imagine that everyone in France is a cowardly, snobby arts patron with little better to do than to blend goldfish all day and then call it art than it is to realize that it is a country of over 60 million different and unique people.


Their brains would hurt too much if they thought that hard. i mean c'mon 60 is hard enough! have pity on those poor people. :p

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?

Why? Because we have it all. Didn't you always hate the kid in school with the cool car? We have the cool car. We have the hot girlfriend, and we have the nice clothes. We worked for them, but that doesn't matter. People want what they don't have and hate those who do have.

F**k them.

Insurgency is in it's last throws...only 12 years says vice prez...mmm pretty shit especially comparing it to Bushs sayin g"It shouldn't last more than 6 months...yep you are pretty bad. And I have just as much life as you bantering over the internet. Glad we could agree.

Funny. Generals have noticed a decrease in attacks. Now you can take that they are trying to regroup to attack during the elections again or that they are starting to lose support with the Iraqi people.

You're tired of casualties being brought up because it's the only thing you can't rebut.

No but everyone is saying that its a travesty. Yes its sad. I mourn for those lost. However, the numbers aren't even close to past casualty numbers in war that was far more dangerous than this. These numbers are very low in terms of war. Been there for 3 years and our numbers are only 1800? That's lower than even I was expecting. Shall we go down memory lane and see how many casualties in some of the bloodiest engagements in past wars are to get a better perspective? Or would you prefer the casualty numbers for past wars?

You guys are missing the point. People hate the US because of what we represent. They hate us because they live in the protective cocoon we provide for them. They understand nothing of the essence of human nature and the harshness of reality. Europe needs its scapegoat *snip* Uh… protective cocoon you provide for us? Assuming you mean Europe, this would be protecting us from… what? Remember, we didn't have to go in and fight the Taliban. Also, Europe created America, remember.

Why? Because we have it all. Didn't you always hate the kid in school with the cool car? We have the cool car. We have the hot girlfriend, and we have the nice clothes. We worked for them, but that doesn't matter. People want what they don't have and hate those who do have.

F**k them. No, Europeans definitely do not envy America. Really, ask a Frenchman if Europe or America are better places to live, but stand well back. ;)

Stop making Israel into some sort of victim, it has invaded all of its neighbours in its history of less than 60 years. No wonder the Arabs hate it and yes, I would say that creating it (in the way in which they did) was a mistake.

Funny. I thought it was Israel that was invaded by Middle Eastern Armies and were subsequently defeated.

Funny. I thought it was Israel that was invaded by Middle Eastern Armies and were subsequently defeated.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic

Knock yourself out: http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html
Far more than in the UK, I'm sure. Must be those "Unspecified" ones then...

could not find a single one. :confused:

could not find a single one. :confused:
Just trust Nerion, damnit! He knows.

Just trust Nerion, damnit! He knows.

sorry :(

Why? Because we have it all. Didn't you always hate the kid in school with the cool car? We have the cool car. We have the hot girlfriend, and we have the nice clothes. We worked for them, but that doesn't matter. People want what they don't have and hate those who do have.

F**k them.

This is why people hate "America". Or rather, the aggregate of Americans.

Over the past few decades:

America has:
Been continually aggressive and more to the point - warmongering.
Flouted International Law to invade another sovereign nation.
Set up puppet dictatorships purely to futher their commercial interests (Marcos and Saddam to name but two).
Overthrown democratically elected governments to install some of those dictatorships.
Condoned Assassinations :sniper:
Sidestepped the Geneva Convention, flagrantly abusing the human rights they claim to 'protect'
Utilised physical and mental torture (see above point - do I need to mention Abu Griab?)
Ignored a key fundamental ideology underpinning "democracy" - i.e. the separation of church and state, allowing its policies to be dictated not by ideas of equality and fairness, but by religious zealotism.
Continually belittling other countries' values, and claiming that only America has any worth anything - to the point of repeatedly implying that only America stands for freedom and no other country does.
Deliberately misinformed/misled people as to the intelligence used to wage war on Iraq (weapons of mass destruction? Where are they now?)
Provided no disincentives to prevent American Multinational corporations systematically violating the rights of workers in other countries - they 'claim' the land those companies use as 'American' land - regardless of the country it's actually in - and then proceed to explot them.
Systematically lied about the health risks of various commercial products (Bovine Growth Homone amongst others).
Consistently increased protectionism whilst trying to remove barriers to American exports (can anyone say economic dumping?)
Done nothing to help slow global warming, despite producing about a quater of the world's greenhouse gases, with about 4% of the world's population
Constantly and consistantly bemoaned the fact that the world hates Americans whilst doing little to engage with the international community - short of flouting its laws and norms and insulting most of it.
Flip-flopping between the above sentiments and declarations of superiority in terms of productivity, consumerism and work ethic - tell that to the women in Jamaica growing bananas which they can't sell because of US subsidies to thier corporate banana plantations in mexico and tarriffs on imported bananas.

Free trade? There's a reason NAFTA is referred to as:

Nearly Always Favouring the Americans.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic

Who attacked who first in 1948? Oh yes the arab armies invaded and the Israelis defeated them.

WHo launched another invasion? Oh yes, the Arab armies again.

Who launched a third invasion? oh yes, the ARab armies a third time and they were defeated again.

Sorry but no I am not being sarcastic. Learn history!

could not find a single one. :confused:

Just trust Nerion, damnit! He knows.

http://www.ampolitics.ghazali.net/html/more_muslim_candidates-csm.html

Who attacked who first in 1948? Oh yes the arab armies invaded and the Israelis defeated them.

WHo launched another invasion? Oh yes, the Arab armies again.

Who launched a third invasion? oh yes, the ARab armies a third time and they were defeated again.

Sorry but no I am not being sarcastic. Learn history!



so you're saying in that time Isreal was fighting solely on their own soil? that isreali terrorist attacks on their neighbors didnt cause the skirmishes to start? isreal never made it to egypt? isreal has always been the aggressor, but they are smart enough to make it look like they are a poor unfortunate country being invaded by the big bad arabs.... read the liberationist history of isreal, read about the 'freedom fighters' of isreal how they sabatoged the british, when they were there, how they turned from being patriots to government sactioned terrorists....without international intervention its possible isreal could well have taken a good chunk of the arabian world and claimed it as its own

read a book!

Who attacked who first in 1948? Oh yes the arab armies invaded and the Israelis defeated them.

WHo launched another invasion? Oh yes, the Arab armies again.

Who launched a third invasion? oh yes, the ARab armies a third time and they were defeated again.

Sorry but no I am not being sarcastic. Learn history!

Fair enough...

One question:

Who blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946?

This event is recognised as one of the turning points in Israel's history - prompting the British to withdraw from their mandate and turn the issue over to the UN...

HINT: It wasn't the arabs.

We need a club.

Lets start one.

Who attacked who first in 1948? Oh yes the arab armies invaded and the Israelis defeated them.

WHo launched another invasion? Oh yes, the Arab armies again.

Who launched a third invasion? oh yes, the ARab armies a third time and they were defeated again.

Sorry but no I am not being sarcastic. Learn history!

All a bit simplistic. Modern Israel's borders bear no relation to those originally allocated in 1948. Israel has indeed expanded beyond this, and now occupies the West Bank and Gaza, southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. There may have been historical reasons for Israel to occupy land outside the territory of Israel and create buffer zones etc, e.g. in order to better protect itself as it saw itself under attack, which it was, but that time has passed. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan- all immediate neigbours, recognise Israel's legitimacy. Israel cannot continue to hold on to these lands as if its under attack from its neighbours as it isn't.

Wow, since when was a second opinion proof of being right?

America is being imperialistic--but not in the traditional sense. It is a new, subtler, imperialism. A type that has virtually total control over foreign governments, or at least more control than it should, while not annexing it.


Your opinion is based wholly on intent with absolutely no regard for results whatsoever. You don't care one whit what the people of Iraq think. You've placed your own ideals above their wants because you're pissed off that the US didn't have the full blessing of the UN when they went in. Well the majority of the people in Iraq disagree with you.

That's got to upset you even more, I'm sure.

http://www.ampolitics.ghazali.net/html/more_muslim_candidates-csm.html
And this link somehow validates your claim that "There are far more muslim representatives in our government than there are in the UK. Period."

From your article it seems that you have 4 muslim candidates elected to state senates and assemblies. Let's think... what have we learnt this far... there are 4 muslim MPs in Britain. Of course 4 (in a lower level of government) is far more than 4. I'm sorry I doubted you.

Fair enough...

One question:

Who blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946?

Wasn't israel since the nation didn't exist until 1948. It was an jewish terrorits.

And this link somehow validates your claim that "There are far more muslim representatives in our government than there are in the UK. Period."

From your article it seems that you have 4 muslim candidates elected to state senates and assemblies. Let's think... what have we learnt this far... there are 4 muslim MPs in Britain. Of course 4 (in a lower level of government) is far more than 4. I'm sorry I doubted you.


153. 4 in state level assemblies. Britain has no lower level of government because it's a smaller country. That doesn't make these 149 muslims any less significant. You don't want them counted because it invalidates your already invalidated argument. 153 is more than 4 even though it's for 2003 and not 2005. I don't know where you learned math, but you deserve a refund.

Your opinion is based wholly on intent with absolutely no regard for results whatsoever. You don't care one whit what the people of Iraq think. You've placed your own ideals above their wants because you're pissed off that the US didn't have the full blessing of the UN when they went in. Well the majority of the people in Iraq disagree with you.

That's got to upset you even more, I'm sure.
Oh so that's what I was thinking? That's news to me! The same can be said for you too, buddy. Think about it. And I couldn't care less what the UN thought about us invading, fyi. Actually, the conservative support for the war is based wholly on results with absolutely no regard for the stuff in between. I bet we could nuke Iraq ten times over and as long as it brings "democracy" to Iraq, many conservatives would say it was well worth it.

Your opinion is based wholly on intent with absolutely no regard for results whatsoever. You don't care one whit what the people of Iraq think. You've placed your own ideals above their wants because you're pissed off that the US didn't have the full blessing of the UN when they went in. Well the majority of the people in Iraq disagree with you.

Really? I saw this in today's paper:

'Gangs, looters and goons' spur brain drain (http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/10/1123353387090.html)

Quietly, in their ones and twos, the professional classes of Baghdad are slipping out of the country to avoid becoming another fatal statistic.

Iraq is losing the educated elite of doctors, lawyers, academics and businessmen who are vital to securing a stable future. There is a fear that their departure will leave a vacuum to be filled by religious extremists.

Outside the shelter of the Green Zone, home to the American and Iraqi political leadership, lawlessness has overtaken the capital.

Professor Abdul Sattar Jawad, the head of English literature at Baghdad University, will leave next month to take up a post in Jordan. Two of his colleagues left recently after being intimidated.

Since the new Government came to power in April there have been up to 3000 civilian deaths, about half attributed to criminal activity.

"I love my country but I am unable to do any service for the people because it is overrun by fanatics and extremists," Professor Jawad said. "The streets are ruled by gangs, looters and goons."

Last month he resigned as dean of arts after "religious animals" surrounded his office and shouted "war-like slogans".
AdvertisementAdvertisement

The threats have also forced him to close down two English newspapers because "it now is anti-religious to have free speech, liberal minds and civilisation in this country".

Professor Jawad's wife Sarah, a former geography teacher, said she now wore a headscarf to avoid being harassed by religious extremists.

For the couple's 30-year-old son Omar Jawad, a lawyer working for a British company in the Green Zone, the one ambition is to leave Iraq as quickly as possible. "I see a lot of educated people leaving Iraq," he said.

"It is more security problems than economic. Under sanctions (imposed on Saddam Hussein by the United Nations after the Gulf war) we had no problems like this."

Aside from the daily risk of kidnap, suicide bombers and drive-by shootings, his half-hour journey to work is now a two-hour slog through roadblocks.

There are no landline telephones, water has to be pumped from a well and there are only two hours' electricity a day compared with 21 under Saddam. In a country that is perched on a lake of oil, the wait in petrol queues is up to four hours.

"I am not very optimistic," Mr Jawad said. "We have this fear of civil war because when the Americans are out it will be left to the Iraqis.

"It is two years now since the war ended and we see no development."

For the past three years Mahir Mahmood, 37, has built a successful business importing cars and spares, but by the autumn he will be gone because he fears his wife and four children will be kidnapped. "I think the bombs and killings are enough for anyone to leave the country," he said.

"What has the Government done for the people to make them stay?"

Baghdad's doctors suffer most of all. They are now authorised to carry firearms after some were killed by angry relatives of dead patients and after threats by police officers demanding immediate treatment for injured colleagues.

Dr Tariq Bahjat, who became a hospital director after his predecessor was killed and where a radiologist was recently shot dead, said: "No one can provide doctors with protection. I am afraid the same will happen to me; that is why I will go abroad."

- Four US soldiers were killed and six wounded near the northern Iraqi oil refining town of Baiji overnight, the US military said yesterday.

- Telegraph, Reuters
Shiite militia ousts Baghdad's mayor

Armed men entered Baghdad's municipal building during a blinding dust storm, deposed the city's mayor and installed a member of Iraq's most powerful Shiite militia.

The deposed mayor, Alaa al-Tamimi, who was not in his offices at the time, called the move a municipal coup d'etat and said he had gone into hiding in fear for his life.

"This is the new Iraq," said Mr Tamimi, a secular engineer with no party affiliation.

"They use force to achieve their goal."

The group that ousted him on Monday insisted that it had the authority to assume control of Baghdad and that Mr Tamimi was in no danger. The man the group installed, Hussein al-Tahaan, belongs to the Badr Organisation, the armed militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

~*~

Sooo... about people in Iraq thinking the US has improved the situation?
About the rule of peace and democracy there?

Feel free to substantiate your remarks at any time.

153. 4 in state level assemblies. Britain has no lower level of government because it's a smaller country. That doesn't make these 149 muslims any less significant. You don't want them counted because it invalidates your already invalidated argument. 153 is more than 4 even though it's for 2003 and not 2005. I don't know where you learned math, but you deserve a refund.
Oh. Maybe i misread it then. "That year, 153 Muslims - split almost equally between African-Americans and immigrants - were elected, including four to state senates and assemblies."

I thought "including four to state senates and assemblies" meant that only 4 of those 153 were elected to state senates and assemblies, the rest to "variety of offices" - as the article says.

Do I deserve a refund from my English teachers as well (cos that's okay, I could use the money)?

Oh so that's what I was thinking? That's news to me! The same can be said for you too, buddy. Think about it. And I couldn't care less what the UN thought about us invading, fyi. Actually, the conservative support for the war is based wholly on results with absolutely no regard for the stuff in between. I bet we could nuke Iraq ten times over and as long as it brings "democracy" to Iraq, many conservatives would say it was well worth it.


I am focused on results. The people of Iraq are the results. Not public opinion from people that don't even live there. The soldiers I talk to that come back from Iraq all say the same thing. Almost everyone they talked to over there said they were overjoyed that we went in. They are free now. Many of them thought their children would never see a free Iraq and it has happened in their lifetime. people said to our troops over and over again "You cannot imagine how this feels!! Only your ancestors in 1776 can know how this feels."

Yeah, I'm focused on results. Big time. Intent is as useless as tits on a snake if it's not tempered by results. You need more than intent man. And intent and a lot of "what if's" is ALL you got dude.

Wasn't israel since the nation didn't exist until 1948. It was an jewish terrorits.

Technically, Palestine doesn't exist as a nation either.

Yet people still blame the Palestinian leader for terrorism.

The fact that those jewish terrorists went on to found israel isn't a big red flag to anyone?

~*~

Okay, this is rather pointless, I suppose. My point simply was that Israel has a history of terrorism too. It's not solely the domain of the Islamic nations. Trying to draw out parallels is probably a waste of time.

Oh. Maybe i misread it then. "That year, 153 Muslims - split almost equally between African-Americans and immigrants - were elected, including four to state senates and assemblies."

I thought "including four to state senates and assemblies" meant that only 4 of those 153 were elected to state senates and assemblies, the rest to "variety of offices" - as the article says.

Do I deserve a refund from my English teachers as well (cos that's okay, I could use the money)?


Elected means they were all elected into public office. Four of them to STATE assemblies. The rest to other levels of government. Yeah, you get a voucher for English too. Might as well collect the money from both of them.

I am focused on results. The people of Iraq are the results.

Yeah, I'm focused on results. Big time. Intent is as useless as tits on a snake if it's not tempered by results. You need more than intent man. And intent and a lot of "what if's" is ALL you got dude.

Once again - I point you to my previous post and newspaper article.

'Gangs, looters and goons' spur brain drain. (http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/10/1123353387090.html)

I question the free democratic Iraq 'result' that you keep pushing.

Really? I saw this in today's paper:

'Gangs, looters and goons' spur brain drain (http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/10/1123353387090.html)

Quietly, in their ones and twos, the professional classes of Baghdad are slipping out of the country to avoid becoming another fatal statistic.

Iraq is losing the educated elite of doctors, lawyers, academics and businessmen who are vital to securing a stable future. There is a fear that their departure will leave a vacuum to be filled by religious extremists.

Outside the shelter of the Green Zone, home to the American and Iraqi political leadership, lawlessness has overtaken the capital.

Professor Abdul Sattar Jawad, the head of English literature at Baghdad University, will leave next month to take up a post in Jordan. Two of his colleagues left recently after being intimidated.

Since the new Government came to power in April there have been up to 3000 civilian deaths, about half attributed to criminal activity.

"I love my country but I am unable to do any service for the people because it is overrun by fanatics and extremists," Professor Jawad said. "The streets are ruled by gangs, looters and goons."

Last month he resigned as dean of arts after "religious animals" surrounded his office and shouted "war-like slogans".
AdvertisementAdvertisement

The threats have also forced him to close down two English newspapers because "it now is anti-religious to have free speech, liberal minds and civilisation in this country".

Professor Jawad's wife Sarah, a former geography teacher, said she now wore a headscarf to avoid being harassed by religious extremists.

For the couple's 30-year-old son Omar Jawad, a lawyer working for a British company in the Green Zone, the one ambition is to leave Iraq as quickly as possible. "I see a lot of educated people leaving Iraq," he said.

"It is more security problems than economic. Under sanctions (imposed on Saddam Hussein by the United Nations after the Gulf war) we had no problems like this."

Aside from the daily risk of kidnap, suicide bombers and drive-by shootings, his half-hour journey to work is now a two-hour slog through roadblocks.

There are no landline telephones, water has to be pumped from a well and there are only two hours' electricity a day compared with 21 under Saddam. In a country that is perched on a lake of oil, the wait in petrol queues is up to four hours.

"I am not very optimistic," Mr Jawad said. "We have this fear of civil war because when the Americans are out it will be left to the Iraqis.

"It is two years now since the war ended and we see no development."

For the past three years Mahir Mahmood, 37, has built a successful business importing cars and spares, but by the autumn he will be gone because he fears his wife and four children will be kidnapped. "I think the bombs and killings are enough for anyone to leave the country," he said.

"What has the Government done for the people to make them stay?"

Baghdad's doctors suffer most of all. They are now authorised to carry firearms after some were killed by angry relatives of dead patients and after threats by police officers demanding immediate treatment for injured colleagues.

Dr Tariq Bahjat, who became a hospital director after his predecessor was killed and where a radiologist was recently shot dead, said: "No one can provide doctors with protection. I am afraid the same will happen to me; that is why I will go abroad."

- Four US soldiers were killed and six wounded near the northern Iraqi oil refining town of Baiji overnight, the US military said yesterday.

- Telegraph, Reuters
Shiite militia ousts Baghdad's mayor

Armed men entered Baghdad's municipal building during a blinding dust storm, deposed the city's mayor and installed a member of Iraq's most powerful Shiite militia.

The deposed mayor, Alaa al-Tamimi, who was not in his offices at the time, called the move a municipal coup d'etat and said he had gone into hiding in fear for his life.

"This is the new Iraq," said Mr Tamimi, a secular engineer with no party affiliation.

"They use force to achieve their goal."

The group that ousted him on Monday insisted that it had the authority to assume control of Baghdad and that Mr Tamimi was in no danger. The man the group installed, Hussein al-Tahaan, belongs to the Badr Organisation, the armed militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

~*~

Sooo... about people in Iraq thinking the US has improved the situation?
About the rule of peace and democracy there?

Feel free to substantiate your remarks at any time.


I respect you for collecting those statistics. The religious insurgents are slowly losing the battle over there and many of those professionals you talk about won't come back once they get settled in their new countries. But many of them will. And the people who are still in Iraq are glad we came in. The professionals are too, but need to wait for the country to become safer before they can return. One of the guys who was over there echoed what you just said about professionals. And he also added that they are being discriminated against because most of them STRONGLY support the US efforts over there. They are very happy we went in there too, but are unfortunately having to pay a price for it.

Once again - I point you to my previous post and newspaper article.

'Gangs, looters and goons' spur brain drain. (http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/10/1123353387090.html)

I question the free democratic Iraq 'result' that you keep pushing.


And I ask you to read my response. The country isn't caving in dude. Ask the people OVER THERE. It's not over yet and there are still a lot of professionals there. they didn't ALL leave. But I acknowledged your article in my other post.

The religious insurgents are slowly losing the battle over there and many of those professionals you talk about won't come back once they get settled in their new countries. But many of them will. And the people who are still in Iraq are glad we came in.

I honestly hope so. And I agree that there are people in Iraq who are glad you went in. Just as I'm sure that there are many who feel much worse off now than before.

My main concern is that I'm not certain the religious insurgents are losing the battle over there. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that issue at the present time. I'm going to wait for more than anecdotal evidence (which you are relying heavily upon), before I change my position on the future of Iraq.

Regardless of this - I don't think Iraq is the only reason for anti-american sentiment. I think it's just a very good example that highlights much of the international community's misgivings - which I feel run much deeper than Iraq.

I am focused on results. The people of Iraq are the results. Not public opinion from people that don't even live there. The soldiers I talk to that come back from Iraq all say the same thing. Almost everyone they talked to over there said they were overjoyed that we went in.


Precisely what I'm hearing

They are free now. Many of them thought their children would never see a free Iraq and it has happened in their lifetime. people said to our troops over and over again "You cannot imagine how this feels!! Only your ancestors in 1776 can know how this feels."

Tell like it is brother.

Yeah, I'm focused on results. Big time. Intent is as useless as tits on a snake if it's not tempered by results. You need more than intent man. And intent and a lot of "what if's" is ALL you got dude.

Amen!

I am focused on results. The people of Iraq are the results. Not public opinion from people that don't even live there. The soldiers I talk to that come back from Iraq all say the same thing. Almost everyone they talked to over there said they were overjoyed that we went in. They are free now. Many of them thought their children would never see a free Iraq and it has happened in their lifetime. people said to our troops over and over again "You cannot imagine how this feels!! Only your ancestors in 1776 can know how this feels."

Yeah, I'm focused on results. Big time. Intent is as useless as tits on a snake if it's not tempered by results. You need more than intent man. And intent and a lot of "what if's" is ALL you got dude.
So...we could nuke Iraq ten times over and as long as there is "democracy" afterwards, you'd be fine with it?

America have done nothing for us, or any other country for that matter, unless you count hollywood, which is not exactly great anyway, since there mostly remakes of asian films or British books. The main problem Europeans have with Americans is there ignorance to the rest of the world, and there tight fisted goverment. I hate myself for hating an entire race so much, but it cant be helped, if America actualy halped Europe in world relif, I might change my atitude.

Elected means they were all elected into public office. Four of them to STATE assemblies. The rest to other levels of government. Yeah, you get a voucher for English too. Might as well collect the money from both of them.
My, aren't we getting testy.

The reason I'm on your case is that I hate it when people present their assumptions as facts (as I stated earlier).

You've done a remarkable job in this thread. First you went on claiming there are no muslims in British and French parliaments. How was it again? You were half right, I suppose. There probably is none in the French assembly - they don't keep track of things like the religion of parliament members

Then you went on claiming that the size of the muslim population in France is 20%. Ten would be closer to the truth, but you have fat fingers (or some such), so it's understandable; you mistyped.

I seem to remember that you claimed there are far more muslims in the congress than there are in the British parliament. Surprisingly, not true.
EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure about this one. It may be that you never directly claimed that. Well, nevermind. I could go and find the numbers of muslims holding an office at lower level of British system, but I really can't be arsed. Just out of curiosity, would you bet there are 'far fewer' than in the USA..?

But hey, it's all good. If nothing else good came from all this, at least I now know the religious affiliations of U.S. Congress. Not that bad.

So...we could nuke Iraq ten times over and as long as there is "democracy" afterwards, you'd be fine with it?


There you go with your worthless "What if's" again. No, I wouldn't be fine with it. But we didn't. We didn't and they are free. There is work to do yet, but they are free. And without any of your "doom and gloom" "what if's".

Why not focus on what's been accomplished over there and stop focusing on what could have gone wrong? It didn't go wrong. Get over it.

My, aren't we getting testy.

The reason I'm on your case is that I hate it when people present their assumptions as facts (as I stated earlier).

You've done a remarkable job in this thread. First you went on claiming there are no muslims in British and French parliaments. How was it again? You were half right, I suppose. There probably is none in the French assembly - they don't keep track of things like the religion of parliament members

Then you went on claiming that the size of the muslim population in France is 20%. Ten would be closer to the truth, but you have fat fingers (or some such), so it's understandable; you mistyped.

I seem to remember that you claimed there are far more muslims in the congress than there are in the British parliament. Surprisingly, not true.
EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure about this one. It may be that you never directly claimed that. Well, nevermind. I could go and find the numbers of muslims holding an office at lower level of British system, but I really can't be arsed. Just out of curiosity, would you bet there are 'far fewer' than in the USA..?

But hey, it's all good. If nothing else good came from all this, at least I now know the religious affiliations of U.S. Congress. Not that bad.


There were 4 in the British parliament. That doesn't change my argument friend. Immigrants haven't been assimilated into EU cultures like they have over here. You can argue petty details all you want. There are 4, not none. That's still a pittance. But how many people are in government isn't my argument - it's merely a statistic I am using to back up my real argument stated above. Your nit picking of petty details is fine with me, but it doesn't change anything. And 153 is still more than 4 :D

"Religious Insurgents"?

Of course the Christian army from the US that is in Iraq with the intent of bringing Iraq western values could not possibly be viewed as a crusade or holy war against Islam... (Dispite Bush using the word Crusade early on)

While I think that the average Iraqi will be safer *if* this gets sorted out properly I do think many in the west totally ignore their point of view.

Hypotheticaly - Say the US is taken over by a corrupt government that goes about killing innocent people and so on. Now say an Islamic army comes to the aid of the US. The Islamic Army bombs your cities, kills a few thousand americans, occupies your country for several years, imprisons some of your countrypeople indefinately on an island far far away and is found to be torturing Americans held as prisoners of war and the Islaic army tries to bring to the US the values of Islam. But they are liberating you from a dictator who murdered many innocent people.

Would you feel happy about that?
How would you feel about another culture being imposed on you?
By an army from another religion?


Funny - the vast majority of people in Iraq do not see this the way you do. only a small minority of fanatics do and without the blessing of the rest of their people or the government the vast majority of Iraqi people endorsed.

YOU might see this as an anti muslim crusade by Christian invaders. The majority of the Iraqi people don't.

There you go again with your worthless "What if's" again. No, I wouldn't be fine with it. But we didn't. We didn't and they are free. There is work to do yet, but they are free. And without any of your "doom and gloom" "what if's".

Why not focus on what's been acomplished over there and stop focusing on what could have gone wrong? It didn't go wrong. Get over it.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch, my friend. Contrary to your opinion, I actually do hope everything works out in Iraq, but we aren't out of the woods yet. I will continue to be critical of this uncalled for war until there is peace and stability in the region, which I hope ultimately happens, but looks rather unlikely. Don't argue that point, unlike you, I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than be disappointed or have my expectations met when all this is done.

There were 4 in the British parliament. That doesn't change my argument friend. Immigrants haven't been assimilated into EU cultures like they have over here. You can argue petty details all you want. There are 4, not none. That's still a pittance. But how many people are in government isn't my argument - it's merely a statistic I am using to back up my real argument stated above. Your nit picking of petty details is fine with me, but it doesn't change anything. And 153 is still more than 4 :D
Sure it is. And if you read carefully through my posts, you won't see me saying it isn't. I would think that those 4 aren't the only ones holding office in the UK though, what do you think? I'm not overly familiar with your institutions, so I can't tell what kind of offices there are on the state level. Hard to compare without that info. :(

And yes, immigrants aren't as well assimilated in various European countries as they are in the USA. I wonder if there are differences in who gets in though... Again, I don't know, but I'm under the impression USA is more picky what comes to immigrants than the EU (again, not sure about that). In EU it seems anybody who is able to cross the border can stay. Bound to cause problems that. Seems to me that people with education come to USA to work as professionals - fewer raggedy-assed refugees... But that's just my impression. No facts to back it up.

"Religious Insurgents"?

Of course the Christian army from the US that is in Iraq with the intent of bringing Iraq western values could not possibly be viewed as a crusade or holy war against Islam... (Dispite Bush using the word Crusade early on)

While I think that the average Iraqi will be safer *if* this gets sorted out properly I do think many in the west totally ignore their point of view.

Hypotheticaly - Say the US is taken over by a corrupt government that goes about killing innocent people and so on. Now say an Islamic army comes to the aid of the US. The Islamic Army bombs your cities, kills a few thousand americans, occupies your country for several years, imprisons some of your countrypeople indefinately on an island far far away and is found to be torturing Americans held as prisoners of war and the Islaic army tries to bring to the US the values of Islam. But they are liberating you from a dictator who murdered many innocent people.

Would you feel happy about that?
How would you feel about another culture being imposed on you?
By an army from another religion?


referring to the American army as a christian army isn't correct. Though the country that raised it pushes christ-like values, the army itself is made up of many religions. to be a truely christian army all would have to join for religious reasons relating or pertaining to christ's teachings with an acknowledgement of all in it that christ is lord. the same with the country.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch, my friend. Contrary to your opinion, I actually do hope everything works out in Iraq, but we aren't out of the woods yet. I will continue to be critical of this uncalled for war until there is peace and stability in the region, which I hope ultimately happens, but looks rather unlikely. Don't argue that point, unlike you, I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than be disappointed or have my expectations met when all this is done.


I'll respect that.

Sure it is. And if you read carefully through my posts, you won't see me saying it isn't. I would think that those 4 aren't the only ones holding office in the UK though, what do you think? I'm not overly familiar with your institutions, so I can't tell what kind of offices there are on the state level. Hard to compare without that info. :(

And yes, immigrants aren't as well assimilated in various European countries as they are in the USA. I wonder if there are differences in who gets in though... Again, I don't know, but I'm under the impression USA is more picky what comes to immigrants than the EU (again, not sure about that). In EU it seems anybody who is able to cross the border can stay. Bound to cause problems that. Seems to me that people with education come to USA to work as professionals - fewer raggedy refugees... But that's just my impression. No facts to back it up.

I hear you. And with regard to who gets in the US - I don't believe we let just anyone in. You have to be a political refugee or have some skill the US is in need of - I'm not exactly sure on that one myself though.

BTW - Bunnyducks - or anyone here for that matter. Are you having slowdowns with jolt forums? I had to delete one of my posts because one sat there hanging and all I did was click post again and it made two of them. I asked Bunnyducks because I saw he had two deleted posts. Anyone else see anything similar?

http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com/a/images/President.George.W.Bush.jpg
http://archiv.radio.cz/nato/fotogalerie1/bush.jpg

Yeah,pretty intelligent.And I think that a nation that picks up such a presidents as Bush,Nixon and Truman can't expect some respeckt in the rest of the world. :)

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?


Maybe because Americans are jingoistic jerks?

BTW - Bunnyducks - or anyone here for that matter. Are you having slowdowns with jolt forums? I had to delete one of my posts because one sat there hanging and all I did was click post again and it made two of them. I asked Bunnyducks because I saw he had two deleted posts. Anyone else see anything similar?
Yeah. bigtime. But there's a thunderstorm in here, so I don't think I can blame it all on Jolt. This has never happened to me before (well, wasn't that a familiar sounding sentence! :D).

Yeah. bigtime. But there's a thunderstorm in here, so I don't think I can blame it all on Jolt. This has never happened to me before (well, wasn't that a familiar sounding sentence! :D).


It's sunny and gorgeous where I am (Atlanta GA, USA) so I doubt it's local weather. It has to be a problem wherever these servers are.

you resesmble your remark. :rolleyes:

Maybe because Americans are jingoistic jerks?

No but everyone is saying that its a travesty. Yes its sad. I mourn for those lost. However, the numbers aren't even close to past casualty numbers in war that was far more dangerous than this. These numbers are very low in terms of war. Been there for 3 years and our numbers are only 1800? That's lower than even I was expecting. Shall we go down memory lane and see how many casualties in some of the bloodiest engagements in past wars are to get a better perspective? Or would you prefer the casualty numbers for past wars?

Support the troops my ass.

"Only" 1800? You know, every one of those dead soldiers are one of those "troops" you supposedly support.

Support the troops my ass.

"Only" 1800? You know, every one of those dead soldiers are one of those "troops" you supposedly support.

And everyone of those "Troops" volunteered to be in the military. You act like there sacrifice means nothing, but at least they cared enough to serve the country, and to make oath to fight even if they didn't agree with the cause, they had the moxy to go do it. Until you go there and fight yourself, I'm writing you off, because it pisses me off when people act like they know what's best for our troops. Our troops don't go into service with blind ignorance. I signed my paper, knowing that I could go to war, and I did it with pride. Don't you dare act like their deaths were for nothing, at least they believed in this country enough to fight for another nation's freedoms. Shame on you.

Support the troops my ass.

"Only" 1800? You know, every one of those dead soldiers are one of those "troops" you supposedly support.


1800 soldiers for a 3 year long occupation is astoundingly low, the british have taken less then 100. I congrat the militarys of these two countrys for such a great job, i support them.

Of course, you can say each death is wrong but, like stalin said:

A death of a person is a tragedy , the death of a million is a statistic.

. Don't you dare act like their deaths were for nothing, at least they believed in this country enough to fight for another nation's freedoms. Shame on you.


so basically they thought I love america so instead of free-ing it from idiots im gonna go free iraq from a puppet government who's strings are held by america?

And everyone of those "Troops" volunteered to be in the military. You act like there sacrifice means nothing, but at least they cared enough to serve the country, and to make oath to fight even if they didn't agree with the cause, they had the moxy to go do it. Until you go there and fight yourself, I'm writing you off, because it pisses me off when people act like they know what's best for our troops. Our troops don't go into service with blind ignorance. I signed my paper, knowing that I could go to war, and I did it with pride. Don't you dare act like their deaths were for nothing, at least they believed in this country enough to fight for another nation's freedoms. Shame on you.

Ironic you accuse me of saying their deaths were nothing, when we have someone saying "only" 1800 dead. Only. As if one isn't too much.

And I also like your lording over me as if I don't understand life, or you have some special appreciation for it just because you're in the military.

Let me let you in on a few secrets:

1. The moment I've completed college, I'm joining the Navy. It's something I've always wanted to do and something I still want to do.

2. Two years ago, my best friend for a large majority of my life, was killed because he felt it was his duty as a human being to help a girl being mugged in an alley. Did I say "well, it was only one death, people get killed by criminals every day!". Yu obviously have never had someone close to you get killed. You've never been the one to get a letter from the service telling you that your brother or father isn't going to be coming home. Hell, I doubt you're actually in the military the way you act.

3. My mother died of cancer when I was 13. Did I sit down and say "Well, millions of people die from cancer, why be sad about this one?". No, I was devestated. But I was also there to help those who mattered to me.

Each troop killed in Iraq is one more family that has to get that letter. Each one means one less American in the world to act as a force for good. All in a war that still has yet to be justified.

so basically they thought I love america so instead of free-ing it from idiots im gonna go free iraq from a puppet government who's strings are held by america?

They love American enough to give themselves up for a higher purpose, and God Bless them for it.

Ironic you accuse me of saying their deaths were nothing, when we have someone saying "only" 1800 dead. Only. As if one isn't too much.

And I also like your lording over me as if I don't understand life, or you have some special appreciation for it just because you're in the military.

Let me let you in on a few secrets:

1. The moment I've completed college, I'm joining the Navy. It's something I've always wanted to do and something I still want to do.

And once you join the Navy, and you get into the military, then you can start talking about like you understand, just knowing people, and having friends or relatives in it, doesn't give you enough information. We have much commraderie, and its a whole other ball-game, I wish you luck, and will buy you a drink if we're ever near the same port.

2. Two years ago, my best friend for a large majority of my life, was killed because he felt it was his duty as a human being to help a girl being mugged in an alley. Did I say "well, it was only one death, people get killed by criminals every day!". Yu obviously have never had someone close to you get killed. You've never been the one to get a letter from the service telling you that your brother or father isn't going to be coming home. Hell, I doubt you're actually in the military the way you act.

I agree that every death is regretable, and I would love to have our fatalities read zero, but that simply isn't the reality of the situation, so instead of bitching bout why they died, herald them for making a sacrifice, make them martyrs not victims.

3. My mother died of cancer when I was 13. Did I sit down and say "Well, millions of people die from cancer, why be sad about this one?". No, I was devestated. But I was also there to help those who mattered to me.

I'll let Rougu respond to that one, since it is more aimed towards him, I think.

Each troop killed in Iraq is one more family that has to get that letter. Each one means one less American in the world to act as a force for good. All in a war that still has yet to be justified.

And each family should be proud of their son/daughter for believing in more than themselves. Just as I would be proud. As for you doubting my military service, that's regretable, but feel free to email me at my base address, and I'll try to clarify that for you. You can message me and I will give you the addy.

AIM Ablindmansees
MSN ablindmansees@yahoo.com

They love American enough to give themselves up for a higher purpose, and God Bless them for it.


what does your god have to do with this?


how is helping another nation when you're own is rapidly stagnating a higher purpose? maybe as americans we should fix our own shit and stay out of everyone else's business until we do. eh?

3. My mother died of cancer when I was 13. Did I sit down and say "Well, millions of people die from cancer, why be sad about this one?". No, I was devestated. But I was also there to help those who mattered to me.

Each troop killed in Iraq is one more family that has to get that letter. Each one means one less American in the world to act as a force for good. All in a war that still has yet to be justified.


Of course ure mum dying is a devestating to you. But 500,000 people die a day , do i care? to be honest, no. If i had to greive over every dead person, id waste my life.

1800 dead is unfortunate, but, ah well. It could of been worse, yes the iraq war is yet to be justified.

what does your god have to do with this?


how is helping another nation when you're own is rapidly stagnating a higher purpose? maybe as americans we should fix our own shit and stay out of everyone else's business until we do. eh?

You're absolutely right, I am an isolationist, and completely for letting the rest of the world be. Unfortunately, that isn't the reality of things. The higher purpose is serving the military, they agreed that they would go where they're told, and do what they're told. And if I ask God to bless them, that's my right.

You're absolutely right, I am an isolationist, and completely for letting the rest of the world be. Unfortunately, that isn't the reality of things. The higher purpose is serving the military, they agreed that they would go where they're told, and do what they're told. And if I ask God to bless them, that's my right.

how about you join my army and ill send you where i want? then you can serve a higher purpose too *nods* here's a loli

how about you join my army and ill send you where i want? then you can serve a higher purpose too *nods* here's a loli

Well unless your America, I don't really want to serve in your Army, not to mention I'm not allowed, but out of curiosity, which country did you have in mind?

Well unless your America, I don't really want to serve in your Army, not to mention I'm not allowed, but out of curiosity, which country did you have in mind?
*shrugs* antarctica? didn't have any location in mind

*shrugs* antarctica? didn't have any location in mind

How am I supposed to serve in your army if you don't even know where you live?

How am I supposed to serve in your army if you don't even know where you live?



the way you worded it made it seem you were begging the question where would i send you....


im american *shrugs*

the way you worded it made it seem you were begging the question where would i send you....


im american *shrugs*

I'm in the American Military, and so I am serving, unless you meant your own personal army.

I'm in the American Military, and so I am serving, unless you meant your own personal army.


my personal army. i have no love for this stangnant beast you call your country.... we're falling. we arent everything we think we are and us thinking it makes it worse

my personal army. i have no love for this stangnant beast you call your country.... we're falling. we arent everything we think we are and us thinking it makes it worse
There are no signs of the United States falling from being the only world superpower. The Cold War gave it more of a headstart than it would need. Perhaps in a while, of course. All nations rise and fall. But what other nation has grown so powerful in such a short period of time? How long have Japan, China, Spain, France, Britain, and other such powers existed, how long did it take them to reach their peak? Then consider their peak was a molehill to where the US is now. And a feat like that does not come by luck.

how is helping another nation when you're own is rapidly stagnating a higher purpose? maybe as americans we should fix our own shit and stay out of everyone else's business until we do. eh?
How is giving food to a homeless person who hasn't eaten a real meal in days serve a higher purpose than you eating it when you had a smaller breakfast than normal? How is working at an understaffed hospital for free to help people serve a higher purpose when you just feel like going home and sleeping or playing videogames? How is freeing 27,000,000 people from a tyrannical totalitarian government and creating a foothold for democracy in the worst region in the world serve a higher purpose when your gas prices have increased an amazing 50 cents?

If you have no love for your country, then I suggest you leave and make room for the thousands waiting to get in.

Support the troops my ass.

"Only" 1800? You know, every one of those dead soldiers are one of those "troops" you supposedly support.

I know a few from this area that have died! Of those that I do know, I know their families have no regrets. They know they went over there to make a difference and that they believed in what they were doing.

Yes I support the troops just like I support the operation to liberate Iraq.

my personal army. i have no love for this stangnant beast you call your country.... we're falling. we arent everything we think we are and us thinking it makes it worse

Can I have whatever your smoking please?

You also owe me a new BS detector. This post broke mine.

I know a few from this area that have died! Of those that I do know, I know their families have no regrets. They know they went over there to make a difference and that they believed in what they were doing.

Yes I support the troops just like I support the operation to liberate Iraq.
This woman has regrets about her son being killed in Iraq:

Peace vigil by U.S. soldier's mom draws notice (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1123770624296_119179824?hub=topstories)

A protest by a grieving mother camped out near U.S. President George Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas is gaining steam.

About 50 people have pitched their tents in muddy ditches, have hung anti-war banners and are showing their support for Cindy Sheehan, who lost her oldest son Casey in Iraq.........

Sheehan was among a group of grieving military families who met with Bush in June 2004 at Fort Lewis, Wash., near Seattle. She has said her feelings have shifted from shock to anger since then, in part because of various reports that have disputed some of the Bush administration's justifications for the war."

There is also a press interview. (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1123770624296_119179824?hub=topstories#)

Not only do you personally not want to enlist, you want to downplay the loss that others feel. Kinda sad to say the least.

This woman has regrets about her son being killed in Iraq:

Peace vigil by U.S. soldier's mom draws notice (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1123770624296_119179824?hub=topstories)

A protest by a grieving mother camped out near U.S. President George Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas is gaining steam.

About 50 people have pitched their tents in muddy ditches, have hung anti-war banners and are showing their support for Cindy Sheehan, who lost her oldest son Casey in Iraq.........

Sheehan was among a group of grieving military families who met with Bush in June 2004 at Fort Lewis, Wash., near Seattle. She has said her feelings have shifted from shock to anger since then, in part because of various reports that have disputed some of the Bush administration's justifications for the war."

There is also a press interview. (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1123770624296_119179824?hub=topstories#)

Not only do you personally not want to enlist, you want to downplay the loss that others feel. Kinda sad to say the least.

CH!

I want to sign up. But do to me being formally diagnosed with something that is none of your business, I am ineligable to sign up according to a recruiter that I talked to.

As for the mother, yes she is upset. She's a mother and I won't deny her that right. But I bet you 3-1 that her son died in a cause the he believed in. That should make her feel proud.

I want to sign up. But do to me being formally diagnosed with something that is none of your business, I am ineligable to sign up according to a recruiter that I talked to.

I thought it was because you couldn't serve while your dad was over there in Iraq? Even though you still could've you just didn't want to do all the "paperwork." Oh yeah, then you suddenly got a "disease" or a "disability" of some sort.

Ahhhh, I'm just half teasin'! :p

I thought it was because you couldn't serve while your dad was over there in Iraq? Even though you still could've you just didn't want to do all the "paperwork." Oh yeah, then you suddenly got a "disease" or a "disability" of some sort.

Ahhhh, I'm just half teasin'! :p

I have the paper work to prove that I was formally diagnosed and after talking to a recruiter, it rendered me ineligible. That pissed me off.

I seriously almost fell off my stool when I read this.

Is it just me or do all the bush/american bashers refrain from giving support for their OPINIONS intsead of giving fact?

If it were a black president, a woman president, or a republican we all know that their desiciions would be perfect! why can't we do our best to serve our president even if we do not like him/her? I'd like to see all of you take his place and get us through the war! No one here, im sure, holds an office position, and I'm DAMN sure that none of US know what exactly is going on in the white house. we donb't know if we face problems everyday or what might happen. For all we know by the U.S. going to war we might be saving our own asses from getting attacked again or even more PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD from getting harmed. You might not agree with the president, but you should respect him because he is under pressure and is doing his best so support him because i dont see you all out there making a difference.

If a friend tells you they hate you that's something to get worked up about but when someone you'll never meet to says it, it means less than nothing.

As for the European countries that really do hate America... right back at them.

You should go to www.dubyaspeak.com

They have real quotes with sound bites. Here's one of my favorites:

President Bush to the President of Brazil, "Do you have blacks in Brazil?"

Now, children. Can someone explain to me why this statement shows President Bush's lack of, not only intelligence, but common sense and diplmoatic grace?

Also, I don't care if Bush has an IQ of 141. He is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. One should expect, at the very least, some diplomatic sense/grace and the mostly consistent usage and respect for the grammar of their native language. It is beyond disgraceful and humilitating to watch our President speak in an official capacity.

There's a lot more bigotry and spiteful foreign nation-bashing on the "pro-America" side. I mean, what other nation has held a session of Congress to change the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries"? Now, THAT's money and time well spent, folks. Not to mention the character it tends to build...

For a while there, I thought we were going to give the Statue of Liberty back and reinact the Revolutionary War in order to write out any and all Frenchie stains on our glorious, clearly unforeign nation.

You guys HAVE to wake up and acknowledge that the US has done some pretty horrendously embaressing stuff in the last 5 years. If you can't admit it, either you're blind, or you're in denial, or you're too ignorant to be humiliated by them...

Wow, that mid Sunday afternoon boredom really turned into quite a debate. Let's keep this one going....

You should go to www.dubyaspeak.com
You bastard! You revealed my secret source of Bush quotes!! I must now terminate you! :D

I thought it was because you couldn't serve while your dad was over there in Iraq? Even though you still could've you just didn't want to do all the "paperwork." Oh yeah, then you suddenly got a "disease" or a "disability" of some sort.


He is a pathological liar, once history teacher, then scientist, then elite youth soldier, we all know the clown :D

I thought it was because you couldn't serve while your dad was over there in Iraq? Even though you still could've you just didn't want to do all the "paperwork." Oh yeah, then you suddenly got a "disease" or a "disability" of some sort.

Ahhhh, I'm just half teasin'! :p
Corny has more excuses then Carter has liver pills. When I first broached the subject of him enlisting many months ago, his excuse was that he didn't like too many of the Generals over there and that he probably wouldn't get along too well because he was not good at "following orders".

It has been interesting to watch the "story" evolve to this point. :eek:

Corny has more excuses then Carter has liver pills. When I first broached the subject of him enlisting many months ago, his excuse was that he didn't like too many of the Generals over there and that he probably wouldn't get along too well because he was not good at "following orders".

Excuse me for having a 20 god damn year regulation. I didn't know they did away with it ALRIGHT! I already admitted I was wrong there. However, I do have a disease that does keep me from serving. It has been formally diagnosed thus placing me under the ADA, American Disabilities ACT! If you don't like that, to damn bad. I'm already upset about that but that's life!

Excuse me for having a 20 god damn year regulation. I didn't know they did away with it ALRIGHT! I already admitted I was wrong there. However, I do have a disease that does keep me from serving. It has been formally diagnosed thus placing me under the ADA, American Disabilities ACT! If you don't like that, to damn bad. I'm already upset about that but that's life!
Calm down now. You know that it is not good to take God's name in vain. The fact remains that you missed the point, and have done so many times. You have been very cavalier in discussing the number of US deaths in Iraq, and have downplayed the losses suffered by others, even though you won't or cannot take part.

It would be interesting to watch you addressing a room full of people who had lost a loved one in Iraq, and spouting this kind of rhetoric:

However, the numbers aren't even close to past casualty numbers in war that was far more dangerous than this. These numbers are very low in terms of war. Been there for 3 years and our numbers are only 1800? That's lower than even I was expecting.

No it isn't ok but I'm tired of casualties being brought up like there's something new. WELCOME TO WAR!!!! People die in war. However, compared to some, this isn't that bad.

I know we have troops dying over there but considering how long we've been there, it hasn't been that bad. And before you drag out casualties, we suffered far more in ONE DAY of fighting in a few wars than in this war.

No, it "hasn't been that bad", because it is not your ass on the line. A little while back when the US count was up to 1400, I remember you talking about Iraq being a "bloodless" war. Go figure.

The other thing that is unnerving, is that you only think that US troops are dying in Iraq or you downplay Iraqi casualties.

Wow, since when was a second opinion proof of being right?
I guess if Corny agrees Tyrannical Fascists then that must mean that I am wrong. Now that is funny. :)

Now if either of those two could post some PROOF to back up their opinions, then I would be impressed, but alas, it is difficult to find proof that will verify what is truly hollow rhetoric.

America is being imperialistic--but not in the traditional sense. It is a new, subtler, imperialism. A type that has virtually total control over foreign governments, or at least more control than it should, while not annexing it.
I agree. And since I agree with you, using Corny logic, then WE must be right!! :D

I agree. And since I agree with you, using Corny logic, then WE must be right!! :D
Then you guys must be 999% right in Corny's "logic"(wathever that might be) because I to agree ;)

And everyone of those "Troops" volunteered to be in the military. You act like there sacrifice means nothing, but at least they cared enough to serve the country, and to make oath to fight even if they didn't agree with the cause, they had the moxy to go do it. Until you go there and fight yourself, I'm writing you off, because it pisses me off when people act like they know what's best for our troops. Our troops don't go into service with blind ignorance. I signed my paper, knowing that I could go to war, and I did it with pride.

Isn't it funny how when Americans die it's because they're so patriotic and couragous they believe enough in their country to willingly go to their deaths on the orders of their president, but when foreigners willingly go to their deaths because of the orders of a militant Muslim cleric it's because their culture has no appreciation for life? And it's cowardly.

Don't you dare act like their deaths were for nothing, at least they believed in this country enough to fight for another nation's freedoms. Shame on you.

I'm really sick of this bullshit line of reasoning. You know, you may very well be sent to your death for nothing if you're in the military. When the men giving the orders are rich old men in suits, even if those suits are in the closet of a ranch in Texas, you're sacrifice doesn't automatically mean anything just because you're willing to make it. Sure it speaks well of your courage, but it speaks little of your prudence that you're unwilling to consider that your president may be sacrificing you for control of the oil market rather than for another nation's freedom. After all, women were emancipated under Saddam's rule, but now they're under Sharia law. And what the hell does believing in THIS country have to do with sacrificing your life for ANOTHER country. If you're saying that you believe so strongly in the American way of life that you want to impose it on the rest of the world by force of either guns or bankbooks, well, that doesn't give you much moral ground to be proud on either.

Corny has more excuses then Carter has liver pills. When I first broached the subject of him enlisting many months ago, his excuse was that he didn't like too many of the Generals over there and that he probably wouldn't get along too well because he was not good at "following orders".

It has been interesting to watch the "story" evolve to this point. :eek:

Like Rush Limbaugh claiming that he didn't serve in Vietnam because of a football injury. He actually got a medical dispensation of dubious authenticity because of a boil on his ass. And when Bill O'Reilly tried to criticize Michael Moore for saying that Congressmen ought to be willing to send their children to war in Iraq if they were willing to vote for war there. He said that he would go... if he wasn't already too old. Of course, he's never signed up for the military in his life.

If you've never been to war, you have no right sending other people there.

Isn't it funny how when Americans die it's because they're so patriotic and couragous they believe enough in their country to willingly go to their deaths on the orders of their president, but when foreigners willingly go to their deaths because of the orders of a militant Muslim cleric it's because their culture has no appreciation for life? And it's cowardly.

Americans don't send our soldiers to target innocents. At this point I'm sure someone will point out a time when a soldier has done so but we never send troops with that as a mission.

The terrorists who, on the orders of a militant Muslim cleric, go and die for a belief do it by targeting innocents. Big difference.

Then you guys must be 999% right in Corny's "logic"(wathever that might be) because I to agree ;)
Your vote of confidence puts us over the top!! Hurrah for Corny logic!! :D

Isn't it funny how when Americans die it's because they're so patriotic and couragous they believe enough in their country to willingly go to their deaths on the orders of their president, but when foreigners willingly go to their deaths because of the orders of a militant Muslim cleric it's because their culture has no appreciation for life? And it's cowardly.
You have made an excellent point!! :)

I'm really sick of this bullshit line of reasoning. You know, you may very well be sent to your death for nothing if you're in the military. When the men giving the orders are rich old men in suits, even if those suits are in the closet of a ranch in Texas, you're sacrifice doesn't automatically mean anything just because you're willing to make it. Sure it speaks well of your courage, but it speaks little of your prudence that you're unwilling to consider that your president may be sacrificing you for control of the oil market rather than for another nation's freedom. After all, women were emancipated under Saddam's rule, but now they're under Sharia law. And what the hell does believing in THIS country have to do with sacrificing your life for ANOTHER country. If you're saying that you believe so strongly in the American way of life that you want to impose it on the rest of the world by force of either guns or bankbooks, well, that doesn't give you much moral ground to be proud on either.
Once again, another excellent point!! :)

Your vote of confidence puts us over the top!! Hurrah for Corny logic!! :D
You know Blackadder?
Corny would perform well as Baldrick. :D

Firstly, personal attacks are not necessary. I believe ganging up on someone and calling them a liar over something you cannot possibly verify is rather uncouth, and has no place in a proper, or even mediocre debate.

Moving on.
Isn't it funny how when Americans die it's because they're so patriotic and couragous they believe enough in their country to willingly go to their deaths on the orders of their president, but when foreigners willingly go to their deaths because of the orders of a militant Muslim cleric it's because their culture has no appreciation for life? And it's cowardly.

A US citizen who volunteers to fight on the other end of the world and insurgents that are willing to blow themselves up in the middle of a group of people in the name of blind religious devotion simply are not comparable. They kill innocents to make their points, as depicted by a number of beheadings we have seen. No US soldier has been ordered to kill Iraqi citizens. Anyone in the US, whether they be for the war or not, should find your remark quite insulting.
If you've never been to war, you have no right sending other people there.
So, I guess the US should never have bothered in joining the Allies in WWI and WWII as neither Wilson nor FDR served in the military, right?

As for whether or not the US is practicing a new form of imperialism, there are much easier ways to do it. Much of the "control" over governments that you speak of isn't control so much as influence. Influence bought by aid or political/economic/other international support. The US is the only nation that can project its military might anywhere in the world. Its diplomatic powers should not fall short.

Isn't it funny how when Americans die it's because they're so patriotic and couragous they believe enough in their country to willingly go to their deaths on the orders of their president, but when foreigners willingly go to their deaths because of the orders of a militant Muslim cleric it's because their culture has no appreciation for life? And it's cowardly.



I'm really sick of this bullshit line of reasoning. You know, you may very well be sent to your death for nothing if you're in the military. When the men giving the orders are rich old men in suits, even if those suits are in the closet of a ranch in Texas, you're sacrifice doesn't automatically mean anything just because you're willing to make it. Sure it speaks well of your courage, but it speaks little of your prudence that you're unwilling to consider that your president may be sacrificing you for control of the oil market rather than for another nation's freedom. After all, women were emancipated under Saddam's rule, but now they're under Sharia law. And what the hell does believing in THIS country have to do with sacrificing your life for ANOTHER country. If you're saying that you believe so strongly in the American way of life that you want to impose it on the rest of the world by force of either guns or bankbooks, well, that doesn't give you much moral ground to be proud on either.

Excellent post, hat of sir!
Well argumented.

Americans don't send our soldiers to target innocents. At this point I'm sure someone will point out a time when a soldier has done so but we never send troops with that as a mission.

The terrorists who, on the orders of a militant Muslim cleric, go and die for a belief do it by targeting innocents. Big difference.
On 9/11, "terrorists" targeted "innocent" people and that was terribly wrong and immoral.

In Iraq, there are "terrorists" and insurgents. Are they "targeting" "innocent" civilians, or are the civilians putting themselves in harms way by being near the US troops or are sympathetic to the occupying forces?

It would be interesting to read the news reports if the insurgency was equipped with the same firepower that the occupiers have? It certainly would be a different kind of battle?

How many "innocent civilians" were killed by the "Shock and Awe" campaign and the numerous "Operations" that have been launched by the invasion forces?

How would you defend your country if you were outmanned and outgunned? It does put a whole new perspective on the situation.

Americans die not in vain, but in the name of freedom. American soldiers are one of the only forces on earth that is willing to risk their lives for the sake of someone else's freedom. That is not respected by those with anti-american sentiment due to some political preferences, which really is a shame.

How would you defend your country if you were outmanned and outgunned? It does put a whole new perspective on the situation.
Would you kidnap people then threaten to decapitate them if a withdrawal of enemy forces does not occur? Then carry it through while being recorded? Would you run into a crowd of fellow civilians and enemies alike with a bomb, blowing up all unfortunate enough to be close? No? Oh, ok.

You know Blackadder?
Corny would perform well as Baldrick. :D
I always think of Georgie whenever I read up on my Cornfed. I can see Baldrick, but somehow it's always been George I read somehow.

You know Blackadder?
Corny would perform well as Baldrick. :D
No, I really don't know of Blackadder, but being of inquisitive mind, I did a Google search and found this website (http://www.blackadderhall.co.uk/). On the main page, I saw this comment and I think your analogy is well made:

"At Blackadder Hall you will find some real gems of useless information all relating to the Blackadder family. I do apologise for the smell in the kitchen, Baldrick's been cooking dung again."

Too funny. :D

Would you kidnap people then threaten to decapitate them if a withdrawal of enemy forces does not occur? Then carry it through while being recorded? Would you run into a crowd of fellow civilians and enemies alike with a bomb, blowing up all unfortunate enough to be close? No? Oh, ok.
If you invaded my country and were blowing up my family, my friends, my water supply, my electrical supply, my roads and buildings, God only knows what I would do to stop you. Until or unless that happens, I can only imagine that it wouldn't be pretty.

Americans die not in vain, but in the name of freedom. American soldiers are one of the only forces on earth that is willing to risk their lives for the sake of someone else's freedom. That is not respected by those with anti-american sentiment due to some political preferences, which really is a shame.
I respect US forces. I truly do. I just wish they weren't dying in Iraq. :(

In Iraq, there are "terrorists" and insurgents. Are they "targeting" "innocent" civilians, or are the civilians putting themselves in harms way by being near the US troops or are sympathetic to the occupying forces?

Insurgents for what? Not thier own country, that was freed years ago and is now trying to making a working free goverment. In fact they kill more of thier own people than they ever have Americans. Story of Iraq History - killing themselves.

How would you defend your country if you were outmanned and outgunned? It does put a whole new perspective on the situation.

We were out manned and out gunned. We picked up arms, fought and won our freedom. Paid in blood by our forefathers then and now with the blood our soldiers you demean.

If you invaded my country and were blowing up my family, my friends, my water supply, my electrical supply, my roads and buildings, God only knows what I would do to stop you. Until or unless that happens, I can only imagine that it wouldn't be pretty.
I would fight to the end as well, without a doubt - but that is quite different from the acts that I have stated that they have committed. Also, you once again are making the US out to be the tyrannical evil nation raping those unable to defend themselves. The US has not targeted citizens, and millions, if not billions of dollars are being put into building the infrastructure to a point where it will dwarf that under Saddam's rule. This also has provided jobs for the Iraqi people. Insurgents’ bombings aren’t exactly helping with that project.

We were out manned and out gunned. We picked up arms, fought and won our freedom. Paid in blood by our forefathers then and now with the blood our our soldiers you demean.
And never did they commit atrocities such as what we see now with insurgents.

Insurgents for what? Not there own country,
Yes THEIR country. Saddam may be gone but it is still THEIR country.

that was freed years ago and is now trying to making a working free goverment.
So say you, but that does not make it THEIR truth.

In fact they kill more of thier own people than they ever have Americans. Story of Iraq History - killing themselves.
It appears to be a war within a war? Perhaps you don't understand that concept?

We were out manned and out gunned. We picked up arms, fought and won our freedom. Paid in blood by our forefathers then and now with the blood our our soldiers you demean.
The "insurgents" don't have the same rights as your forefathers?

Can you draw me a parallel between the War in Iraq and the American Revolution?

Can you draw me a parallel between the War in Iraq and the American Revolution?

There is none. The insurgents there are nothing more then filthy pigs who should be slaughtered en masse.

I would fight to the end as well, without a doubt - but that is quite different from the acts that I have stated that they have committed. Also, you once again are making the US out to be the tyrannical evil nation raping those unable to defend themselves. The US has not targeted citizens, and millions, if not billions of dollars are being put into building the infrastructure to a point where it will dwarf that under Saddam's rule. This also has provided jobs for the Iraqi people. Insurgents’ bombings aren’t exactly helping with that project.
The insurgents don't want your help. They want you gone. The majority of Iraqis want you gone. The US should never have invaded Iraq in the first place and that is the bottom line.

The US may not target "innocent" people but that word "co-lateral" damage continues to play a part in the massive Iraqi death toll.

The US should never invaded Iraq in the first place and that is the bottom line.



hahaha, gotta love that Canadian school system.

Bottom line is we went to help the people of Iraq. They may want us out now but they didn't then. The mainstream citizins of Iraq are not the insurgents as you make it sound. They may want us out but they aren't the ones killing. When we leave and we will as soon as we the Iraq Army is prepared to defend thier country from the insurgents who are Saddam loyalists, people who would like to fill the tyrant void Saddam left, or terrorists.

The insurgents don't want your help. They want you gone. The majority of Iraqis want you gone. The US should never invaded Iraq in the first place and that is the bottom line.

The US may not target "innocent" people but that word "co-lateral" damage continues to play a part in the massive Iraqi death toll.
Uh, what? You sir are a product of extremist media (or just painfully faulty information). The majority of Iraqi citizens ARE thankful for what the US has done. The majority work with the US presence to build infrastructure and defend their new nation. Perhaps you forget the regime that was in place no more than a few years ago. Why don't you take a look at the crimes Saddam is being tried for? He was not a man serving his country, he was forcing his country to serve him. That is fact.

And the Iraqi death toll would be miniscule if not for fear of insurgents posing as normal Iraqi citizens, and if not for the direct acts of these insurgents (like blowing up a street corner or building).

The bottom line is the US you speak of is has more connections to Nazi Germany than to reality. They are not the invading, pillaging, rapists that terror bomb cities and take ordinary citizens into detainment camps. As much as you, and the rest of the anti-American world may try, regardless of what the US' agenda is, bringing down the totalitarian regime and installing a democratic government is good. You can argue against the reasons for invasion. You can argue against how it is being carried out. You can argue that Bush is a duechebag. But you cannot against exchanging an oppressive government for a democratic one, by the people, for the people.

Bottom line is we went to help the people of Iraq. They may want us out now but they didn't then. The mainstream citizins of Iraq are not the insurgents as you make it sound. They may want us out but they aren't the ones killing. When we leave and we will as soon as we the Iraq Army is prepared to defend thier country from the insurgents who are Saddam loyalists, people who would like to fill the tyrant void Saddam left, or terrorists.

The insurgents don't have much popular support, but they have enough (or fear) to strike at our troops and the new Iraqi government. Experts in counter-insurgency believe it could take over nine years to defeat them. In the meantime civil war is brewing between the Shitites, the Sunni's and the Kurds. Private armies are starting to form and communities find themselves divided. There have been reports of genocide in the North. Corruption is rampant (guess how much oil money will find it's way towards reconstruction) and the elections that where celebrated not long ago where clearly, upon review, fraudulent. In central Iraq the Americans stuffed the ballot boxes for Allawi, in the South the ballots boxes where stuffed by the Imans and in the North it was common for people to vote twice. There is a significant risk of Iraq going the way of the Soviet Union or Yugsalvia, breaking up into waring states and groups...

No matter how one feels about the war, it has to be admitted that it is rapidly becoming a disaster..... Wll still be trying to put out the flames ten to twenty years from now.... :(

I agree that its not looking good. My personal opinion when we started the war was that Iraq wasn't ready for freedom because if they were they could taken it long ago. If they can run from our army when we invade why couldn't they walk away from Saddams and depose him.

But we did go to give them thier freedom whether they are ready for it or not. CanuckHeaven would have you believe we went and toppled the free people of Iraq and deposed the elected president, Iraq's most beloved hero. That now the once free citizins have become insurgents to take back thier freedom. It just isn't so.

... My personal opinion when we started the war was that Iraq wasn't ready for freedom because if they were they could taken it long ago...

I agree. I am a bit pessimistic myself. The citizens of Bagdad have had about 7,000 years to perfect good government. They came up with Saddam Hussein. This does not bode well for the immediate future.

Uh, what? You sir are a product of extremist media (or just painfully faulty information).
You sir don't know squat. Please explain how I am a "product of extremist media". I get the vast majority of my research from mainstream media sources.

The majority of Iraqi citizens ARE thankful for what the US has done.
Here is where we see what kind of media YOU have to back your statements?

The majority work with the US presence to build infrastructure and defend their new nation. Perhaps you forget the regime that was in place no more than a few years ago. Why don't you take a look at the crimes Saddam is being tried for? He was not a man serving his country, he was forcing his country to serve him. That is fact.
There are many such countries in the world. What gives the US the right to invade Iraq?

And the Iraqi death toll would be miniscule if not for fear of insurgents posing as normal Iraqi citizens, and if not for the direct acts of these insurgents (like blowing up a street corner or building).
The death toll would have been zero if the US did not invade.

The bottom line is the US you speak of is has more connections to Nazi Germany than to reality.
Please explain what Nazi Germany has to do with this?

They are not the invading, pillaging, rapists that terror bomb cities and take ordinary citizens into detainment camps.
Who are you referring to here?

As much as you, and the rest of the anti-American world may try, regardless of what the US' agenda is, bringing down the totalitarian regime and installing a democratic government is good.
First of all, I am not anti-American. Secondly, what right does the US government have in trying to "install" a "democracy" on a country?

You can argue against the reasons for invasion. You can argue against how it is being carried out. You can argue that Bush is a duechebag. But you cannot against exchanging an oppressive government for a democratic one, by the people, for the people.
So invading Iraq was all about regime change and installing a democratic government? Your response should prove interesting.

BTW, by forcing a country to have an election does not automatically make it a democracy?

There are many such countries in the world. What gives the US the right to invade Iraq?


What color is Sunday?

Wow, there are so many things wrong with CanuckHeavens post, i dont know where to begin...
Well I suggest that you start with some "facts"?

Since the gulf war, he still has been murdering his own people, more than 100,000 every three years, by a long shot, so it wasn't speculation,
Here is where you present your proof to back your statement. Hmmm I don't see any proof, just hollow rhetoric.

i was banking on him not deciding hed been a grouch his entire life and changing.
What has this got to do with anything?

Second, The overwhelming majority of the Iraqis supported our so-called Illegal invasion.
Please supply some proof and then we can debate the issue?

By the way, we dont need a warrent from the corrupt UN to make an arrest.
So it is alright for countries who are signators to the UN Charter to violate that agreement?

And we certainly dont need Canadas permission to act, you guys dont even have a foreign policy.
Actually we do have a foreign policy, and our government clearly stated that Canada would not be invading Iraq. The majority of people in Canada support that decision.

FOR THE LAST TIME WE ARE NOT IMPERIALISTS. If we had wanted the world we would have had a go at it by now. If we wanted Iraq it would be annexed by now. Im sick and tired of you fabricating imperialism where it does not exist.
Do you honestly think that I am the one and only person that is accusing the US of imperialism in Iraq?

Consider this:

The US has mounted numerous coups in the Middle East to topple regimes in Egypt, Iran and Iraq itself. It has used crises, like the last Gulf war, to gain temporary bases and make them permanent. In Lebanon it once shelled an Arab capital and landed several hundred marines. But never before has it sent a vast army to change an Arab government.

That is imperialism, and you can call it whatever you want.

Their constitution is being Written as we speak.
Under time constraints imposed by the US, and drafted by elected officials that the electorate didn't know until they went to the polls. When the US Constitution was drafted, was there still a war going on, or another country telling the framers that they had to be finished by a certain date?

Do a little research before you post nex time.
I can back up everything that I wrote here. Can you?

Everything you said was speculation and opinion, it has no basis in fact.
Yet you have offered zero "facts" in rebuttal, and I would say you have liberally used "speculation and opinion" of your own, and tried to present them as facts. :eek:

What color is Sunday?
Sunday can be cold and dark and blue, or it can be warm, bright and yellow. What colour would you prefer?

60 pages of answers in four days. wow. :rolleyes:

Sunday can be cold and dark and blue, or it can be warm, bright and yellow. What colour would you prefer?

It is a nonsense question designed to show the logical falacy of asking "what right did not the United States have to invade Iraq". There was no right ether way when it comes to morality, we just did it.

On the other hand if you ask the question in relation to international law, then the answer is none, but I believe you where asking a moral and not international legal question....

Americans are an inferior race.
lmao

I find the invasion of Iraq to be indefensible.

I also find the fact that the US originally supported the very government we went to war against indefensible.

What I really find indefensible is that when the US had a chance to get out of oil and politics in the Middle east waaaaaay back in 1974 when the Arabs first started flexing their oil monopoly powers and we continued instead to suck on the Middle Eastern oil teat until we had no choice but go to war to "protect our source" in 1991. As a sailor serving in the US Navy at the time of the first Gulf War, I only wish we had learned our lesson in 1973 and found alternative fuels and energy sources. That would have eliminated a need to go to war in the first place.

If that had happened, we would not have had to have a presence in the Middle East at all, except perhaps as a purely diplomatic intermediary between the Isrealis and the Muslim community.

Let no one kid you, it's all about oil, not about politics, except as oil becomes politics.

Ah, Hindsight.....

I find the invasion of Iraq to be indefensible.

I also find the fact that the US originally supported the very government we went to war against indefensible.

What I really find indefensible is that when the US had a chance to get out of oil and politics in the Middle east waaaaaay back in 1974 when the Arabs first started flexing their oil monopoly powers and we continued instead to suck on the Middle Eastern oil teat until we had no choice but go to war to "protect our source" in 1991. As a sailor serving in the US Navy at the time of the first Gulf War, I only wish we had learned our lesson in 1973 and found alternative fuels and energy sources. That would have eliminated a need to go to war in the first place.

If that had happened, we would not have had to have a presence in the Middle East at all, except perhaps as a purely diplomatic intermediary between the Isrealis and the Muslim community.

Let no one kid you, it's all about oil, not about politics, except as oil becomes politics.

Ah, Hindsight.....

I doubt that the technological ability to wean ourselves off oil existed in the 70's. Presently the technological resources and ability exists to significantly reduce are dependence on oil, but they have not been implemented under the current short-sighted administration.

(Bush approches) Bush: "Conservation, fuel standirds? Bah! We'll reduce are dependence through clean coal, it will emit only butterflies, I swear. And any year now we'll have magical hydrogen cars that will solve all are problems. We'll call it the freedom car, because freedoms good." :rolleyes:

Amestria']I doubt that the technological ability to wean ourselves off oil existed in the 70's. Presently the technological resources and ability exists to significantly reduce are dependence on oil, but they have not been implemented under the current short-sighted administration.

(Bush approches) Bush: "Conservation, fuel standirds? Bah! We'll reduce are dependence through clean coal, it will emit only butterflies, I swear. And any year now we'll have magical hydrogen cars that will solve all are problems. We'll call it the freedom car, because freedoms good." :rolleyes:


The technology was there, in it's infancy, and is still there. The problem is that there is no way to get the government or industry to take an interest except only in passing. We have had the availablity of wind, solar and nuclear (gasp!) energy and alternatives to petroleum since even the late 60's.

I don't blame Bush, I blame Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. I also blame Ford, Chrysler, GM, Amoco, Conoco, Shell, Exxon, etc. It has been a conspiracy of the industrial powers with the blessings of the political powers to keep the easy money flowing. It would have been costly and a long term pain to make the changes back then, but that's when they should have been made.

I was in jr high then and even I could see it.

Americans die not in vain, but in the name of freedom. American soldiers are one of the only forces on earth that is willing to risk their lives for the sake of someone else's freedom. That is not respected by those with anti-american sentiment due to some political preferences, which really is a shame.

They are soldiers. It is their job, simple as that.
If they wouldn't get paid, most of them (apart from a few complete nutcases) would go home and look for real jobs instead of "risking their lives for the sake of someone else's" political interest/bankbook/place in history.
They take the money, they do the job. There is no ground whatsoever to heroify these people, as they get paid to follow orders. It's the people who give the orders who need to be under constant moral scrutiny.

http://www.ampolitics.ghazali.net/html/more_muslim_candidates-csm.html

thanks for the link. Interesting info. But it does appear that no muslims have made it to congress yet. sure its not too far of though

I find the invasion of Iraq to be indefensible.

I also find the fact that the US originally supported the very government we went to war against indefensible.

What I really find indefensible is that when the US had a chance to get out of oil and politics in the Middle east waaaaaay back in 1974 when the Arabs first started flexing their oil monopoly powers and we continued instead to suck on the Middle Eastern oil teat until we had no choice but go to war to "protect our source" in 1991. As a sailor serving in the US Navy at the time of the first Gulf War, I only wish we had learned our lesson in 1973 and found alternative fuels and energy sources. That would have eliminated a need to go to war in the first place.

If that had happened, we would not have had to have a presence in the Middle East at all, except perhaps as a purely diplomatic intermediary between the Isrealis and the Muslim community.

Let no one kid you, it's all about oil, not about politics, except as oil becomes politics.

Ah, Hindsight.....
I find your post to be right on the money and straightforward. :)

The only real difference between 1973 and now is that the oil companies are making even bigger profits. We are slaves to the petroleum and auto industries.

I remember when the energy crunch was on in the 70's and all kinds of interesting alternatives were pushed forward, only to languish on the shelf once the "crisis" had passed.

As new oil hits record prices, and as stocks are depleted, we will all pay the price for shuffling our feet 30 years ago.

There are no signs of the United States falling from being the only world superpower. The Cold War gave it more of a headstart than it would need. Perhaps in a while, of course. All nations rise and fall. But what other nation has grown so powerful in such a short period of time? How long have Japan, China, Spain, France, Britain, and other such powers existed, how long did it take them to reach their peak? Then consider their peak was a molehill to where the US is now. And a feat like that does not come by luck.


How is giving food to a homeless person who hasn't eaten a real meal in days serve a higher purpose than you eating it when you had a smaller breakfast than normal? How is working at an understaffed hospital for free to help people serve a higher purpose when you just feel like going home and sleeping or playing videogames? How is freeing 27,000,000 people from a tyrannical totalitarian government and creating a foothold for democracy in the worst region in the world serve a higher purpose when your gas prices have increased an amazing 50 cents?

If you have no love for your country, then I suggest you leave and make room for the thousands waiting to get in.


i was speaking of morality and the nations tendency to think it is always right and noone else is right unless they agree. i was speaking of homeland corruption. its not econimically we are falling, its ethically, in our scruples, and in trying to make everyone inside our borders happy. it's not working.

CH!

I want to sign up. But do to me being formally diagnosed with something that is none of your business, I am ineligable to sign up according to a recruiter that I talked to.

As for the mother, yes she is upset. She's a mother and I won't deny her that right. But I bet you 3-1 that her son died in a cause the he believed in. That should make her feel proud.

you don't have a child do you?

If it were a black president, a woman president, or a republican we all know that their desiciions would be perfect! why can't we do our best to serve our president even if we do not like him/her?.


bush is a republican

Excuse me for having a 20 god damn year regulation. I didn't know they did away with it ALRIGHT! I already admitted I was wrong there. However, I do have a disease that does keep me from serving. It has been formally diagnosed thus placing me under the ADA, American Disabilities ACT! If you don't like that, to damn bad. I'm already upset about that but that's life!


stupid isnt a disease, if it was we could cure you ;) :fluffle:
20 bucks says you're loony and thats why they wont let you in :D

And never did they commit atrocities such as what we see now with insurgents.

you might be unpleaseantly surprised what they did to tories and other british supporters.

Because this game is filled with a bunch of communists and muslims

Because this game is filled with a bunch of communists and muslims



is that a fact? o.O

The majority of Iraqis want you gone.

WRONG!!

On 9/11, "terrorists" targeted "innocent" people and that was terribly wrong and immoral.

In Iraq, there are "terrorists" and insurgents. Are they "targeting" "innocent" civilians, or are the civilians putting themselves in harms way by being near the US troops or are sympathetic to the occupying forces?

It would be interesting to read the news reports if the insurgency was equipped with the same firepower that the occupiers have? It certainly would be a different kind of battle?


The bulk of the people in Iraq HATE these insurgents you defend here. You make it sound like the people of Iraq didn't want us to free them. A small minority of radicals don't want us there and you assume that they are the majority voice because they have the same point of view that you do.

You don't care what the majority of Iraqis think because it conflicts with your opinion.

WRONG!!
How intellectual of you. Such insight, such wit. I stand blindsided by your rigorous yet judicious use of all-caps. :rolleyes:

How intellectual of you. Such insight, such wit. I stand blindsided by your rigorous yet judicious use of all-caps. :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes friend. It won't change anything. The majority of Iraqis are GLAD we came in based on collected data. Certainly there is room for dispute, but I don't see references anywhere that supports his argument except discontented objectors with zero facts, zero points and lots of spite.

I hate to bring this up again but I will here. From 2 threads you and I debated in this forum which I respectfully stopped - and will again after this post - you proponents of change seem to be a spiteful, unhappy lot because you seem argue the points less often, prefering to just get pissed off. Rather than tell me why you disagree, you just get snippy.

I disagree with the statement that most Iraqis didn't want us there and I said why above and in several other posts in the thread.

Piffle. What point is dissent if it's stated in a vaccuum? Might as well piss in the wind.

And Nerion? I don't remember you. Sorry if you thought you'd made some kind of lasting impression, but you didn't. I assumed I'd never encountered you before, so don't go making any assumptions about how I "feel" about you or your posts or your use of all-caps.

Piffle. What point is dissent if it's stated in a vaccuum? Might as well piss in the wind.

And Nerion? I don't remember you. Sorry if you thought you'd made some kind of lasting impression, but you didn't. I assumed I'd never encountered you before, so don't go making any assumptions about how I "feel" about you or your posts or your use of all-caps.

Understood. Because I DO know how you feel - I've read enough of your posts to know. It's obvious you disagree with me or my use of caps wouldn't have pissed you off - sorry, but you won't convince me that if you agreed with me that you wouldn't have done it - you're too passionate for me to believe that.

And as far as pissing in the wind - if you don't state why you disagree with my sentiment - you do realize that's all you are doing.

The majority of Iraqis are GLAD we came in based on collected data.

Glad you came? probably. Want you gone? definately.

Glad you came? probably. Want you gone? definately.


Ok, I can't argue with that.

But I doubt that the majority would like to see us leave immediately.

Ok, I can't argue with that.

But I doubt that the majority would like to see us leave immediately.
So Nerion's doubt is the World's truth?

So Nerion's doubt is the World's truth?


I assume because you said that, that you're indicating to us that you believe your dissent is the world's truth - regardless of how I feel.

All kidding aside, I know you don't feel that way any more than I do with my statement.

But that you made that statement shows more spite on your part.

You going to keep pissing in the wind, Dobbs?

Calm down now. You know that it is not good to take God's name in vain. The fact remains that you missed the point, and have done so many times. You have been very cavalier in discussing the number of US deaths in Iraq, and have downplayed the losses suffered by others, even though you won't or cannot take part.

Funny thing is, I know who causes most of those deaths. That being the thugs and murderers who go about killing civilians to intimidate them. Guess what? Most of them aren't intimidated. They want the attacks to stop and they are flocking to recruiting stations to sign up to defend their land. I may not have served in uniform, I can't unfortunately, but I know what are mission is over there. Unlike you, I actually pay attention to the troops that are there. I know more good stuff than you'll ever here. You won't believe me because your so dense and blinded that you can't. I'm done with you CH! Get out of Canada and see the real world for once in your life.

It would be interesting to watch you addressing a room full of people who had lost a loved one in Iraq, and spouting this kind of rhetoric:

I know people who have lost loved ones over there CH. They don't have any regrets. In the overall scheme of things, our casualties are actually low compared to other occupations.

No, it "hasn't been that bad", because it is not your ass on the line. A little while back when the US count was up to 1400, I remember you talking about Iraq being a "bloodless" war. Go figure.

No just my father's, cousin, and most of the parents in an organization that I belong too do have their asses on the line. Funny, it still technically is a bloodless war. Shall we see what a real bloody war is like? Go back to Vietnam, Korea, World War II, World War I. Those are bloody wars. The deaths of those that have died here mean something to the Iraqi people. They are glad that we are there. They know we are there to help them. A relative of mine received a HUG, A HUG for a kid who was able to go to a school that wasn't being used by the previous government as an ammo dump.

[quote]The other thing that is unnerving, is that you only think that US troops are dying in Iraq or you downplay Iraqi casualties.

I don't downplay any casualties. Most of the civilian casualties have been done by guess what? T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-M! Go figure. The more these thugs and murders kill, the more they drive people to defend their country from these same people. They are only hurting their own cause by doing it. Funny thing is, attacks are starting to go down and not up.

Americans die not in vain, but in the name of freedom. American soldiers are one of the only forces on earth that is willing to risk their lives for the sake of someone else's freedom. That is not respected by those with anti-american sentiment due to some political preferences, which really is a shame.

Well Said Rolen. Well said indeed. And it is accurate as well. Hats off to you :)

I always think of Georgie whenever I read up on my Cornfed. I can see Baldrick, but somehow it's always been George I read somehow.

Dumbsworld, I am not being fed anything. The only thing I'm getting out of Iraq is alot of good mixed with a little bad news. Unfortunately, its the bad news that gets all the press coverage and not the good news.

Well Said Rolen. Well said indeed. And it is accurate as well. Hats off to you :)


Agreed. He's right and it is a shame that people feel the way they do about those who have protected our freedom for so long.

I respect US forces. I truly do. I just wish they weren't dying in Iraq. :(

That makes 2 of us but when your fighting a war/conflict, it happens. You don't run at the first sign of trouble though. That makes you look weak. We are not weak and we are going to stay till the job is done and THAT is what we are going to do!

When the job is done, we'll leave.

:D Because this game is filled with a bunch of communists and muslims

aluha ackbar comrade :D

Dumbsworld, I am not being fed anything. The only thing I'm getting out of Iraq is alot of good mixed with a little bad news. Unfortunately, its the bad news that gets all the press coverage and not the good news.


Dobbs acts like a troller sometimes, especially when he makes comments like that one.

That makes 2 of us but when your fighting a war/conflict, it happens. You don't run at the first sign of trouble though. That makes you look weak. We are not weak and we are going to stay till the job is done and THAT is what we are going to do!

When the job is done, we'll leave.

Yep.

:D

aluha ackbar comrade :D


LMAO!!!!

Agreed. He's right and it is a shame that people feel the way they do about those who have protected our freedom for so long.
But they're not protecting your freedom, they're following orders, orders which have absolutely nothing to do with protecting your freedom.

Dobbs acts like a troller sometimes, especially when he makes comments like that one.
No, Dobbs acts wittily at times, unfortunately some people (not you, in this case, Nerion, lest you make the same mistake as Corneliu) have a distinct lack of material or too narrow a scope of experience to draw from, and make bone-headed assumptions about what I'm actually saying.

And that's with my sarcastometer switched over to 'populist referential' mode, for the delectation of the Americans hereabouts.

But they're not protecting your freedom, they're following orders, orders which have absolutely nothing to do with protecting your freedom.

They've protected my freedom for years. If we didn't have our soldiers, I fully believe I wouldn't have the freedoms I have now.

In the past, the direct actions by US soldiers have preserved the country's freedom - the Revolutionary War and World War II are examples.

But you're arguing semantics by trying to state that they aren't protecting my freedom right this minute with their actions. Perhaps they aren't with their direct actions right now, but their very existence protects my freedom in the same way the presence of a policeman buying coffee in a convenience store prevents it from being robbed.

So I respectfully disagree with you.

its because people are simply jealous. i know noone is going to admit they are and i know that everyone is about to call me stuck up my own @$$ but the truth is the truth. I bet you anything France wishes it had the power to waltz into any country it pleases to enforce its own policy when their safety is at stake, instead of having to turn to the community around them. O well...

You know the US was never under threat of invasion in WW2.Your freedoms would have been just fine. Same for WW1 and, in fact, every single war of the 20th century.

you don't have a child do you?

Since I'm only in my very early twenties no. But I have heard of many mothers who are quite proud of their sons and daughters that have died in the service of their country! Why? Because they know that they died doing something that they believed in.

Why is it each time one takes a look at the General Forum is there at least one, sometimes several items of hatespeech against the United States? For example, today there is currently one on the first page about Why Americans dont have all the answers. Why are these so rampant? Coming into this with the goal of being objective, I notice there are very few if any anti-European sentiments started, but each day someone takes every chance they get to rip on the US. Any thoughts as to why it is deemed so important to share Anti-American rhetoric over and over again?


OK, you are coming at this with a very pro-Bush bias which makes you appear to be unable to discern anti-Americanism from anti-Bushism or anti-Capitalism.

And remember that most of what America (or American interests), unlike most of what other countries do, affects everyone else.

stupid isnt a disease, if it was we could cure you ;) :fluffle:
20 bucks says you're loony and thats why they wont let you in :D

No actually, I'm not looney though i bet most of the liberals on this board will disagree with that assessment.

I can't help it if I have people in the region that actually tell me what is really going on an not what is in the press!

No, Dobbs acts wittily at times, unfortunately some people (not you, in this case, Nerion, lest you make the same mistake as Corneliu) have a distinct lack of material or too narrow a scope of experience to draw from, and make bone-headed assumptions about what I'm actually saying.

And that's with my sarcastometer switched over to 'populist referential' mode, for the delectation of the Americans hereabouts.

All I meant by that comment was that you tend to let your passions get ahold of you sometimes. And while you (usually) stop short of personal attacks, you'll nit pick the WAY people argue the way BunnyDucks does when you two get upset at a post, rather than offer a counter to the argument. And you'll use the excuse that you aren't disagreeing with your opponent when it's crystal clear that you are (well it was in Bunny's case - I can't say that about you because you didn't use that excuse).

But you both like to step outside the argument and find something else to pick on.

Agreed. He's right and it is a shame that people feel the way they do about those who have protected our freedom for so long.

Amen Nerion. Keep the truth coming even though its the samething I've been saying! LOL.

You know the US was never under threat of invasion in WW2.Your freedoms would have been just fine. Same for WW1 and, in fact, every single war of the 20th century.


A good part of our navy was wiped out. You're saying that because it wasn't Japan's immediate plan to invade the US that our freedom wasn't threatened. Well they attacked our navy and began harassing our shipping lanes so our freedom was threatened.

Maybe they weren't planning to invade in the short term. But that they were deliberately interfering with our civilian supply lines indicates that some of our freedoms were certainly at risk.

Amen Nerion. Keep the truth coming even though its the samething I've been saying! LOL.


It's a habit we've both been guilty of.

one thing.

I'm not happy with the US's current strategy in Iraq. I believe they and the rest of the coalition should stay until the job is done. But its seems that due to public pressure in the US the army has reached the point where its main objective is to protect its soldiers lives. This is not a bad thing of course, but it seems to be at the expense of stability. This is only going to create more animosity amongst iraqis and benefit the insurgents.

You know the US was never under threat of invasion in WW2.Your freedoms would have been just fine. Same for WW1 and, in fact, every single war of the 20th century.

Funny. Last I heard, the US owned the Philippines before WWII not to mention Guam, Midway, Hawaii. Yes we were under threat of invasion. Also what if Great Britain and the USSR went under? Now we have a threat to our east Coast. Nope, we weren't under threat of invasion. Thanks for playing though.

It's a habit we've both been guilty of.

Ain't that the sad and sorry truth! LOL :D

You know the US was never under threat of invasion in WW2.Your freedoms would have been just fine. Same for WW1 and, in fact, every single war of the 20th century.


Not in ww2, no, had germany defeated the USSR and britain, (without hitler being a stupid ponce, they would of) the one nation left to defend freedom would be america.

Im sorry but, with japan and germany, and ONLY america, america would of lost. germanys technoligy was just far superior, it coudent of happened at least untill 1946 though, it would take a LOT of planning, d-day was 4 years in the making. Basicly, cos the unly decent part of the kreigsmarine (german navy) were the U-Boats and 1 or 2 battleships, the germans would of had to of done this :

As they owned britian, they would push north, and take iceland, then , from there, to canada, canada back then not having idependence from britian (fully) and britian being conquered by germany, its hard to see the canadaians putting up a decent fight.

Then , they simply push south, the german blitzkrieg sweeping into the USA. Sad but, its what would of happened, altough i think america would of taken a lot of germans with it.

Not in ww2, no, had germany defeated the USSR and britain, (without hitler being a stupid ponce, they would of) the one nation left to defend freedom would be america.

Im sorry but, with japan and germany, and ONLY america, america would of lost. germanys technoligy was just far superior, it coudent of happened at least untill 1946 though, it would take a LOT of planning, d-day was 4 years in the making. Basicly, cos the unly decent part of the kreigsmarine (german navy) were the U-Boats and 1 or 2 battleships, the germans would of had to of done this :

As they owned britian, they would push north, and take iceland, then , from there, to canada, canada back then not having idependence from britian (fully) and britian being conquered by germany, its hard to see the canadaians putting up a decent fight.

Then , they simply push south, the german blitzkrieg sweeping into the USA. Sad but, its what would of happened, altough i think america would of taken a lot of germans with it.


That is just fantasy.

1. German technology was not superior to Allied technology, just different. Germany...
a. ) Never developed a successful long range bomber
b. ) Never developed a successful long range fighter
c. ) Jet tech was equivalent to the allies
b. ) Inferior radar technology
e. ) German tanks were wonderful...but too complex to produce, big and unreliable. For each Panther that was made, the Russians produced 11 T-34s. That is a lot of tanks...and the T-34 was arguably the best tank of the war.
D.) No computer tech. Two of the biggest advances of the war: Computer controlled naval gunnery and computer assisted code breaking belonged to the allies.

and....

F. ) The allies were FAR ahead in developing nuclear weapons. That was the trump card. Hitler could have had Europe, but once the A-bomb was built, the game was over.

I will grant you that German rocket technology was far in advance of it's day, but ultimately the V program only served as a distraction from weapons that would actually have been useful.

Also, even if Japan and Germany could have "won", it is unlikely they would have been able to hold onto their possessions. The US would likely have just kept supplying guerillas in occupied territories by air drop or by submarine. And the Eur-Asian land mass is a pretty big battlefield.

Did I mention that the Axis economies were more ruined than the cities?
Did I mention that neither the Kreigsmarine or the IJN could have stood against the US Navy in 1945?

A good part of our navy was wiped out. You're saying that because it wasn't Japan's immediate plan to invade the US that our freedom wasn't threatened. Well they attacked our navy and began harassing our shipping lanes so our freedom was threatened.

Maybe they weren't planning to invade in the short term. But that they were deliberately interfering with our civilian supply lines indicates that some of our freedoms were certainly at risk.

I think the prelude to Japan's attacking the US was the US threatening Japan with blockading or somesuch, if they didn't stop their imperialist expansion in South-East Asia. The result would have been no coal or iron for Japan, anyway, which would have meant the end of industrialised Japan. So the choice was standing down to the demands made by the US (admitting that, shock and horror, the US was more powerful than the mighty Japanese Emperor,) or invading them.

Was it the right thing for the US to do? Quite possibly. Life as a non-Japanese in the Japanese empire can't have been all that attractive. Then again, south-east Asia and Oseania was pretty much split between the US and European countries (the Japanese argued that the Orient would be better off ruled by Orientals than foreigners.)

In the end, I find it's better to assume that all nations are first and foremost trying to protect and expand their own interests and prestige. Whether they call themselves USA or Austria is secondary. Also, trying to extrapolate how history would have gone if country X had/hadn't done this or that. Perhaps the third reich would have collapsed on itself, perhaps it would have conquered the entire world together with Japan and sent astronauts to paint a giant swastika inside a rising sun on the moon.

Damn. Now I've forgotten what it was I originally wanted to put in this post.

ever since I enlightened myself I've become highly Anti-whatever races make up Saudi-arabia/Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran and alomst any country in the middle east,

they threaten my plans for the world in the future.

That is just fantasy.

1. German technology was not superior to Allied technology, just different. Germany...
a. ) Never developed a successful long range bomber
b. ) Never developed a successful long range fighter
c. ) Jet tech was equivalent to the allies
b. ) Inferior radar technology
e. ) German tanks were wonderful...but too complex to produce, big and unreliable. For each Panther that was made, the Russians produced 11 T-34s. That is a lot of tanks...and the T-34 was arguably the best tank of the war.
D.) No computer tech. Two of the biggest advances of the war: Computer controlled naval gunnery and computer assisted code breaking belonged to the allies.

and....

F. ) The allies were FAR ahead in developing nuclear weapons. That was the trump card. Hitler could have had Europe, but once the A-bomb was built, the game was over.

I will grant you that German rocket technology was far in advance of it's day, but ultimately the V program only served as a distraction from weapons that would actually have been useful.

Also, even if Japan and Germany could have "won", it is unlikely they would have been able to hold onto their possessions. The US would likely have just kept supplying guerillas in occupied territories by air drop or by submarine. And the Eur-Asian land mass is a pretty big battlefield.


I agree with everything you said here except two statements. The T-34 was far from being the most powerful tank of the war. The Tiger V tank Germany had fit that bill. It was the best tank in the world until the mid 1950's.

T-34's (so named because the Soviets first started producing them in 1934) came with a 76mm main gun, had a top speed of 53 kph (33 mph) and 1 in 10 of them had an AM radio in it for receiving orders.

The German Tiger V "King Tiger" was slower (38kph) but had 150mm thick armor in front, an 88mm main gun with a much higher muzzle velocity than the T-34, enabling it to penetrate armor even as thick as its own, and every german tank came with an FM radio.

And you said that we used computers on our battleships. We did have computer technology for breaking codes, but it was all based on relays - transistor technology didn't exist until 1964. Though battleship guns were fired electronically (as were torpedos on submarines and destroyers), they did not use what we would term "computers" to fire those guns.

But everything else you said is dead on, IMO.

Americans don't send our soldiers to target innocents. At this point I'm sure someone will point out a time when a soldier has done so but we never send troops with that as a mission.

The terrorists who, on the orders of a militant Muslim cleric, go and die for a belief do it by targeting innocents. Big difference.

Right. We let all the innocents out of Fallujia and we kept the terrorists in. We used that oh-so-reliable method of:
Q, Are you a terrorist?
A, Yes... I mean no... I mean... Oh crap.

In the 80's we arranged for terrorists to blow up two heavily trafficed bridges in Nicaragua. Killing civilians for the express purpose of embarrasing the Sandanista government.

In the first year of the Bush administration the Taliban sent terrorists to blow up two heavily populated buildings for the express purpose of embarrasing the Bush government.

In the first year of the Clinton administration they arranged for the same thing with far less success.

Same difference.

Germany would have conquers at least all of Europe(had they kept on bombing Britain) and the V-2 Rocket landed in London(maybe it did?)

anyway, Germany produced the best Tanks in the world(but the Soviets could out-produce them) numbers beats technology anyday.

Americans die not in vain, but in the name of freedom. American soldiers are one of the only forces on earth that is willing to risk their lives for the sake of someone else's freedom. That is not respected by those with anti-american sentiment due to some political preferences, which really is a shame.

I've already pointed out that there's a world of difference between "In the name of" and "for the purpose of."

e.g. Clinton went after the '93 bombers for the purpose of capturing them and finding information about them. He didn't do it in the name of anything.

Bush went after Iraq for the purpose of controlling their oil market. He did it in the name of fighting terrorism, but there wasn't any terrorism there.

What you do things "in the name of" is pretty meaningless.

You see, you can do anything in the name of anything. I can wipe my ass 'in the name of' hygene, consumerism, or the love of Sherly Temple movies, but I can only do it 'for the purpose of' getting rid of crap. By the same token I can vote 'in the name of' democracy, liberalism, or good dental health, but... well, I think you see where I'm going with this.

We were out manned and out gunned. We picked up arms, fought and won our freedom. Paid in blood by our forefathers then and now with the blood our soldiers you demean.

And the French navy.

I assume somebody else will argue with that better than me, so I won't bother.

What is the point of this entire thread? I dont hate America, i dont always agree with their international policy but i dont find this a reason to get so angry. I get really annoyed by people who moan on and on just because someone called a politician a nasty name or made xenophobic comments about how a certain nation "are all the same" im British and we're an international joke, I dont get so offended. Grow up all of you. We're all different.

What is the point of this entire thread? I dont hate America, i dont always agree with their international policy but i dont find this a reason to get so angry. I get really annoyed by people who moan on and on just because someone called a politician a nasty name or made xenophobic comments about how a certain nation "are all the same" im British and we're an international joke, I dont get so offended. Grow up all of you. We're all different.
I'm not.

I'm not happy with the US's current strategy in Iraq. I believe they and the rest of the coalition should stay until the job is done. But its seems that due to public pressure in the US the army has reached the point where its main objective is to protect its soldiers lives. This is not a bad thing of course, but it seems to be at the expense of stability. This is only going to create more animosity amongst iraqis and benefit the insurgents.
Amen, thank you Jesus.

There are no signs of the United States falling from being the only world superpower. The Cold War gave it more of a headstart than it would need. Perhaps in a while, of course. All nations rise and fall. But what other nation has grown so powerful in such a short period of time? How long have Japan, China, Spain, France, Britain, and other such powers existed, how long did it take them to reach their peak? Then consider their peak was a molehill to where the US is now. And a feat like that does not come by luck.

Yes it does. America was lucky enough to be located far enough away from all the fighting in Europe to build up a large force to bring to bear there. America was lucky enough to be a land with abundant natural resources. By a relativly small margin it was lucky enough to win the battles needed to maintain that territory. America was lucky that France was willing to help out the revolution for no reason beyond "punking" England, and luckier still than England was too preoccupied with France to press the war of 1812. It can't have been skill, because England won practically every major battle in both of those wars.



How is giving food to a homeless person who hasn't eaten a real meal in days serve a higher purpose than you eating it when you had a smaller breakfast than normal?

How is giving him pixiesticks and gum serving a higher purpose.

How is working at an understaffed hospital for free to help people serve a higher purpose when you just feel like going home and sleeping or playing videogames?

How is it helping if you have no credentials and are doing heart surgery there?

How is freeing 27,000,000 people from a tyrannical totalitarian government and creating a foothold for democracy in the worst region in the world serve a higher purpose when your gas prices have increased an amazing 50 cents?

How does it help to let them have elections when they knew nothing about the candidates?
How does it help them when they have no water or electricity?
How does it help when we took away a leader who was able to keep order and we can't even keep out terrorist bombers?

If you have no love for your country, then I suggest you leave and make room for the thousands waiting to get in.

Funny how it's those who claim to love it the most are also usually the ones trying to keep immigrants out. Sure they claim that their objection is to the "illegal" more than the "immigrant" but when you suggest simply permitting immigration they just sort of shuffle their feet and mutter under their breaths.

CH!

I want to sign up. But do to me being formally diagnosed with something that is none of your business, I am ineligable to sign up according to a recruiter that I talked to.

As for the mother, yes she is upset. She's a mother and I won't deny her that right. But I bet you 3-1 that her son died in a cause the he believed in. That should make her feel proud.

Can I guess? A condition of hepatic pallor that causes jaundice that is mostly localized in the spinal column and abdomen?

The military hasn't been all that picky about who they take lately. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/national/main696991.shtml) I daresay you could get in if you wanted to. Why do you hate America?

WRONG!!

A lovely well argued thesis.

The bulk of the people in Iraq HATE these insurgents you defend here. You make it sound like the people of Iraq didn't want us to free them. A small minority of radicals don't want us there and you assume that they are the majority voice because they have the same point of view that you do.

You don't care what the majority of Iraqis think because it conflicts with your opinion.

I guess you've polled them, huh?

You do realize that the US hires Public Relations firms to go over there and make it look like the Iraqi's want us there, and it still doesn't look like they want us there.

That thing with the Saddam statue? If you see the footage filmed from a distance you can see that that event was in a square that was practically empty. A few people were brought in to pretend there was some sort of massive celebration. It was a publicity stunt for our benifit.

There were similar concerns in France at the end of WWII. DuGaulle had to hold the Resistence back so that they wouldn't give the Germans cause to return with an invasion force, but he had to get them to drive out the Germans early enough that American's coulnd't claim that they "liberated" their cities. We call it liberation. They call it invasion.

WRONG!!

In a seperate post:

you proponents of change seem to be a spiteful, unhappy lot because you seem argue the points less often, prefering to just get pissed off. Rather than tell me why you disagree, you just get snippy.

I consider myself to be posessed of a fairly ironic sense of humor. I just wish I could top some of the stuff you Bushmen seem to come up with. British humor has nothing on Republican ignorance.

A lovely well argued thesis.



I guess you've polled them, huh?

You do realize that the US hires Public Relations firms to go over there and make it look like the Iraqi's want us there, and it still doesn't look like they want us there.

That thing with the Saddam statue? If you see the footage filmed from a distance you can see that that event was in a square that was practically empty. A few people were brought in to pretend there was some sort of massive celebration. It was a publicity stunt for our benifit.

There were similar concerns in France at the end of WWII. DuGaulle had to hold the Resistence back so that they wouldn't give the Germans cause to return with an invasion force, but he had to get them to drive out the Germans early enough that American's coulnd't claim that they "liberated" their cities. We call it liberation. They call it invasion.


yes I've polled. I've polled soldiers who've come back here and they've polled the people that live there. I've yet to have one tell me they hear a lot of resentment for our freeing those people.

And saddam Hussein kept order by doing things you liberals bash ONLY americans for doing, if and when we do it. It's OK for Saddam to torture people in horrifying ways, but it's not ok for the US to do it. I'm not advocating torture, but by stating what you did about saddam keeping order, it's obviously ok with you, so long as someone besides the US is doing it.

It's OK for Saddam to torture people in horrifying ways, but it's not ok for the US to do it.
It's not OK for anyone to torture people, and America, among an entire series of mind-blowingly stupid actions taken in the last four years, decided that torturing people is A-OK.

I guess you just don't understand how far America has tumbled in the regards of people and of governments and of human rights watchdog agencies in the last while. I mean, it seems like you're peripherally aware of it, but in a vague and undefined way.

It wasn't okay to torture people. It wasn't okay to prop up Saddam, a known torturer and dictator, when it suited American interests. And it wasn't okay to help install Saddam in the first place. The Hell you people have helped inflict on the Iraqi people over the last few decades is in no way offset by your invasion and occupation of their nation.

In a seperate post:



I consider myself to be posessed of a fairly ironic sense of humor. I just wish I could top some of the stuff you Bushmen seem to come up with. British humor has nothing on Republican ignorance.

Calling it irony doesn't change the fact that it's angry spite. We state opinions and facts as arguing points.

You resort to name calling.

It's not OK for anyone to torture people, and America, among an entire series of mind-blowingly stupid actions taken in the last four years, decided that torturing people is A-OK.

I guess you just don't understand how far America has tumbled in the regards of people and of governments and of human rights watchdog agencies in the last while. I mean, it seems like you're peripherally aware of it, but in a vague and undefined way.

It wasn't okay to torture people. It wasn't okay to prop up Saddam, a known torturer and dictator, when it suited American interests. And it wasn't okay to help install Saddam in the first place. The Hell you people have helped inflict on the Iraqi people over the last few decades is in no way offset by your invasion and occupation of their nation.

I'm not disputing your points here Dobbs. I said what I did there because Domici stated that Saddam was able to keep order while the US can't stop the insurgents, an obvious remark to criticize US competence in that matter. I was only stating that if we were able to use the methods Saddam deployed to keep order, we wouldn't have an insurgency problem. I am NOT advocating using those methods, however.

I agree with everything you said here except two statements. The T-34 was far from being the most powerful tank of the war. The Tiger V tank Germany had fit that bill. It was the best tank in the world until the mid 1950's.

T-34's (so named because the Soviets first started producing them in 1934) came with a 76mm main gun, had a top speed of 53 kph (33 mph) and 1 in 10 of them had an AM radio in it for receiving orders.

The German Tiger V "King Tiger" was slower (38kph) but had 150mm thick armor in front, an 88mm main gun with a much higher muzzle velocity than the T-34, enabling it to penetrate armor even as thick as its own, and every german tank came with an FM radio.

And you said that we used computers on our battleships. We did have computer technology for breaking codes, but it was all based on relays - transistor technology didn't exist until 1964. Though battleship guns were fired electronically (as were torpedos on submarines and destroyers), they did not use what we would term "computers" to fire those guns.

But everything else you said is dead on, IMO.

Couple of corrections:

1. The T-34 did not begin production in 1934. It's design started in 1938 and the first year of production was 1940.

http://www.falconbbs.com/t-34-76.htm

2. There was not a Tiger V. The heaviest tank (not tank destroyer) the Wehrmacht possesed was the Tiger II or King Tiger as you rightfully pointed out. However, despite it's 88 main gun and incredibly thick armor, it was very slow, used too much gas, had an underpowered Maybach engine and exerted so much ground pressure on it's narrow treads that is actually tore up roads. This limited their use.

But their biggest issue, as with most of the German tanks, was that they were too hard to produce. This meant fewer tanks to cover a specific distance of front. Therefore, often if you couldn't take on a Tiger II...you could go around it.

The allied tanks on the other hand, could be produced by the thousands.

3. Yes, computers were used to calculating the firing solution on US battleships.

Otherwise, I concur. Maybe we need a best tank thread! :D

You want the military to kick you out of the US? How odd?


so basically they thought I love america so instead of free-ing it from idiots im gonna go free iraq from a puppet government who's strings are held by america?

yes I've polled. I've polled soldiers who've come back here and they've polled the people that live there. I've yet to have one tell me they hear a lot of resentment for our freeing those people.

And saddam Hussein kept order by doing things you liberals bash ONLY americans for doing, if and when we do it. It's OK for Saddam to torture people in horrifying ways, but it's not ok for the US to do it. I'm not advocating torture, but by stating what you did about saddam keeping order, it's obviously ok with you, so long as someone besides the US is doing it.

Well said Nerion. I love it how liberals don't even listen to those that state positive things that is going on over there nor care for what they think. They only care about the negatives and that is not good at all.

Keep telling the truth Nerion. These people need it even though they can't handle the truth.

And Domici, it is taking everything I have not to lash out at your absurdities.

Not to threadjack but heavest tank was the Maus (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz7.htm)

Couple of corrections:

1. The T-34 did not begin production in 1934. It's design started in 1938 and the first year of production was 1940.

http://www.falconbbs.com/t-34-76.htm

2. There was not a Tiger V. The heaviest tank (not tank destroyer) the Wehrmacht possesed was the Tiger II or King Tiger as you rightfully pointed out. However, despite it's 88 main gun and incredibly thick armor, it was very slow, used too much gas, had an underpowered Maybach engine and exerted so much ground pressure on it's narrow treads that is actually tore up roads. This limited their use.

But their biggest issue, as with most of the German tanks, was that they were too hard to produce. This meant fewer tanks to cover a specific distance of front. Therefore, often if you couldn't take on a Tiger II...you could go around it.

The allied tanks on the other hand, could be produced by the thousands.

3. Yes, computers were used to calculating the firing solution on US battleships.

Otherwise, I concur. Maybe we need a best tank thread! :D

Calling it irony doesn't change the fact that it's angry spite. We state opinions and facts as arguing points.

You resort to name calling.

Not to the exclusion of arguing points though. Whenever I start out by calling bullshit I back it up with either factual evidence that is in common circulation, or facts with sources. Whenever I'm arguing against errors in logic I present what I consider to be more accurate logic.

I've never responded to a post where the only thing I've had to say was "WRONG."

Not to the exclusion of arguing points though. Whenever I start out by calling bullshit I back it up with either factual evidence that is in common circulation, or facts with sources. Whenever I'm arguing against errors in logic I present what I consider to be more accurate logic.

I've never responded to a post where the only thing I've had to say was "WRONG."

Considering what you and most liberals on here are stating as wrong, that is about the only answer one can get since reason is lost on all liberals on this board.

It is in human nature to take what you can get. America wasnt born out of an empty continent. It was taken with force from the native americans. America used some questionable tactics to secure the land now known as the good ole USA. We as Americans need to stop acting like we are the saviors of the world. Maybe democracy isnt the best policy for everyone. Who decided that the best way to govern was democracy? All I know is america is no better than any other country that was ever a power in the world. Its when said country stops its violent ways that it falls apart. World history has proved this time and again.

yes I've polled. I've polled soldiers who've come back here and they've polled the people that live there. I've yet to have one tell me they hear a lot of resentment for our freeing those people.

Oh. Silly me. When you said "the majority" wants us there I assumed that the "the majority" you were talking about were the Iraqi's. I suppose it was presumptuous of me to interprate your arguments in such a way that they would actually have a point.

I've spoken to several Marine's on the matter. The college I go to is a popular one for ex-servicemen availing themselves of the GI bill. A handful of them still use the old Clinton bashing rhetoric, but the majority of them tell me that they're going through "de-programming" (their words not mine). It was one of those Marines that told me about how they weren't getting their hazard duty pay as they were supposed to.

He also told me that he was part of the team giving logistical aid to the Tutsis in Rwanda under Clinton. So when genocides were going on under Clinton he actually did something about them. When Reagan/Bush/Bush were in control they just let it all burn until it became a convenient talking point.

And saddam Hussein kept order by doing things you liberals bash ONLY americans for doing, if and when we do it. It's OK for Saddam to torture people in horrifying ways, but it's not ok for the US to do it. I'm not advocating torture, but by stating what you did about saddam keeping order, it's obviously ok with you, so long as someone besides the US is doing it.

No one is arguing that Saddam was a nice guy. The argument is that if we're going to start wars over humanitarian issues then there are better places to do it than in Iraq. Places that it will cost us less in blood and treasure to do more good in human rights and civil liberty. All we've done in Iraq is substitute our rape rooms for the Ba'thists' and Jyhadist terror for Saddam's. i.e. You have no argument on which to base your favoring the Iraq war.

What you think is an argument that the Iraq war was, and the occupation is, a good thing actually boils down (when looked at objectivly) to "There's some good from it, some bad from it, none of us know how to do the math that figures out which was bigger, so I'm not going to worry about it."

Ya,know in a vacume you'd right BUT we can't put Iraq in a vacume. We need to look at the history of the region as a whole. Between the Brits carving the area up arbitrily after WWI, the politicy of WWII, the Cold War Iraq acting a proxy for the West against Iran, the "Oil for Food" debacle. There are many bloody hands in a way Saddam was a Frankenstein's Monster we (the US and others) built and dismantling it is a problem. Since 9/11 the has had a "gloves off" atittude and took a hard shift to the right. That mixed with the 3 WORST presidential canidates in living memory (If Bush,Kerrey and Gore with the best we could come up with we're fucked) has lead us to where we are now if Islamist terror can be put in check long enough for the US to scab over you will see a return to a more rational time in America. That being said I agree with the war in Iraq, I hate that Bush lied, I wish he would have had the balls to just come out and say the simple brutal truth we are fighting there so we aren't fighting here.


It's not OK for anyone to torture people, and America, among an entire series of mind-blowingly stupid actions taken in the last four years, decided that torturing people is A-OK.

I guess you just don't understand how far America has tumbled in the regards of people and of governments and of human rights watchdog agencies in the last while. I mean, it seems like you're peripherally aware of it, but in a vague and undefined way.

It wasn't okay to torture people. It wasn't okay to prop up Saddam, a known torturer and dictator, when it suited American interests. And it wasn't okay to help install Saddam in the first place. The Hell you people have helped inflict on the Iraqi people over the last few decades is in no way offset by your invasion and occupation of their nation.

And Domici, it is taking everything I have not to lash out at your absurdities.

Go ahead. I've yet to be impressed by the floppy noodle of your less than pointed logic.

Americans are an inferior race.

.....this comes from a friggin' goat!!!!!

Couple of corrections:

1. The T-34 did not begin production in 1934. It's design started in 1938 and the first year of production was 1940.

http://www.falconbbs.com/t-34-76.htm

2. There was not a Tiger V. The heaviest tank (not tank destroyer) the Wehrmacht possesed was the Tiger II or King Tiger as you rightfully pointed out. However, despite it's 88 main gun and incredibly thick armor, it was very slow, used too much gas, had an underpowered Maybach engine and exerted so much ground pressure on it's narrow treads that is actually tore up roads. This limited their use.

But their biggest issue, as with most of the German tanks, was that they were too hard to produce. This meant fewer tanks to cover a specific distance of front. Therefore, often if you couldn't take on a Tiger II...you could go around it.

The allied tanks on the other hand, could be produced by the thousands.

3. Yes, computers were used to calculating the firing solution on US battleships.

Otherwise, I concur. Maybe we need a best tank thread! :D

They called it a Tiger V - not sure if that meant 5 or what - it's also been called the tiger B. What kind of computers fired the guns on the battleship since all computers during that time would have had to have been made with relays?

Go ahead. I've yet to be impressed by the floppy noodle of your less than pointed logic.

Sorry but if I get going, I'll get a forum ban for awhile for flaming! I'm not going to be baited into it either.

Learn facts before spouting is all I'm going to say.

Not to the exclusion of arguing points though. Whenever I start out by calling bullshit I back it up with either factual evidence that is in common circulation, or facts with sources. Whenever I'm arguing against errors in logic I present what I consider to be more accurate logic.

I've never responded to a post where the only thing I've had to say was "WRONG."

I explained why I disagreed, even if I didn't do so in that post. But you posted your comment to my "wrong" post well after I'd explained my reason for disagreeing. If you were going through the thread in order and saw that one first, then I understand why you did so without reading my other posts.

Oh. Silly me. When you said "the majority" wants us there I assumed that the "the majority" you were talking about were the Iraqi's. I suppose it was presumptuous of me to interprate your arguments in such a way that they would actually have a point.


The majority I was talking about WERE Iraqis. Just because I got my information second hand from people who were there doesn't invalidate it. As I said, I've yet to hear anyone who'd been there say the majority of people they spoke with there disagreed with us going in there. Most Iraqis are happy we liberated them and deeply resent the minority insurgent group.

The insurgents are a small minority that continues to diminish - and Domici - MOST of the insurgents aren't even Iraqis anymore. Most of them are Syrian, Iranian or Jordanian.

The majority I was talking about WERE Iraqis. Just because I got my information second hand from people who were there doesn't invalidate it. As I said, I've yet to hear anyone who'd been there say the majority of people they spoke with there disagreed with us going in there. Most Iraqis are happy we liberated them and deeply resent the minority insurgent group.

The insurgents are a small minority that continues to diminish - and Domici - MOST of the insurgents aren't even Iraqis anymore. Most of them are Syrian, Iranian or Jordanian.

Nerion, forget it. Most liberals don't like the fact that we are using frontline info to debunk their arguements.

Nerion, forget it. Most liberals don't like the fact that we are using frontline info to debunk their arguements.

So it seems.

Considering what you and most liberals on here are stating as wrong, that is about the only answer one can get since reason is lost on all liberals on this board.

I'm not saying that what he was saying wasn't correct. I'm saying that his response, and entire argument, was the single word in all caps, "WRONG."

I've never done that. When I'm trying to argue a point I always have either an argument based on logic, or facts that contratict the point of the post to which I am responding. Sometimes I will respond without a reasoned argument or sources of facts, and in those cases it's almost always a joke whose only purpose is to be funny to those who already understand my logic and know the facts I'm alluding to. Even then I often present the logic behind if if people don't get it.

You and Nerion OTH claim that you're privy to the truth because you're "close to the military," without considering the possibility that liberals may have friends and family in or from the military too. You both seem to think that balanced input is finding propaganda that you believe to balance out the facts that you find troubling, you've actually said so explicitly yourself.

Neither you nor Nerion seems capable of much logic. You use talking points as fact, regardless of the authenticity of those points. And you argue tenuously derived conjectures from those facts as though they're facts in their own right. Like when you said that it doesn't matter that the military being unable to meet its recruiting goals is made up for by the fact that fewer people than they thought are getting the hell out, even though they need MORE people now than they did before. You don't even see how horrendously lacking your logic is. To you it's like every piece of news has the same value so you just add up the good news, subtract the bad news, and whatever you're left with is your net news value.

Troops coming home minus arms and legs -1
Troops coming home at all +1
Swarms of terrorists created by our imperialistic arrogance -1
We're killing some of them +1
We're killing thousands of innocent civilians in the name of setting them free -1
We're setting them free +1
Some of them probably deserved it +1

Final tally on Iraq war +1. Good News.

Huge upsurge in manufacturing jobs +1
It turns out that they just reclassified McDonalds from food service to manufacturing -1
There was a big recession after Bush took office -1
He called it the Clinton recession +1
It started to recover +1
It finally got back to the point that it was at when he came into office +1

Final tally on Bush economy +2 (or double plus) Good news. [/sarcasm]

I'm not saying that what he was saying wasn't correct. I'm saying that his response, and entire argument, was the single word in all caps, "WRONG."

I've never done that. When I'm trying to argue a point I always have either an argument based on logic, or facts that contratict the point of the post to which I am responding. Sometimes I will respond without a reasoned argument or sources of facts, and in those cases it's almost always a joke whose only purpose is to be funny to those who already understand my logic and know the facts I'm alluding to. Even then I often present the logic behind if if people don't get it.

You and Nerion OTH claim that you're privy to the truth because you're "close to the military," without considering the possibility that liberals may have friends and family in or from the military too. You both seem to think that balanced input is finding propaganda that you believe to balance out the facts that you find troubling, you've actually said so explicitly yourself.

Neither you nor Nerion seems capable of much logic. You use talking points as fact, regardless of the authenticity of those points. And you argue tenuously derived conjectures from those facts as though they're facts in their own right. Like when you said that it doesn't matter that the military being unable to meet its recruiting goals is made up for by the fact that fewer people than they thought are getting the hell out, even though they need MORE people now than they did before. You don't even see how horrendously lacking your logic is. To you it's like every piece of news has the same value so you just add up the good news, subtract the bad news, and whatever you're left with is your net news value.

Troops coming home minus arms and legs -1
Troops coming home at all +1
Swarms of terrorists created by our imperialistic arrogance -1
We're killing some of them +1
We're killing thousands of innocent civilians in the name of setting them free -1
We're setting them free +1
Some of them probably deserved it +1

Final tally on Iraq war +1. Good News.

Huge upsurge in manufacturing jobs +1
It turns out that they just reclassified McDonalds from food service to manufacturing -1
There was a big recession after Bush took office -1
He called it the Clinton recession +1
It started to recover +1
It finally got back to the point that it was at when he came into office +1

Final tally on Bush economy +2 (or double plus) Good news. [/sarcasm]


So what you are saying is that you didn't disagree with me. You just got all pissy because I said wrong. So like a LOT of people here, you stepped OUT of the argument and criticized the WAY I argued rather than my argument itself.

So much for being someone who argues a point based on logic, Domici.

A lot of the soldiers I talked to are from liberal families. Many disagree with the war. It doesn't change what they told me Iraqis said to them while they were over there.

And if you find what Corneliu and I post here to be false, why don't you enlighten us with evidence to the contrary? You're doing exactly what you're accusing us of doing - I am saying soldiers tell me the Iraqis are happy we went in there. I know they want us to leave. But they don't want us to do it tonight. Sure you only have my word that soldiers are saying that to me. But your disagreements with me are the same, bro.

Don't criticize me for not having more facts if you haven't got any.

What kind of computers fired the guns on the battleship since all computers during that time would have had to have been made with relays?

Ah! I see what you mean.

As far as I know...NONE. I think I originally wrote "Computer Controlled", but probably should have been more specific. The computers were used to figure the firing solution, but they did not actually load and fire the guns.

Sorry but if I get going, I'll get a forum ban for awhile for flaming! I'm not going to be baited into it either.

Learn facts before spouting is all I'm going to say.

I learn plenty of facts. But I don't consider you telling me "I know a guy who knew some guys..." to be a fact. If you've got facts that you think trump mine then please, by all means, share them. Have you any sources at all? I am genuinly curious. But the biased opinion of a guy basing his opinion on other people's biased opinions isn't fact. Aside from the fact that that's what you're doing. But the opinions and the source opinions aren't facts.

Ah! I see what you mean.

As far as I know...NONE. I think I originally wrote "Computer Controlled", but probably should have been more specific. The computers were used to figure the firing solution, but they did not actually load and fire the guns.

Ahhhh, ok. I understand what you meant now.

I learn plenty of facts. But I don't consider you telling me "I know a guy who knew some guys..."

Funny. I've talked to guys that were there. IN IRAQ! They are saying the samething that Nerion is hearing from other soldiers. Sorry to burst your bubble but I find them more credible than the crap your spewing.

to be a fact. If you've got facts that you think trump mine then please, by all means, share them.

We have shared them. They don't agree with your logic.

Have you any sources at all?

The troops that are there are my sources!

I am genuinly curious. But the biased opinion of a guy basing his opinion on other people's biased opinions isn't fact. Aside from the fact that that's what you're doing. But the opinions and the source opinions aren't facts.


Sorry but you are so full of illogical statements, I don't know why I bother to post true statements from people that have been and currently are in the region. No one seems to listen to them. Alwell.

I explained why I disagreed, even if I didn't do so in that post. But you posted your comment to my "wrong" post well after I'd explained my reason for disagreeing. If you were going through the thread in order and saw that one first, then I understand why you did so without reading my other posts.

So then what was the purpose of you're posting a reply that consisted of nothing other than the word "WRONG"?

It sounds like spite, but that can't be true, because that's what I'm being accused of. Oh, wait, are you employing the Projection Strategy that is so popular with Republicans these days?

You know...
Bush is a draft dodging deserter, so criticize Kerry's war record.
Bush is a flip flopper, so try to misconstrue something that Kerry said twice as not being identical each time.
A prosperous Clinton presidency turned into a recession after Bush took office, so call it "the Clinton Recession."
Saddam is a liar who doesn't do what the UN says, so we have to remove him from power. Even if we have to lie and defy the UN says in order to do it.

That would certainly explain a lot.

So then what was the purpose of you're posting a reply that consisted of nothing other than the word "WRONG"?

Because your post was wrong?

It sounds like spite, but that can't be true, because that's what I'm being accused of. Oh, wait, are you employing the Projection Strategy that is so popular with Republicans these days?

Funny that the Democrats are doing the exact same damn thing.

You know...
Bush is a draft dodging deserter, so criticize Kerry's war record.

This is so false it aint funny. Hard to be a draft dodger when your in the AIR NATIONAL GUARD! BTW: Bush never criticized Kerry's war record.

Bush is a flip flopper, so try to misconstrue something that Kerry said twice as not being identical each time.

You can't misconstrue some of the things Kerry said.

A prosperous Clinton presidency turned into a recession after Bush took office, so call it "the Clinton Recession."

UHHH! The recession started during the Clinton Administration. SOmething else that liberals don't like to hear.

Saddam is a liar who doesn't do what the UN says, so we have to remove him from power. Even if we have to lie and defy the UN says in order to do it.

I didn't know we lied! I thought we had bad intelligence from most of the world's intelligence. Also, he didn't lie regarding the oppression that the Kurds and Shi'ites had to endure.

That would certainly explain a lot.

Yep, a few more false statements from you.

So then what was the purpose of you're posting a reply that consisted of nothing other than the word "WRONG"?

It sounds like spite, but that can't be true, because that's what I'm being accused of. Oh, wait, are you employing the Projection Strategy that is so popular with Republicans these days?

You know...
Bush is a draft dodging deserter, so criticize Kerry's war record.
Bush is a flip flopper, so try to misconstrue something that Kerry said twice as not being identical each time.
A prosperous Clinton presidency turned into a recession after Bush took office, so call it "the Clinton Recession."
Saddam is a liar who doesn't do what the UN says, so we have to remove him from power. Even if we have to lie and defy the UN says in order to do it.

That would certainly explain a lot.


No. I disagreed with the assertion that the majority of Iraqis were unhappy that we went in there. That's it.

Rather than counter my argument, you got pissy and attacked my quip of a post (I'll admit it was a quip). You didn't attack my argument - just the way I did so. Well you can criticize my methods all you want.

Come back when you want to actually discuss the topic being disputed.

Well I'm out for now. I'll be back on later or tomorrow.

Funny. I've talked to guys that were there. IN IRAQ! They are saying the samething that Nerion is hearing from other soldiers. Sorry to burst your bubble but I find them more credible than the crap your spewing.
Me too. I told you that already. Those who just got out sound like you two. Those who've been out longer, and are starting to readjust to civilian life, don't. You see critical thinking is a dangerous skill for a soldier to develop. It can get them killed if it makes them hesitate, it can get them imprisoned if they question.

Your "sources" (I use the quotes because if you can't share them then they're not sources. In social sciences (such as politics) and history sources are things you can show other people so they know that you're interprating your information correctly (it's also to make sure you're being honest, but I don't want to be construed as deliberatly insulting you without cause). If you can't do that then it's not a source, its hearsay) may in fact be honorable men who are telling the truth as best as they can and as they see it, but being a highly qualified soldier doesn't make you an even marginally compotent reporter.

We have shared them. They don't agree with your logic.
The troops that are there are my sources!

Again, I'm asking for facts, you're giving me hearsay.

Sorry but you are so full of illogical statements, I don't know why I bother to post true statements from people that have been and currently are in the region. No one seems to listen to them. Alwell.

I don't know why you bother either. I'm asking for information that can be verified. I don't present you with stuff I hear from military people I know, because you can't talk to them.

When I argue economics I don't say "I know this economist who says..." even though I do know a couple of economists. When I argue about evolution I don't say "I know a youth pastor who says..." even though I do, nor to I say "I know a biologist who says..." even though I do. Unless you know the same people and can appraise the evidence that they have, then what I have to say about what they had to say is meaningless. You really shouldn't bother posting it if your intention is to debate a topic. If you're just looking to shoot the e-breeze then fine, but if you're going to call me on my use of logic and facts then you'd better at least know what those things mean.

They're not a source. Articles and books are sources. Photographs and video footage are sources. Guys you know aren't sources and things you say they said aren't facts.

EDIT: And yes I know that technically Marines aren't soldiers, but in common parlance a soldier is anyone who fights for a country in a uniform.

No. I disagreed with the assertion that the majority of Iraqis were unhappy that we went in there. That's it.

Rather than counter my argument, you got pissy and attacked my quip of a post (I'll admit it was a quip). You didn't attack my argument - just the way I did so. Well you can criticize my methods all you want.

Come back when you want to actually discuss the topic being disputed.

The way you present your arguments is an entierly valid part of any discussion. If the way you present your points undermines them then your points are... well, pointless.

I've already argued that having friends who were in the military is not a qualification or a source on which to base your arguments. If it was then I'd be doing it.

Domici,

Apparently your not going to accept the words of people that were there so I'm not going to argue it any longer. Your just as closed minded as CH and dobbsworld and that is sad.

Come back to the real world and you might actually learn a few things.

The troops that are there are my sources!


I know a troop member who said that Alberto Gonzalez never authorized the use of dogs in interrogation procedures. "We are taught not to do that from the very start, dude!" he said. Ahh, if only he were correct.

I also know some other troops members who said that they knew what you were going to say on this board, and that we shouldn't believe you! One of them told me they had psychic powers and had convinced the others of his appeal. What, you want sourcing? Dude, the TROOPS are my source! Come back to the real world!

:headbang:

It seems like giving "drive by political commentary" is easy to do, and it is easy to blame everything on the Americans, just like it is easy for everyone to blame everything on the insurance industry, or on big business in general, without any real logic behind the attacks. However, it seems like just a select few that are making most of the Anti american comments, it is just that those few seem to have alot of free time on their hands, which may come from not having a job due to the high unemployment rates in alot of Europe.


Some facts that need to pointed out on this post:

1) There is logic behind the attacks on bug business and the insurance industry. Both have been proven in US courts of law to be corrupt and making advanced efforts to gain while hurting the American people. They are under the Bush/Cheney protection plan however and therefore are not concerned.

2) Unemployment rates in Europe are miniscule in comparison to per capita unemployment in the US. I am glad the company I work for hasn't outsourced to India yet...but I'm sure that is what America is all about.


Just wanted to add my 2 american pennies to this thread. Basically the reason why people are Anti-American is that since 2000, we have become easily hate-able. We destroy the environments of our own and other countries, wage wars that aren't supported or even poignant, and we (politcally) treat the rest of the world like they are infants and we are superior.

Gee, I wonder why people don't like the uppity under educated Americans.

Ok a small point of Clarification the "Boom" was a result of Regan/Bush taxcuts that were removed by Clinton. Clinton raised taxes more than any other president in history. While I'm no great fan of Bush I loathe Clinton.
Bush was not a draft dodger he avoid active duty service by deftly joining the Air Guard, and even alowing for his missing time its slighty slimy but not desertion.

Kerrey volenteered to get what he thought was cushy duty transporting admirals on and off ship in Nam. When he got there the MOS had changed and he ended up in the shit. By all accounts a very self serving and un popular officer again slimy.

So choose your flavor of slime.

I'm not even going to start on the UN I'll be here all week.


So then what was the purpose of you're posting a reply that consisted of nothing other than the word "WRONG"?

It sounds like spite, but that can't be true, because that's what I'm being accused of. Oh, wait, are you employing the Projection Strategy that is so popular with Republicans these days?

You know...
Bush is a draft dodging deserter, so criticize Kerry's war record.
Bush is a flip flopper, so try to misconstrue something that Kerry said twice as not being identical each time.
A prosperous Clinton presidency turned into a recession after Bush took office, so call it "the Clinton Recession."
Saddam is a liar who doesn't do what the UN says, so we have to remove him from power. Even if we have to lie and defy the UN says in order to do it.

That would certainly explain a lot.

So choose your flavor of slime.
I choose 'tight-fisted mean-spirited always-wanting-something-for-nothing and too-much-is-never-enough spoiled-rotten American flavour, please. With extra sour topping.

Ok a small point of Clarification the "Boom" was a result of Regan/Bush taxcuts that were removed by Clinton.

That's ridiculous, and quickly followed up by an equally incorrect statement:

Clinton raised taxes more than any other president in history.
Off the top of my head, I can tell you that both Truman and FDR raised taxes much more than Clinton ever imagined. Read this (http://www.factcheck.org/article173.html) to see your myth rebutted more fully.

Bush's tax cuts, like tax cuts throughout all of American and World history, have done nothing to spur the economy. Trickle-down economics simply does not work. Add on to the fact that all of the fastest-developing nations around the world have higher tax rates than the United States, and it quickly becomes apparent that the tax-cut logic (and the history of it in practice) does not agree with what you're saying.

Because your post was wrong?

Nice try, but that post wasn't replying to one of mine. It was someone else's. You can tell because he refers to the US as "you" instead of "us."

And this doesn't address the point that to make a one word post in all caps is a bit spiteful. I don't have a problem with that, but it's hyocritical to call me spiteful while advocating and making spiteful posts yourselves.

Funny that the Democrats are doing the exact same damn thing.
Really? Tell me one critique of a Republican that's actually true of the Democrat making it.


This is so false it aint funny. Hard to be a draft dodger when your in the AIR NATIONAL GUARD! BTW: Bush never criticized Kerry's war record.
Not that hard. He was in a division nicknamed the "Champagne Unit." Back then the National Guard served to keep the pampered children of the rich out of Vietnam. For all intents and purposes the Air National Guard back then was draft dodging.

Bush was asked several times if he disagreed with the things being said about Kerry's war record, his only response was that we ought to outlaw independent political advocacy groups. BTW that was a flip-flop because he initially said that they were "good for democracy."

You can't misconstrue some of the things Kerry said.

Kerry voted against the bill that authorized Bush to go to war and didn't provide for the means to pay for it, he voted for the authorization bill on the condition that it was only to get Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors in, which he did, and required that the government actually have the money to pay for it, instead of tacking the bill onto the national debt.

That position has been misconstrued as being pro-war, but then becoming anti-war for the sake of political expedience, when it was in fact pro-making Saddam Hussein cooperate with weapons inspections and as long as he does that we shouldn't throw away the lives of your servicemen on making him do what he's already doing.

UHHH! The recession started during the Clinton Administration. SOmething else that liberals don't like to hear.

The recession (http://www.tipponline.com/articles/03/ibd/i031103.htm) started in 2001. The economy generally becomes shakey between presidents because it's a time of uncertainty. Under a good president it will quickly level off, but under Bush it took 5 years for that to even out. And you repubs are saying that it's "firing on all cylinders" because it's finally gotten back to where it was in the first damn place.

It's like in a relay race. If someone's going to drop the baton, it's most likely to be when one person is handing it off to the other, but once you've had it handed to you it's your job to pick it up if you drop it. Bush didn't just drop it, he fumbled and fumbled around for it and now you're all cheering for him like it's the Special Olympics just because things have finally leveled off.

I didn't know we lied! I thought we had bad intelligence from most of the world's intelligence. Also, he didn't lie regarding the oppression that the Kurds and Shi'ites had to endure.

We know that he claimed that Saddam didn't let the weapons inspectors in, because it was all over the news that he did.
We know that he said that Osama bin Laden wasn't important and that Saddam Hussein was, we know that was a lie because he was all over the news saying that Osama wasn't important. (remember, the point here is that he was calling Saddam a liar as a form of Republican Projection.)
We know that Bush wanted war in Iraq all along because of the Downing Street minutes.
I can't find a source that I can share, but if you have access to JSTOR or Lexis Nexis (the latter of which I don't) you can probably find the oil industry's Iraq war plan. On page 73 you'll find what their plans for privatizing Iraq's oil was. But it turned out to be impractical because of Iraq's geography, so now we're setting their oil ministry back up under a sham democracy that we control, while allowing it to fall under Sharia law as "proof" that we don't actually control it. You know, how we don't control Saudi Arabia.

Yep, a few more false statements from you.
If you'd like.
You present a well reasoned and cogent argument.
Bush is so close to compotence that on a really clear day he can see it with a telescope.
The Pope shits in the woods.

Are you high EU12=8.7% (http://www.bnb.be/belgostat/PresentationLinker?Presentation=HTML&TableId=430000069&Lang=E) US=5.0% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

I've heard of Bush being in bed with a lot of differnt groups but the insurance industry ?

Is English a second language for you? If so cool If not, I need to call you task for the rest of the post. I myself my be the world's worst typest so spelling and grammar errors I can live with but the are some questions on meaning.

Some facts that need to pointed out on this post:

1) There is logic behind the attacks on bug business and the insurance industry. Both have been proven in US courts of law to be corrupt and making advanced efforts to gain while hurting the American people. They are under the Bush/Cheney protection plan however and therefore are not concerned.

2) Unemployment rates in Europe are miniscule in comparison to per capita unemployment in the US. I am glad the company I work for hasn't outsourced to India yet...but I'm sure that is what America is all about.


Just wanted to add my 2 american pennies to this thread. Basically the reason why people are Anti-American is that since 2000, we have become easily hate-able. We destroy the environments of our own and other countries, wage wars that aren't supported or even poignant, and we (politcally) treat the rest of the world like they are infants and we are superior.

Gee, I wonder why people don't like the uppity under educated Americans.

Are you high EU12=8.7% (http://www.bnb.be/belgostat/PresentationLinker?Presentation=HTML&TableId=430000069&Lang=E) US=5.0% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

I've heard of Bush being in bed with a lot of differnt groups but the insurance industry ?

Is English a second language for you? If so cool If not, I need to call you task for the rest of the post. I myself my be the world's worst typest so spelling and grammar errors I can live with but the are some questions on meaning.

Okay...I made some spelling errors. English a second language. Not so much, but it is one of 4 that I am fluent in. Bush himself is not in bed with the insurance industry, however his policies (as well as his father's) have allowed the insurance industry (especially Health Insurance) to gain at the dis-benefit of others. Mostly because he is in bed with the Pharmaceutical industry.

Yes it does. America was lucky enough to be located far enough away from all the fighting in Europe to build up a large force to bring to bear there. America was lucky enough to be a land with abundant natural resources. By a relativly small margin it was lucky enough to win the battles needed to maintain that territory. America was lucky that France was willing to help out the revolution for no reason beyond "punking" England, and luckier still than England was too preoccupied with France to press the war of 1812. It can't have been skill, because England won practically every major battle in both of those wars.
America was uninvolved in European policies and wars because of their Monroe Doctrine. America's resources are not so abundant if they rely on the Middle East for oil. It won its territorial wars, such as the Mexican-American and Spanish-American wars by a huge margin. France helped the US because they were at war with Britain and allies obviously are a help, and this only occured after the US forces defeated the British in Saratoga. It was skill, because if militia flee from a battle they cannot possibly win head-on but inflict severe casualties on the redcoats through frontiersmen tactics, then it was as good as a win.
How is giving him pixiesticks and gum serving a higher purpose.
I would hope this is not your idea of charity to the poor. Note: I said meal.
How is it helping if you have no credentials and are doing heart surgery there?
Since when do you need to do heart surgery to help at a hospital? Do you even know what you're talking about?
How does it help to let them have elections when they knew nothing about the candidates?
How does it help them when they have no water or electricity?
How does it help when we took away a leader who was able to keep order and we can't even keep out terrorist bombers?
I don't think getting their platform out was the biggest concern for those running for office, and currently, it is based more off sects than individuals as the times are obviously in turmoil. This will change.
You apparently think that the entire country is without electricity or water, and those places that are do not receive any supplies. Well, once again, in that you are wrong.
Keeping order? Is that the standard for a ruler to you? Hitler and Stalin kept order quite well; are you their advocate, too? And what you fail to realize is that people that appear in every way as a normal citizen are what make up insurgents. They do not wear uniforms or announce their presence. Things are not so easily as you so readily believe.
Funny how it's those who claim to love it the most are also usually the ones trying to keep immigrants out. Sure they claim that their objection is to the "illegal" more than the "immigrant" but when you suggest simply permitting immigration they just sort of shuffle their feet and mutter under their breaths.

I am not against immigration in the least to the US. I simply believe it needs to be structured, but that many many more should be allowed in with far less delay. You assuming what my possitions are isn't exactly a good way to hold a debate. Either way, my question still stands: If you dislike your country so much, why not get out? Seems like common sense to me.