NationStates Jolt Archive

Because I'm not some weirdo who hates human rights.
"human rights" can get in the way of achieving certain goals that are nessescary to protect the nation.

And he/she is not an "it."
Whats the difference

It's not that the Bush administration was wrong, it's that a Democrat/Liberal was NOT the one who invaded Iraq. If Kerry or Gore would have invaded , they would be glorifing them. But, because it's a Republican/ Conservative, they hate it. How could you people not see i before. No offense, but I came up with this theory in about 3 seconds, and I'm 12.

I felt like making a post about all the good America does. We have the biggest and best economy with by far the biggest GDP of any country. We the strongest military and we spend 400 billion dollars a year on it(I think it should be more) and have over 3,000 nukes(should be more). We also have alot of freedom and a great quality of life. Our entertainment is the best in world and alot of people want to be like us. God bless America! I commend you for making this post and remiding people how good we have it here in America. I am glad to see there are people who share my view that America's defences are key. Some people just do not understand that if we do not continue spending money on defence and do not keep ahead of everyone else then it is possible for bad things to happen when the diplomacy stops, and the shooting starts. The reason we do not see all that many long drawn out conflicts with an organized army is that no one wants to fight America beause right now we can always win, it just depends on how far we are willing to go to get this win. Oh yeah one last thingi feel sorry for all those poor ignorant suckers over in Iran, because one night very soon they are going to hear the sound of a cruise missile or a super sonic bomber, just bringing them a reminder of what happens to those who support terrorism.
USA USA USA USA USA USA

I felt like making a post about all the good America does. We have the biggest and best economy with by far the biggest GDP of any country. We the strongest military and we spend 400 billion dollars a year on it(I think it should be more) and have over 3,000 nukes(should be more). We also have alot of freedom and a great quality of life. Our entertainment is the best in world and alot of people want to be like us. God bless America! I commend you for making this post and remiding people how good we have it here in America. I am glad to see there are people who share my view that America's defences are key. Some people just do not understand that if we do not continue spending money on defence and do not keep ahead of everyone else then it is possible for bad things to happen when the diplomacy stops, and the shooting starts. The reason we do not see all that many long drawn out conflicts with an organized army is that no one wants to fight America beause right now we can always win, it just depends on how far we are willing to go to get this win. Oh yeah one last thingi feel sorry for all those poor ignorant suckers over in Iran, because one night very soon they are going to hear the sound of a cruise missile or a super sonic bomber, just bringing them a reminder of what happens to those who support terrorism.
USA USA USA USA USA USA

It's not that the Bush administration was wrong, it's that a Democrat/Liberal was NOT the one who invaded Iraq. If Kerry or Gore would have invaded , they would be glorifing them. But, because it's a Republican/ Conservative, they hate it. How could you people not see i before. No offense, but I came up with this theory in about 3 seconds, and I'm 12.
No, actually, Gore or Kerry never would've gone to war, because they have an IQ higher than 70.

Abbasadorship: Guess what. I'm just all out saying it. You're Hitler.

I commend you for making this post and remiding people how good we have it here in America. I am glad to see there are people who share my view that America's defences are key. Some people just do not understand that if we do not continue spending money on defence and do not keep ahead of everyone else then it is possible for bad things to happen when the diplomacy stops, and the shooting starts. The reason we do not see all that many long drawn out conflicts with an organized army is that no one wants to fight America beause right now we can always win, it just depends on how far we are willing to go to get this win. Oh yeah one last thingi feel sorry for all those poor ignorant suckers over in Iran, because one night very soon they are going to hear the sound of a cruise missile or a super sonic bomber, just bringing them a reminder of what happens to those who support terrorism.
USA USA USA USA USA USA
Thank you, your right on. I told you people many Americans support me.

I commend you for making this post and remiding people how good we have it here in America. I am glad to see there are people who share my view that America's defences are key. Some people just do not understand that if we do not continue spending money on defence and do not keep ahead of everyone else then it is possible for bad things to happen when the diplomacy stops, and the shooting starts. The reason we do not see all that many long drawn out conflicts with an organized army is that no one wants to fight America beause right now we can always win, it just depends on how far we are willing to go to get this win. Oh yeah one last thingi feel sorry for all those poor ignorant suckers over in Iran, because one night very soon they are going to hear the sound of a cruise missile or a super sonic bomber, just bringing them a reminder of what happens to those who support terrorism.
USA USA USA USA USA USAIraq isn't a long drawn out conflict?

I felt like making a post about all the good America does. We have the biggest and best economy with by far the biggest GDP of any country. We the strongest military and we spend 400 billion dollars a year on it(I think it should be more) and have over 3,000 nukes(should be more). We also have alot of freedom and a great quality of life. Our entertainment is the best in world and alot of people want to be like us. God bless America! I commend you for making this post and remiding people how good we have it here in America. I am glad to see there are people who share my view that America's defences are key. Some people just do not understand that if we do not continue spending money on defence and do not keep ahead of everyone else then it is possible for bad things to happen when the diplomacy stops, and the shooting starts. The reason we do not see all that many long drawn out conflicts with an organized army is that no one wants to fight America beause right now we can always win, it just depends on how far we are willing to go to get this win. Oh yeah one last thingi feel sorry for all those poor ignorant suckers over in Iran, because one night very soon they are going to hear the sound of a cruise missile or a super sonic bomber, just bringing them a reminder of what happens to those who support terrorism. They just dont seem to understand that America does not take shit, you cant threaten to build nukes and say you want to destroy our friends without expecting a response, and if they ever were to use or attempt to use a nuke on Isreal or any one of our other allies I support at least a 10:1 trade off ratio. May all supporters of terrorism trembel with fear when they see old glory flying.

USA USA USA USA USA!

No, actually, Gore or Kerry never would've gone to war, because they have an IQ higher than 70.

Abbasadorship: Guess what. I'm just all out saying it. You're Hitler.
I didnt post the post you responded to, its another American who agrees with me. Im not Hilter, hes dead and German.

I didnt post the post you responded to, its another American who agrees with me. Im not Hilter, hes dead and German.
1) I freaking didn't quote you, so don't be an idiot.
2) You are his soul incarnate.

I have seen a site with many things that show how closely related all the things Bush and hitler did are

PS. if nukes are so wonderful, how come nobody else can have any but us?

1) I freaking didn't quote you, so don't be an idiot.
ok, sorry
2) You are his soul incarnate.
I dont have a soul, Im an atheist

ok, sorry

I dont have a soul, Im an atheist
Well, at least you don't pretend to hide behind Christian morals. Okay, your his brain incarnate.

Iraq isn't a long drawn out conflict?
Iraq is not a traditional war, it is urban war. There is no organized army on the Iraqi side, but we are doing a pretty good job containing the insurgents give it another year or so and the insurgency will be as good as gone.

Iraq is not a traditional war, it is urban war. There is no organized army on the Iraqi side, but we are doing a pretty good job containing the insurgents give it another year or so and the insurgency will be as good as gone.
You said conflict. An urban war is still a conflict.

No, actually, Gore or Kerry never would've gone to war, because they have an IQ higher than 70.
You are right Kerry or Gore would have never gone to war but for a different reason. They dont have the balls to go to war. Who knows Kerry could have sat down and had a nice talk with the terrorists who would be glad to lie to him and they would attack us again and Kerry would once again ask for a peace treaty. Yeah GW may not be a PHD but he atleast knows to surround himself with people who are smart. He knows that we negotiations do not work with terrorists, he knows that we must protect America at all costs, most of all he knows how to act. This is so much better than the worthless talking mouthpiece which Kerry would have been.

No, actually, Gore or Kerry never would've gone to war, because they have an IQ higher than 70.

No, Gore probably would have done something. He believes in an interventionist foreign policy, which almost guarantees some action; IIRC he also supported action against Iraq in the 90's.

You are right Kerry or Gore would have never gone to war but for a different reason. They dont have the balls to go to war.Balls or the fact that they're not stupid? Seriously, the reason not to go to war is pretty obvious now. Perhaps Kerry's grayscale world would have been more accepted among the Muslim nations, as opposed to Bush's black and white world of simplicity and inability to understand international relations, and they wouldn't be pissed off at arrogant Americans such as Bush and his administration and attack the U.S.

They each other alot, I dont know where you get your info from
"They each other"? Are you missing a word? If yes, try "hate".

As for my info, you could start here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud230.xml/

And dropping clusterbombs on said retreating troops is normal in warfare too
But not in civilian areas, where people live that you want to help.

No, Gore probably would have done something. He believes in an interventionist foreign policy, which almost guarantees some action; IIRC he also supported action against Iraq in the 90's.
Kerry supported the war as well, as did most democrats. I dont get how people feel democrats are weak on national defence, I mean Im a democrat for Christ sakes. Look at Lieberman, nelson, gore, hell even Clinton are all democrats who support the war and defense(among others). National defense should not be a democrat/republican issue, it should be an American issue.

Well, at least you don't pretend to hide behind Christian morals. Okay, your his brain incarnate.
I hate Christian morals, but I dont believe in incarnation either, so I dont know how I can embody Hilter.

I commend you for making this post and remiding people how good we have it here in America. I am glad to see there are people who share my view that America's defences are key. Some people just do not understand that if we do not continue spending money on defence and do not keep ahead of everyone else then it is possible for bad things to happen when the diplomacy stops, and the shooting starts. The reason we do not see all that many long drawn out conflicts with an organized army is that no one wants to fight America beause right now we can always win, it just depends on how far we are willing to go to get this win. Oh yeah one last thingi feel sorry for all those poor ignorant suckers over in Iran, because one night very soon they are going to hear the sound of a cruise missile or a super sonic bomber, just bringing them a reminder of what happens to those who support terrorism. They just dont seem to understand that America does not take shit, you cant threaten to build nukes and say you want to destroy our friends without expecting a response, and if they ever were to use or attempt to use a nuke on Isreal or any one of our other allies I support at least a 10:1 trade off ratio. May all supporters of terrorism trembel with fear when they see old glory flying.

USA USA USA USA USA!
You dont really feel sorry for them, they could have done right thing, they didnt, oh well I say

I dont have a soul, Im an atheist
:D

I just think that says it all...

sure, with a wmd attack, easily.

Could Iraq have launched a WMD attack on the U.S.A.? Do you think that the risk of terrorism has increased since the war in Iraq because of more angry people with an excuse to hate America?

Attention, Thread.

Do Not Feed The Trolls.

Thank You, That Is All.

I didnt post the post you responded to, its another American who agrees with me. Im not Hilter, hes dead and German.

No, he's dead and austrian.

WOW...

Honestly; if I had the finances, I'd leave America. It's just not the country I thought it was. It doesn't mean I hate America or I'm a traitor, just means a different country would most likely provide a better life for me. After all I am a minority here.

ok, sorry

I dont have a soul, Im an atheist
You don't think you have a soul, you could be wrong!
Just because you are I don't believe would not destroy the soul, if any of the many religions were correct.

WOW...

Honestly; if I had the finances, I'd leave America. It's just not the country I thought it was. It doesn't mean I hate America or I'm a traitor, just means a different country would most likely provide a better life for me. After all I am a minority here.

By leaving you'll just become another minority though

Attention, Thread.

Do Not Feed The Trolls.

Thank You, That Is All.
Bit late for that... I thought this one would have died LONG ago...

Why not kill it, so you dont run the risk of getting shot.
Kill the kid when you didn't need to-because I respect life, i don't kill for the sake of it.

Kill the kid when you didn't need to-because I respect life, i don't kill for the sake of it.
Maybe thats the difference between us, Id kill anything in order to protect the nation. I dont know if Id enjoy it, because Id like to think I respect life, too, but i gotta do what I gotta do.

Could Iraq have launched a WMD attack on the U.S.A.? Do you think that the risk of terrorism has increased since the war in Iraq because of more angry people with an excuse to hate America?
They could have given their wmd to terrorists, which would have struck in America, we stop him just in time. We lowered the risk of terror, people arent more angry with us.

They could have given their wmd to terrorists, which would have struck in America, we stop him just in time. We lowered the risk of terror, people arent more angry with us.

I think a large portion of the population of the Middle East, not to mention much of Europe, woulod disagree on your last point.

You don't think you have a soul, you could be wrong!
Just because you are I don't believe would not destroy the soul, if any of the many religions were correct.
Im pretty sure Im right I this one. Even if there is a god, I think he forgot to put a soul in me, Ive told I can be a cold,unemotional person of sorts. I dont really think its a bad thing, I dont really want a soul.

Maybe thats the difference between us, Id kill anything in order to protect the nation. I dont know if Id enjoy it, because Id like to think I respect life, too, but i gotta do what I gotta do.
How would killing a kid that you could disarm easly protect your nation. Why not disarm him and capture him instead of shooting him.

How would killing a kid that you could disarm easly protect your nation. Why not disarm him and capture him instead of shooting him.
Honestly, it seems alot easier just to shoot it. Beside what am I going to do with it if I capture it?

I think a large portion of the population of the Middle East, not to mention much of Europe, woulod disagree on your last point.

Bumping this for attention.

I think a large portion of the population of the Middle East, not to mention much of Europe, woulod disagree on your last point.
I think most of Afghanistan and Iraq(where it counts) would disagree with you.

I think most of Afghanistan and Iraq(where it counts) would disagree with you.

Really? Iraq, where there is a continued insurgency that has yet to die down and much of the population detests being occupied by a foreign power? Afghanistan, where US soldiers are still being killed to this day, and in which country a stable government has yet to be found, other than a US-backed one?

Don't forget the Middle East as a whole, where the US is vilified by most, and Europe, where the US hardly has any allies left. Face it, the US's name is mud right about now.

Its on the march where we need it to, so its no lie

Nope, if freedom was on the march then that would mean freedom was the priority regardless of US interests. This is, by your own admission, not the case.

As you also prop up dictators and ignore civil liberties when it's in your interests then, by your own definition, tyranny is also on the march (supported by America).

A more accurate description of the situation would be that American interests are on the march and that freedom is irrelevant.

Im not simple, there were wmd in Iraq, he used them, and wanted to use them on us, we stopped just in time. That CIA agent was probably a foreign spy.

You were the one who first refered to yourself as simple friend but you confirm it with this post:

1.) 'he used them, and wanted to use them on us'. if he'd wanted to use them on Americans then he have used them on the invading US army. Here's a question for you: if Saddam had weapons then why didn't he use them when invaded?

2.) This is what truly confirms your simplicity: without even knowing the details of the case you immediately assume that the CIA agent was a foreign spy because he dared to contradict Bush. You don't question whether he might be right and you wrong, you merely assume that if Bush says it then it must be right and follow it with sheep-like simplicity, never thinking to question.

I did, but they have nothing to do with Iraq, as I said b4, I will remind you we werent in Iraq on 9/11

Nothing to do with Iraq? Are you mad? The Madrid Bombings took place to pressure Spain into withdrawing from Iraq and the 7/7 attacks were in protest against the Iraq war. Still say that the invasion didn't cause any terrrorist attacks?

Please don't keep chanting 9/11 for no reason, it isn't big and it isn't clever.

We are alot better

Why? You admit that you will do whatever is in your interests, dictators will do whatever is in their interests. Where is the difference?

I think most of Afghanistan and Iraq(where it counts) would disagree with you.
What the hell are you talking about?

And about the kid thing: you are a sicko. Yeah! There's a 10 year old kid enemy of the US! Let's kill him and piss on his body!:rolleyes:

Honestly, it seems alot easier just to shoot it. Beside what am I going to do with it if I capture it?
So ease to you is above life, he's not and it, but a he. A person. What you usually do is disarm, capture and then take it to your commadning officer, who wopuld then send him to a prisinor of war camp.

At the moment your advocating killing children, that is a little far.

So ease to you is above life, he's not and it, but a he. A person. What you usually do is disarm, capture and then take it to your commadning officer, who wopuld then send him to a prisinor of war camp.
Maybe your right, we could just torture it and find out what it knows, I thought it wasnt an 'it'?

At the moment your advocating killing children, that is a little far.
Why? if protects the nation, say la v(sorry about the french)

c'est la vie

if you want to use french, don't just use english sounding words similar to it.

c'est la vie

if you want to use french, don't just use english sounding words similar to it.
why not, you got what I meant.

but they were aiming at the terrorists

Get this: they weren't aiming, they dropped cluster bombs, cluster bombs aren't aimed, they're thrown wildly around where you want them to land more or less. That area happened to be a civilian area.

But that's okay, because those were all clearly guilty iraqis because the military attacked them, right? and if I am the military and I go shoot you, then you must've been guilty, right?

Iraq is not a traditional war, it is urban war. There is no organized army on the Iraqi side, but we are doing a pretty good job containing the insurgents give it another year or so and the insurgency will be as good as gone.

Oh yeah, sure, insurgents just give up after a while? You do know, historically, people fight for what they believe in for up to a hundred years and more? These guys aren't going to stop anytime soon.

(and you only have twelve posts, almost definitely a puppet nation created to post in this thread and a few others, unless I see you hang around).

They could have given their wmd to terrorists, which would have struck in America, we stop him just in time. We lowered the risk of terror, people arent more angry with us.

People friggen' hate you!

Maybe thats the difference between us, Id kill anything in order to protect the nation. I dont know if Id enjoy it, because Id like to think I respect life, too, but i gotta do what I gotta do.

Nationalism again (see Nazi), and no, you don't respect life. Not when you're ready to kill a kid just because some authority tells you to. I'd be expected to refuse, even as a soldier.


oh yeah, and you really should be intelligent enough to understand the comment that are you Hitler incarnate. In case you can't speak as much english as I can, then I'd like to inform you that what they meant was that in pretty much every aspect, you are like Hitler.

The only difference I see is, you're not well-liked.

why not, you got what I meant.

oh, having friends usually helps superpower status. I just lost a bit of hope in America, and thus, America loses another friend. I voted America is ok, right now, I'd vote America sucks.

Oh yeah, being able to speak foreign languages helps in gaining friends. Don't pretend to use a foreign language that you're going to molest in using.

why not, you got what I meant.
bécosse tisse anne-noye-ying. Datte's ouialle.

oh, having friends usually helps superpower status. I just lost a bit of hope in America, and thus, America loses another friend. I voted America is ok, right now, I'd vote America sucks.
Why, cause we are better than you?

Oh yeah, being able to speak foreign languages helps in gaining friends. Don't pretend to use a foreign language that you're going to molest in using.
I dont molest anything, I dont need other languages, other languages need english, its the worlds language.

Bumping this for attention.

NOOOO! :(

Why, cause we are better than you?


I dont molest anything, I dont need other languages, other languages need english, its the worlds language.

Actually, if I go to the US, I won't get an education. If I got a job, I'd have no security unless I got a contract. I wouldn't have as many perspectives and know as many languages as I do now (three to four fluently as opposed to one fluently or maybe two). I would have a bunch of people trying to brainwash me to give up my freedoms and love a nation (sorry, I love my freedoms to more than my freedoms from). I wouldn't be able to burn my country's flag (ah yes, I am allowed to do that. I am not going to, though, no point). I would get bombarded by a media and people that want to inspire fear in me. I wouldn't be able to trust my government. I wouldn't have as wide a selection in political parties (not perfect, but better than two in one). If I got drafted in the US, I would get sent to war. If I got drafted at home, I cannot legally be sent to war, but only used for defence (hasn't been necessary for over 160 years, so no chance of getting killed by war). I wouldn't be able to drink alcohol.

Oh yeah, and most importantly: because I would have to deal with people like you.

Btw: I don't have a three day weekend, I will probably working roughly eight hours a day every week. I will probably also have a higher average lifespan than you do.

Soooo... you're saying that you're better than where I am?

I also appear to have more mastery of english than you do. On top of that, så kan jeg tale dansk, hvilket du aldrig vil kunne et en plus je peux aussi parlez francais, ce que tu ne peux pas non plus. Spanish is also a pretty good language to know and both French and German are far more technical than English. That's an advantage in technical and scientific terms. It also means less misunderstandings.

Actually, if I go to the US, I won't get an education. If I got a job, I'd have no security unless I got a contract. I wouldn't have as many perspectives and know as many languages as I do now (three to four fluently as opposed to one fluently or maybe two). I would have a bunch of people trying to brainwash me to give up my freedoms and love a nation (sorry, I love my freedoms to more than my freedoms from). I wouldn't be able to burn my country's flag (ah yes, I am allowed to do that. I am not going to, though, no point). I would get bombarded by a media and people that want to inspire fear in me. I wouldn't be able to trust my government. I wouldn't have as wide a selection in political parties (not perfect, but better than two in one). If I got drafted in the US, I would get sent to war. If I got drafted at home, I cannot legally be sent to war, but only used for defence (hasn't been necessary for over 160 years, so no chance of getting killed by war). I wouldn't be able to drink alcohol.

Oh yeah, and most importantly: because I would have to deal with people like you.

Btw: I don't have a three day weekend, I will probably working roughly eight hours a day every week. I will probably also have a higher average lifespan than you do.

Soooo... you're saying that you're better than where I am?

I also appear to have more mastery of english than you do. On top of that, så kan jeg tale dansk, hvilket du aldrig vil kunne et en plus je peux aussi parlez francais, ce que tu ne peux pas non plus. Spanish is also a pretty good language to know and both French and German are far more technical than English. That's an advantage in technical and scientific terms. It also means less misunderstandings.
well said / bien dit

Why, cause we are better than you?


I dont molest anything, I dont need other languages, other languages need english, its the worlds language.

That's why more people speak spanish then?

They could have given their wmd to terrorists, which would have struck in America, we stop him just in time.
Saddam was crazy, but what evidence is there to even suggest he dealt with terrorists? Osama Bin Laden actually considers Saddam to be an infidel because he created a secular Iraq instead of a Muslim state/theocracy - blatant then that the Islamic extremist ideology of the terrorists contradicts Saddam's views. The wmds have still not been found, and even so the thought of terrorists smuggling a huge wmd weighing several tonnes into a populous part of the U.S.A. is an insult to American security. Iraq was not the only dodgy dictatorship suspected of having wmds though, plenty of other dodgy dictatorships potentially with wmds could supply terrorists with an arsenal, why don't we invade them as well?

Maybe your right, we could just torture it and find out what it knows, I thought it wasnt an 'it'?
every post you make lower my estimation of you. Your now advocating 10 year old kids, I have a little sister, she's 10. I presume you know 10 year old kids. What your now saying is that another kid, same age, still a person, should be tortured for information-FOR POITNING A GUn AT YOU.

don't do that, people don't do that. You don't torture anyone, let alone the chidlren. Tehres this thing called the Geniva Convention, another called the human right.

Lets just imagane a situation here-The US has been inavde, naturally you hate the Iraqi invaders, you find our dads gun lyign around adn go outside to play with it, it isn't even loaded. A Iraqi soildier comes past and you poitn it at him, he shoots you. Is that fair.

Okay then, the Iraqi dosn't shoot you faitally, or disarms you, instead of taking you ack to your dad and saying what has happened the soildierhauls you off to a base and tortures you for information.

Thats what your propsoing-is that right?

Saddam was crazy, but what evidence is there to even suggest he dealt with terrorists? Osama Bin Laden actually considers Saddam to be an infidel because he created a secular Iraq instead of a Muslim state/theocracy - blatant then that the Islamic extremist ideology of the terrorists contradicts Saddam's views. The wmds have still not been found, and even so the thought of terrorists smuggling a huge wmd weighing several tonnes into a populous part of the U.S.A. is an insult to American security. Iraq was not the only dodgy dictatorship suspected of having wmds though, plenty of other dodgy dictatorships potentially with wmds could supply terrorists with an arsenal, why don't we invade them as well?
The only terrorist organization Saddam dealt with is the Bush administration.

*Awaits Controversy and UN Abassadorship's Rebuttle*

The only terrorist organization Saddam dealt with is the Bush administration.

*Awaits Controversy and UN Abassadorship's Rebuttle*
didn't he give money to Hamas or other palestinian freedom fighter organization?

didn't he give money to Hamas or other palestinian freedom fighter organization?

Think he only gave money to the family of suicide bombers (his way of fighting Israel, their way of surviving after Israel bulldozed their homes) - but I'm not sure. If anybody has a link...?

Doubt he would have supported Hamas financially, that was Syrias thing.

And yet, the Bush administration has endorced Hamas. Great.

That's why more people speak spanish then?
Not to mention Chinese.

That's why more people speak spanish then?

Well, English is the most important language because it's the global language of business, commerce and many of the sciences. However, at this point in time global English just isn't as expressive or able to convey complex concepts as well as native languages, making knowledge of a second one (or even more) particularly vital.

every post you make lower my estimation of you. Your now advocating 10 year old kids, I have a little sister, she's 10. I presume you know 10 year old kids. What your now saying is that another kid, same age, still a person, should be tortured for information-FOR POITNING A GUn AT YOU.
of course, they are a threat, maybe they know something
don't do that, people don't do that. You don't torture anyone, let alone the chidlren. Tehres this thing called the Geniva Convention, another called the human right.
The geniva convention only applies if you have a name, rank, and serial number, something terrorists dont have. your so-called "human rights" only apply to people who deserve them.

Lets just imagane a situation here-The US has been inavde, naturally you hate the Iraqi invaders, you find our dads gun lyign around adn go outside to play with it, it isn't even loaded. A Iraqi soildier comes past and you poitn it at him, he shoots you. Is that fair.
hell yeah, rules of engagement, someone is threating, e.i. pointing a f*ing gun at you, you shoot back til the target is dead.

Okay then, the Iraqi dosn't shoot you faitally, or disarms you, instead of taking you ack to your dad and saying what has happened the soildierhauls you off to a base and tortures you for information.

Thats what your propsoing-is that right?
I gets if you put it in those terms. Look its war, its not pretty but its nessacary.

Look its war, its not pretty but its nessacary.
Actually, while we're at it, I don't think you've made a case for that yet. You hold it as some sort of self-evident truth.

But someone on this thread a long time ago had the right idea when he/she said:
"Soldiers aren't protecting my freedoms! Soldiers will be the reason my freedoms will be taken away some day."

Really? Iraq, where there is a continued insurgency that has yet to die down and much of the population detests being occupied by a foreign power?
The insurgents have lost a great deal of support, they are even fighting amongst each other, the nationalist and foreign fighters that is. No one likes being occupied, I wouldnt like it, the Palestians dont like it(their occupation is illegal and unjust but thats a seperate issue.) But the fact is they want us there because they know we are keeping everything stable(I use that loosely). Can you imagine what would happen if we left?

Afghanistan, where US soldiers are still being killed to this day, and in which country a stable government has yet to be found, other than a US-backed one?
Actually it is a fairly quiet place, I think the US has "only" lost about 200 of our men over there, and the US presence is drawn down with a stable government. I think its hard to argue how well Afghanistan has gone.

Don't forget the Middle East as a whole, where the US is vilified by most, and Europe, where the US hardly has any allies left. Face it, the US's name is mud right about now.
Its not so much the war on terror that has the middle east upset, its the Palestine issue. Ive said before I dont worry about "allies" if you remember we had 50+ countries join us in Iraqi Freedom.

Nope, if freedom was on the march then that would mean freedom was the priority regardless of US interests. This is, by your own admission, not the case.

As you also prop up dictators and ignore civil liberties when it's in your interests then, by your own definition, tyranny is also on the march (supported by America).

A more accurate description of the situation would be that American interests are on the march and that freedom is irrelevant.
I said freedom is on the march "where we need it". American interests come before anything, even if that means supporting less than desireable governments.


You were the one who first refered to yourself as simple friend but you confirm it with this post:

1.) 'he used them, and wanted to use them on us'. if he'd wanted to use them on Americans then he have used them on the invading US army. Here's a question for you: if Saddam had weapons then why didn't he use them when invaded?

2.) This is what truly confirms your simplicity: without even knowing the details of the case you immediately assume that the CIA agent was a foreign spy because he dared to contradict Bush. You don't question whether he might be right and you wrong, you merely assume that if Bush says it then it must be right and follow it with sheep-like simplicity, never thinking to question.
1)he sent them to syria, I cant go it to more detail, but some of my sources have confirmed this.
2) So wait, I should question the motives of this agent? Im sure he's not out to get a book deal or anything:rolleyes:


Nothing to do with Iraq? Are you mad? The Madrid Bombings took place to pressure Spain into withdrawing from Iraq and the 7/7 attacks were in protest against the Iraq war. Still say that the invasion didn't cause any terrrorist attacks?

Please don't keep chanting 9/11 for no reason, it isn't big and it isn't clever.
Is Indonesia, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia all have been attacked since 9/11, none are in Iraq. Try agian


Why? You admit that you will do whatever is in your interests, dictators will do whatever is in their interests. Where is the difference?
Our people are free and live without oppression, the difference is quite noticable.

Get this: they weren't aiming, they dropped cluster bombs, cluster bombs aren't aimed, they're thrown wildly around where you want them to land more or less. That area happened to be a civilian area.

But that's okay, because those were all clearly guilty iraqis because the military attacked them, right? and if I am the military and I go shoot you, then you must've been guilty, right?
hey, in war Im fair game, as are you.



Nationalism again (see Nazi), and no, you don't respect life. Not when you're ready to kill a kid just because some authority tells you to. I'd be expected to refuse, even as a soldier.
refusing is against your duty to your country

oh yeah, and you really should be intelligent enough to understand the comment that are you Hitler incarnate. In case you can't speak as much english as I can, then I'd like to inform you that what they meant was that in pretty much every aspect, you are like Hitler.

The only difference I see is, you're not well-liked.
I think Im slightly more well liked than him, and you know although I still disagree with it, If Im going to be compared to anyone,I guess it might as well be the man who unified Germany and brought Europe to her knees.

The only terrorist organization Saddam dealt with is the Bush administration.

*Awaits Controversy and UN Abassadorship's Rebuttle*
How is Bush a terrorist? please enlighten me. Saddam also dealt with al-Islamia(I think thats the name) which operated inside Iraq freely.

I think America is great or evil, it all depends on what point of view youre using. As far as being a citizen the benefits are good, for now, while far behind by w. european standards, its alot better than living in a third world nation(duh), furthermore we are unlikely to experience a war in which we actually get invaded.

In regards to foreign policy the US does, and has always done, like every other nation, whatever is best for it. In some countries its no longer acceptable to invaded and control nations for weak reasons(other than personal gain), however the american ppl accept it and thats all that matters to politicians- we all know Europe isnt gonna do anything about it and nowhere else would have a chance of stopping us. Another benefit of american foreign policy, is that we stopped all of europe from being overrun during the coldwar, using the same basic principles we are using now(I think we can all agree that communism was a bad thing for e. europe, and would have been just as bad for the west).

Amusing. America isn't bad, i've visited there, but I wouldn't really want to live there. Out of all the countries i'd like to live after Britain, it would probably be around 10th.


The United States was founded to get away from Britain, so it is not surprising that a Briton would not understand its appeal.

(I think we can all agree that communism was a bad thing for e. europe, and would have been just as bad for the west).

And in the near future we will all agree that Socialism is just as bad of a thing for Western Europe as Communism was for Eastern.

It is amazing how the world repeats the same mistakes over and over again.

I'll tell you what I love about the United States:

The land. We have such a large, ecologically rich country, and it gives me great pleasure to be able to travel and see things like the Badlands, and the virgin pine forests of Michigan, and the Georgia Lowcountry, and the Rockies, and so forth. The USA has deserts, snow-capped peaks, mangroves, cypress swamps, sand dunes, mesas, plains, deltas, great lakes that can sink ships, and miles upon miles of coastline. Europeans probably couldn't imagine being able to drive for three days straight without crossing a national border or changing languages.

Otherwise, Americans are rowdy, arrogant, and shockingly ignorant (I know, I know, but it's true). Our country no longer manufactures anything worthwhile--we sell "information" and "customer service" these days. Our education system is appalling and our violent crime rates are astronomical when compared with those of other developed nations. We aren't investing in our future. We don't protect the environment. We refuse to go Metric. Big corporations are in control of every aspect of our lives. We lack morality and ethics, yet pretend to be a Christian nation. We refuse to accept global warming and evolution, and many Americans still think the sun revolves around the Earth and that the Earth is the center of the universe. If things get any worse, I'm moving to Canada.

But nobody can tell me I don't love my country. =)

Ive said before I dont worry about "allies" if you remember we had 50+ countries join us in Iraqi Freedom.

50+ countries...you mean the "Coalition of the Willing"? You mean Albania, Australia (70% of its citizens against the war), Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Italy (69% citizens against the war), Macedonia. What about Palau, Iceland, Costa Rica, Micronesia - none of which have an army? What about when New Zealand was shut out of trade talks when it refused to join the coalition? A lot of the nations in the coalition were to get aid packages and trade benefits from the U.S.A. for their support-noticed all the empoverished countries on the list?

How is Bush a terrorist? please enlighten me. Saddam also dealt with al-Islamia(I think thats the name) which operated inside Iraq freely.

I think causing the death of 25,000 innocent Iraqi civilians counts as terrorism. You would call the death 25,000 innocent American civilains terrorism wouldn't you?

Saddam also dealt with al-Islamia(I think thats the name) which operated inside Iraq freely.
Is that the quality of your evidence?

Al-Islamiyah is probably a terror organisation (depends on your view), although I have to say that I don't think that's the name. But I think I know which one you mean.
Saddam however did not "deal" with them. And they operated in the north of the country, which was controlled by the Kurds, and not by Saddam. Remember the gas attacks?

hey, in war Im fair game, as are you.

refusing is against your duty to your country

I think Im slightly more well liked than him, and you know although I still disagree with it, If Im going to be compared to anyone,I guess it might as well be the man who unified Germany and brought Europe to her knees.

Actually, in war, I am not fair game. This is because of the geneva convention.

Accepting is against the laws of my country. Accepting is therefore against my duty to my country. If I couldn't refuse, I'd rather just refuse and be executed for treason.

Hitler was well-liked back in his time when he claimed to be fixing Germany (and ended up doing the opposite). He became greatly disliked afterwards. You however, have never been well-liked. By the way, it was Bismarck that last unified Germany (not counting the fall of the Berlin wall) and created a status quo until WWI. At least he was consistent, logical and unbaised. I can forgive him for his ruthlessness.

Actually, in war, I am not fair game. This is because of the geneva convention.

Accepting is against the laws of my country. Accepting is therefore against my duty to my country. If I couldn't refuse, I'd rather just refuse and be executed for treason.

Hitler was well-liked back in his time when he claimed to be fixing Germany (and ended up doing the opposite). He became greatly disliked afterwards. You however, have never been well-liked. By the way, it was Bismarck that last unified Germany (not counting the fall of the Berlin wall) and created a status quo until WWI. At least he was consistent, logical and unbaised. I can forgive him for his ruthlessness.
Amen. "First they came for the Arabs..."

At least he was consistent, logical and unbaised. I can forgive him for his ruthlessness.
He was consistent allright, but unbiased - well, no.

Many people believe that he was some sort of Princeps of Germany, who wanted what was best for the whole country. Not true.
He was loyal only to the throne of Prussia. To him, unifiying Germany was just a way to make Prussia more powerful, particularly in comparison to Austria.

As for his ruthlessness...I don't think he really was. He did advocate to bombard Paris to bring the siege to an early end in 1870/1871, but other than that "Realpolitik" simply meant that he would ally himself with any political force in the country to get his own agenda through, whether that be Conservatives, Liberals or Romantic Nationalists.

I'll tell you what I love about the United States:

The land. We have such a large, ecologically rich country, and it gives me great pleasure to be able to travel and see things like the Badlands, and the virgin pine forests of Michigan, and the Georgia Lowcountry, and the Rockies, and so forth. The USA has deserts, snow-capped peaks, mangroves, cypress swamps, sand dunes, mesas, plains, deltas, great lakes that can sink ships, and miles upon miles of coastline. Europeans probably couldn't imagine being able to drive for three days straight without crossing a national border or changing languages.

Otherwise, Americans are rowdy, arrogant, and shockingly ignorant (I know, I know, but it's true). Our country no longer manufactures anything worthwhile--we sell "information" and "customer service" these days. Our education system is appalling and our violent crime rates are astronomical when compared with those of other developed nations. We aren't investing in our future. We don't protect the environment. We refuse to go Metric. Big corporations are in control of every aspect of our lives. We lack morality and ethics, yet pretend to be a Christian nation. We refuse to accept global warming and evolution, and many Americans still think the sun revolves around the Earth and that the Earth is the center of the universe. If things get any worse, I'm moving to Canada.

But nobody can tell me I don't love my country. =)

LOL! I don't entirely agree with you but thank you so much for making me smile. I needed that. :D

He was consistent allright, but unbiased - well, no.

Many people believe that he was some sort of Princeps of Germany, who wanted what was best for the whole country. Not true.
He was loyal only to the throne of Prussia. To him, unifiying Germany was just a way to make Prussia more powerful, particularly in comparison to Austria.

As for his ruthlessness...I don't think he really was. He did advocate to bombard Paris to bring the siege to an early end in 1870/1871, but other than that "Realpolitik" simply meant that he would ally himself with any political force in the country to get his own agenda through, whether that be Conservatives, Liberals or Romantic Nationalists.

I'll take your word above my opinions on Bismarck :p

But you have to admit, he was efficient. Not the best or most humanitarian person to ever grace this earth, but far from the worst.

The geniva convention only applies if you have a name, rank, and serial number, something terrorists dont have. your so-called "human rights" only apply to people who deserve them.
No, I don't want to post in this thread, please don't make me post in this thread... But should such stupidity go unanswered? Ooooh... I feel dirty, but OK, here goes:
Actually, you are quite wrong. It's the other way around, you see. The fundamental human rights exists to protect those whom other people feel don't deserve them. If your statement was true, there would be no need for human rights.
OK, that's the short version. I can't go any further, not in this thread - sorry. *Ick* Got to go take a shower now...

of course, they are a threat, maybe they know something
Torture has been proved to be an ineffective way of interragation-FACT. Torture just gets people to tell you anythignt hey think will stop you from hurting them

The geniva convention only applies if you have a name, rank, and serial number, something terrorists dont have. your so-called "human rights" only apply to people who deserve them.
The gonvention of rights of a child. And what Gravlen said.


hell yeah, rules of engagement, someone is threating, e.i. pointing a f*ing gun at you, you shoot back til the target is dead.
Or, if there close enough to easly disarm, you disarm them.

I gets if you put it in those terms. Look its war, its not pretty but its nessacary.
You havn't yet proved that it's nesscary.

Europeans probably couldn't imagine being able to drive for three days straight without crossing a national border or changing languages.


Unless there's *really* slow moving traffic-jam, or they go aroung in circles :D

If things get any worse, I'm moving to Canada.


I'll buy you your ticket now, it would be better for America

50+ countries...you mean the "Coalition of the Willing"? You mean Albania, Australia (70% of its citizens against the war), Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Italy (69% citizens against the war), Macedonia. What about Palau, Iceland, Costa Rica, Micronesia - none of which have an army? What about when New Zealand was shut out of trade talks when it refused to join the coalition? A lot of the nations in the coalition were to get aid packages and trade benefits from the U.S.A. for their support-noticed all the empoverished countries on the list?
The vast majority join us because it was the right thing to do. You cant just write off that much international support as "we just paid them off"


I think causing the death of 25,000 innocent Iraqi civilians counts as terrorism. You would call the death 25,000 innocent American civilains terrorism wouldn't you?

He didnt cause there deaths, its not even his war if you think of it. The senate has to write off on it. So if your going to call someone a terrorist, you would have to call the whole US government terrorists. Also for it to be terrorism it has to be violence by a non-governmental actor toward civilian targets, so US cant be "terrorists"

I'll buy you your ticket now, it would be better for America
Hello. As I've seen in other threads, you've been thinking of converting into Christianity or something else. I just want to tell you this: if you want to be a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Buddhist/ETC. you're going to have to develop a moral code.

Is that the quality of your evidence?

Al-Islamiyah is probably a terror organisation (depends on your view), although I have to say that I don't think that's the name. But I think I know which one you mean.
Saddam however did not "deal" with them. And they operated in the north of the country, which was controlled by the Kurds, and not by Saddam. Remember the gas attacks?
If didnt want them there, he would have dealt with them.

The vast majority join us because it was the right thing to do. You cant just write off that much international support as "we just paid them off"



He didnt cause there deaths, its not even his war if you think of it. The senate has to write off on it. So if your going to call someone a terrorist, you would have to call the whole US government terrorists. Also for it to be terrorism it has to be violence by a non-governmental actor toward civilian targets, so US cant be "terrorists"
Also, clearly you don't know the definition of terrorism. Terroristic actions taken by a government is known as "State Sponsered Terrorism." Also, if you truly believe that a state cannot be terroristic, tell me than how Iraq can be a terrorist state.

Actually, while we're at it, I don't think you've made a case for that yet. You hold it as some sort of self-evident truth.

But someone on this thread a long time ago had the right idea when he/she said:
"Soldiers aren't protecting my freedoms! Soldiers will be the reason my freedoms will be taken away some day."
Because there will always be people who want to hurt you no matter how peaceful you are. If you dont go to war with those people, they will continue to attack you and will never know peace.

Soldiers dont take away freedoms, they are the reason why you have them. I dont understand what you dont get about that.

Actually, in war, I am not fair game. This is because of the geneva convention.
I've said before, the convention doesnt apply unless you have a name, rank and serial number, terrorists dont have one and you dont have one.

Accepting is against the laws of my country. Accepting is therefore against my duty to my country. If I couldn't refuse, I'd rather just refuse and be executed for treason.
If its against the laws of your country, how is that treason? wouldnt you be serving your country in carrying out what you need to do? I would never commit treason, no matter whom or how many I need to kill.

Hitler was well-liked back in his time when he claimed to be fixing Germany (and ended up doing the opposite). He became greatly disliked afterwards. You however, have never been well-liked. By the way, it was Bismarck that last unified Germany (not counting the fall of the Berlin wall) and created a status quo until WWI. At least he was consistent, logical and unbaised. I can forgive him for his ruthlessness.
He did however improve the German economy and crippled Europe with his superior Army.

No, I don't want to post in this thread, please don't make me post in this thread... But should such stupidity go unanswered? Ooooh... I feel dirty, but OK, here goes:
Actually, you are quite wrong. It's the other way around, you see. The fundamental human rights exists to protect those whom other people feel don't deserve them. If your statement was true, there would be no need for human rights.
OK, that's the short version. I can't go any further, not in this thread - sorry. *Ick* Got to go take a shower now...
As far as Im concern people like terrorists dont have human rights, in a way they are subhuman, univerisal human rights is just some BS the UN came up with.

I've said before, the convention doesnt apply unless you have a name, rank and serial number, terrorists dont have one and you dont have one.


If its against the laws of your country, how is that treason? wouldnt you be serving your country in carrying out what you need to do? I would never commit treason, no matter whom or how many I need to kill.


He did however improve the German economy and crippled Europe with his superior Army.

Geneva convention applies to everyone. It's like a human rights thing, just for war.

If the laws of my country said I had to do it, I would refuse to do it. If the laws of my country said I didn't have to, I would refuse to do it. If the laws of my country said I couldn't do it, I'd still refuse to do it. That's my point.

And I can present you with a paradox. It is treason to kill the president of the United states. In your opinion, he must die. Therefore, you must kill him because it is necessary but it's treason.

He did however, lose the war and cripple Germany far more. Bismarck ranks far higher in my books and by the way, killing all those political prisoners and all the jews, it didn't help Germany.

Also, clearly you don't know the definition of terrorism. Terroristic actions taken by a government is known as "State Sponsered Terrorism." Also, if you truly believe that a state cannot be terroristic, tell me than how Iraq can be a terrorist state.
State sponsered terrorism just means that a country supports or abeds terrorist organizations(seperate of the state), but the country itself is not terrorist. Iraq did sponser terrorism however.

As far as Im concern people like terrorists dont have human rights, in a way they are subhuman, univerisal human rights is just some BS the UN came up with.

Universal human rights was first put forth by the US constitution.

It was also put forth by the French constitution, who decided it was an excellent idea.

I have no doubt the US government played a large role in putting universal human rights into the UN.

State sponsered terrorism just means that a country supports or abeds terrorist organizations(seperate of the state), but the country itself is not terrorist. Iraq did sponser terrorism however.

The terrorism performed by the Gestapo during nazi germany was state sponsored terrorism. It meant that the German state was performing terrorism.

Because there will always be people who want to hurt you no matter how peaceful you are. If you dont go to war with those people, they will continue to attack you and will never know peace.

Soldiers dont take away freedoms, they are the reason why you have them. I dont understand what you dont get about that.

So an occupational force does not take away freedoms?

So an armed force that takes money that could better be used elsewhere isn't limiting my freedoms?

I don't see how I am free because of soldiers, it's people that have fought by themselves to get freedom, not soldiers. Soldiers are the type that will invade another country. There are very few armies that aren't equipped to conduct offensive operations, those that aren't are usually far better.

However, the US military is certainly not in existence to protect any freedoms. It takes far too much expenditure and it's being used offensively rather than defensively.

Torture just gets people to tell you anythignt hey think will stop you from hurting them
yeah, like the information you need to save lives, you just have to do it in a way to make sure they give accurate info. Such as "if your wrong about this, I will blow your brains all over that wall" Chances are they wont lie

The gonvention of rights of a child. And what Gravlen said.
Why do children have rights? what are they, special?

Or, if there close enough to easly disarm, you disarm them.
Not in war, you kill them, 2 in the chest, 1 in the head, its effective and keeps you from getting shot
You havn't yet proved that it's nesscary.
I did in a rescent post, check it agian

yeah, like the information you need to save lives, you just have to do it in a way to make sure they give accurate info. Such as "if your wrong about this, I will blow your brains all over that wall" Chances are they wont lie


Why do children have rights? what are they, special?

Not in war, you kill them, 2 in the chest, 1 in the head, its effective and keeps you from getting shot

I did in a rescent post, check it agian

You know, there are far better methods than torture to get that information. Most of it involves chemistry. It's more reliable and less demeaning. You'd lie under torture, right? why wouldn't they?

Yes, children Are special. Human life IS special.

You shoot one in the arm, one in the other, one in the leg, more chance of surviving, you've got a prisoner and you don't get shot.

And that was an opinion, not a proof.

yeah, like the information you need to save lives, you just have to do it in a way to make sure they give accurate info. Such as "if your wrong about this, I will blow your brains all over that wall" Chances are they wont lie
Actually, people tend to say anything to stop the pain, especially if they don't really know anything.


Why do children have rights? what are they, special?
You are sick.


Not in war, you kill them, 2 in the chest, 1 in the head, its effective and keeps you from getting shotSeeing as you are not in the military and once the military say your pychological test results they would admit you to a mental ward and never let you touch a gun again, this is bull.



I did in a rescent post, check it agianNo you haven't.

You know, there are far better methods than torture to get that information. Most of it involves chemistry. It's more reliable and less demeaning. You'd lie under torture, right? why wouldn't they?
Who cares if its demeaning, you put in safe guards agianst lies

Yes, children Are special. Human life IS special.
Why? whats so special about it?

You shoot one in the arm, one in the other, one in the leg, more chance of surviving, you've got a prisoner and you don't get shot.
They can still shoot at you, its far safer if you kill them, and faster.
And that was an opinion, not a proof.
You dont have prove otherwise.

Who cares if its demeaning, you put in safe guards agianst lies


Why? whats so special about it?

They can still shoot at you, its far safer if you kill them, and faster.

You dont have prove otherwise.
This is basically what you said (paraphrased):
FACT: I am right.

This is basically what you said (paraphrased):
FACT: I am right.
you didnt answer my arguments so it seems your telling me Im right.

you didnt answer my arguments so it seems your telling me Im right.
You truly are demented, my friend. Torture is never the best choice, especially with children.

Human life is special. Whether you believe in God or not (especially if you don't, because that means once a person dies, they're gone for good) it's special. We are the only species on this planet capable of creating countries and concience thought. That is special.

Who cares if its demeaning, you put in safe guards agianst lies


Why? whats so special about it?

They can still shoot at you, its far safer if you kill them, and faster.

You dont have prove otherwise.

It's pointless. It's not the best way and it's bad for public relations. Certain chemicals, truth serums as they are known as, are more efficient. They won't always work, but they're better than torture.

So I guess you don't mind if I kill you? because you don't seem to think that your life is special

Actually, it's damn hard to shoot when you can't use your arms. Dead innocent civilians are worse than living but injured guilty civilians.

I look at history and see a large amounts of wars that weren't necessary at all, but wanted. They are destructive, there are rarely any winners and if they are, it's just at more of a cost for the loser. I can't find any good argument for why war is necessary. It might be wanted by someone like you, but I don't want war. And we haven't needed war in Europe for over sixty years between countries that had wars every third year. So, no, it's not needed.

It's pointless. It's not the best way and it's bad for public relations. Certain chemicals, truth serums as they are known as, are more efficient. They won't always work, but they're better than torture.

So I guess you don't mind if I kill you? because you don't seem to think that your life is special

Actually, it's damn hard to shoot when you can't use your arms. Dead innocent civilians are worse than living but injured guilty civilians.

I look at history and see a large amounts of wars that weren't necessary at all, but wanted. They are destructive, there are rarely any winners and if they are, it's just at more of a cost for the loser. I can't find any good argument for why war is necessary. It might be wanted by someone like you, but I don't want war. And we haven't needed war in Europe for over sixty years between countries that had wars every third year. So, no, it's not needed.
There are only two wars that have absolute justification in my mind: the Civil War, and WW2.

There are only two wars that have absolute justification in my mind: the Civil War, and WW2.

Justified =/= Necessary.

If we didn't have the concept in the first place, we wouldn't Need them, although we might be able to justify them without waging them.

There are only two wars that have absolute justification in my mind: the Civil War, and WW2.

How about the Amerian revolution? Or, how bout the Napoleonic wars?

Forming America seems justifiable to me, so does trying to spread the ideas of the French revolution to the autocratic monarchies of Europe.

What do you think?

How about the Amerian revolution? Or, how bout the Napoleonic wars?

Forming America seems justifiable to me, so does trying to spread the ideas of the French revolution to the autocratic monarchies of Europe.

What do you think?
Totally justifiable. Those are very highly justifiable, but the Rev war wasn't over completly human rights. Those are wars I justify.

Totally justifiable. Those are very highly justifiable, but the Rev war wasn't over completly human rights. Those are wars I justify.

Well, that depends on if you think being taxed to a breaking point and being imperialized by a country thousands of miles away from you counts as threatening Americans human rights...I beleive it does.

Also, the Civil war wasnt really about human rights, it was about keeping the union around. Slavery was just another one of the main issues in the fight between federalists and anti federalist...though under different names. If you read some stuff on Lincoln, you will find that he wasnt a die hard abolotionist, he simply fought to keep our country together, and for that, I praise him.

Well, that depends on if you think being taxed to a breaking point and being imperialized by a country thousands of miles away from you counts as threatening Americans human rights...I beleive it does.

Also, the Civil war wasnt really about human rights, it was about keeping the union around. Slavery was just another one of the main issues in the fight between federalists and anti federalist...though under different names. If you read some stuff on Lincoln, you will find that he wasnt a die hard abolotionist, he simply fought to keep our country together, and for that, I praise him.
I understand that. But that doesn't change it's effect.

Also, for that one, to me it's 98% justifiable, but not totally.

I said freedom is on the march "where we need it". American interests come before anything, even if that means supporting less than desireable governments.

*sigh* No, you originally claimed that 'freedom was on the march' without exception. If freedom is merely a tool to be used when it is convenient then it is not freedom that is on the march, it is American interests.

1)he sent them to syria, I cant go it to more detail, but some of my sources have confirmed this.
2) So wait, I should question the motives of this agent? Im sure he's not out to get a book deal or anything:rolleyes:

1. So you expect me to believe that purely because you say so? How about no...
2. Again, you attack his integrity and character without even knowing what he says or who he is. You my friend are a sheep.

You still haven't answered my question: if Saddam had WMD then why didn't he use them against the invasion? He certainly wouldn't have sent them to Syria if he had them available to defend himself.

Is Indonesia, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia all have been attacked since 9/11, none are in Iraq. Try agian

What are you talking about now? You claimed that there have been no terrorist attacks because of Iraq, I've shown you some. Pull your head out of your arse and admit that you were wrong.

Our people are free and live without oppression, the difference is quite noticable.

But you force other people to live without freedom and in oppression if it benifits you and you even try to justify it. You seem to believe that because you happened to have been born in the US you have the right to enslave people who were born elsewhere whenever it suits you. That is why you are as bad as any dictator.

How about the Amerian revolution?
Unnecessary. Did you know that the British were actually proposing a plan where the colonists wouldn't have had to pay big taxes anymore, and in return would have had to organise their own defence?
But they rejected it, and instead went on a long, long ego trip. You can agree with that, but it's not like you should pretend that it was anything but that.

Or, how bout the Napoleonic wars?
Well, from Napoleon's point of view, it was a war of aggression. So that's unjustified.
From the Allied point of view, it was about various continental interests. Particularly Britain had not really been in any danger - to them it was about preventing France from becoming too powerful for them.

Forming America seems justifiable to me, so does trying to spread the ideas of the French revolution to the autocratic monarchies of Europe.
I sincerely doubt that that was Napoleon's idea behind all that (you know, crowning himself Emperor and all the rest of it).

Because there will always be people who want to hurt you no matter how peaceful you are. If you dont go to war with those people, they will continue to attack you and will never know peace.
You can defend yourself, sure. But the US hasn't done that...ahem...pretty much since people wore white wigs and didn't bathe.

Soldiers dont take away freedoms, they are the reason why you have them. I dont understand what you dont get about that.
Okay, let's imagine there would be no soldiers on the planet.

Who takes your freedom?

If didnt want them there, he would have dealt with them.
I think you lack some sort of basic understanding of how Iraq worked after the Gulf War.
He couldn't deal with anyone. His army was destroyed, he didn't even have the money to even keep his planes maintained (let alone start a WMD program), the Kurdish north was being patrolled by Allied Jets, and on the ground Kurdish militia held everything together.

Saddam couldn't set a foot in there.

The vast majority join us because it was the right thing to do. You cant just write off that much international support as "we just paid them off"

I can considering that:

LEDCs in the Coalition of the willing:
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan

Countries I think we can agree could do with economic support:
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Ukraine

Think how much these countries would want aid/trade deals, and if they would otherwise care about Iraq (aside Kuwait), are they going to form a coalition of the willing against other crazy dictatorships like Robert Mugabe’s? Don’t think so – unless of course they’re given 500 tonnes of food…

A lot of sincere support seems to have dropped.

Other countries:
Australia, Denmark, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, United Kingdom, United States,

Bearing in mind you still haven’t addressed the corruption of the deals, or how New Zealand was shut out of trade talks, it has to be said that... OMG! AMERICA IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT! :eek:


He didnt cause there deaths, its not even his war if you think of it. The senate has to write off on it. So if your going to call someone a terrorist, you would have to call the whole US government terrorists.

Fine then, the whole U.S. government are terrorists for causing the death of 25,000 innocent Iraqi civilians

Also for it to be terrorism it has to be violence by a non-governmental actor toward civilian targets, so US cant be "terrorists"

Even if your definition was correct, U.S. actions can be just as bad if not as worse as terrorism.

Btw, are you still convinced that 25,000 innocent American civilians could've been killed if Iraq had not been invaded? - Don't make me repeat myself.

I can considering that:

LEDCs in the Coalition of the willing:
Afghanistan,


.
And who controled afganistan at the time?

And who controled afganistan at the time?

Good point

It's pointless. It's not the best way and it's bad for public relations. Certain chemicals, truth serums as they are known as, are more efficient. They won't always work, but they're better than torture.
Its not bad for pr if the public doesnt know about it, chemicals can be dodgy, cutting a guys fingers off can be very effective

So I guess you don't mind if I kill you? because you don't seem to think that your life is special
I dont care if you kill me, I dont care if I have to kill you, I simply dont care.

Actually, it's damn hard to shoot when you can't use your arms. Dead innocent civilians are worse than living but injured guilty civilians.
but dead guilty civilians are better than living ones

I look at history and see a large amounts of wars that weren't necessary at all, but wanted. They are destructive, there are rarely any winners and if they are, it's just at more of a cost for the loser. I can't find any good argument for why war is necessary. It might be wanted by someone like you, but I don't want war. And we haven't needed war in Europe for over sixty years between countries that had wars every third year. So, no, it's not needed.
It is, its just that at times reason may not be seen through the eyes of history.

Its not bad for pr if the public doesnt know about it, chemicals can be dodgy, cutting a guys fingers off can be very effective


I dont care if you kill me, I dont care if I have to kill you, I simply dont care.

but dead guilty civilians are better than living ones


It is, its just that at times reason may not be seen through the eyes of history.
It's official: you are a puppet! Nobody says "I don't care if you kill me" unless they're about to commit suicide.

Its not bad for pr if the public doesnt know about it, chemicals can be dodgy, cutting a guys fingers off can be very effective


I dont care if you kill me, I dont care if I have to kill you, I simply dont care.

but dead guilty civilians are better than living ones


It is, its just that at times reason may not be seen through the eyes of history.

So if I cut off your finger, you will reveal valuable information to me?

Hiding stuff also is bad for PR, so if the public doesn't get every piece of information from a government that is supposed to be of the people, they'll get just as annoyed. Chemicals are less dodgy than torture. People want to avoid torture. People might want to avoid chemicals too, but unlike torture, they can't choose to just tell the truth: they'll get the chemicals anyway and then really tell the truth. Please note: getting torture anyway is bound to either keep them quiet or tell lies.

Yet that doesn't change that dead innocent civilians are worse than living guilty ones.

Wars are still not necessary.

If there were no soldiers, who would take away my freedom?

Its not bad for pr if the public doesnt know about it, chemicals can be dodgy, cutting a guys fingers off can be very effective


I dont care if you kill me, I dont care if I have to kill you, I simply dont care.

but dead guilty civilians are better than living ones


It is, its just that at times reason may not be seen through the eyes of history.
what so if the public dosn't know about somthing then it's good? Thast twisted logic. Chemicals such as Truth Serum mean they tell you the truth anyway-torture people lie to get out of it.

That's crap!

I disagree living is better than dead-always, in any case.

what so if the public dosn't know about somthing then it's good? Thast twisted logic. Chemicals such as Truth Serum mean they tell you the truth anyway-torture people lie to get out of it.

That's crap!

I disagree living is better than dead-always, in any case.
Except when it's Hitler. Or his varous clones on this forum.:p

Its not bad for pr if the public doesnt know about it, chemicals can be dodgy, cutting a guys fingers off can be very effective

Ha, for a minute there, I actually thought you supported the use of torture - but no, no-one could be that malicious without being an utter maniac. It must be sarcastic.

Torture can be used to make people say anything, in the past used to make people claim to be witches, heretics - anything. Historically it has not been useful in stopping things such as terrorism and rebellions, and only causes anger and hatred among victims and their peoples.
Torture is wrong. Period.

I can considering that:

LEDCs in the Coalition of the willing:
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan

Countries I think we can agree could do with economic support:
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Ukraine

Think how much these countries would want aid/trade deals, and if they would otherwise care about Iraq (aside Kuwait), are they going to form a coalition of the willing against other crazy dictatorships like Robert Mugabe’s? Don’t think so – unless of course they’re given 500 tonnes of food…

A lot of sincere support seems to have dropped.

Other countries:
Australia, Denmark, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, United Kingdom, United States,

Bearing in mind you still haven’t addressed the corruption of the deals, or how New Zealand was shut out of trade talks, it has to be said that... OMG! AMERICA IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT! :eek:




Fine then, the whole U.S. government are terrorists for causing the death of 25,000 innocent Iraqi civilians



Even if your definition was correct, U.S. actions can be just as bad if not as worse as terrorism.

Btw, are you still convinced that 25,000 innocent American civilians could've been killed if Iraq had not been invaded? - Don't make me repeat myself.

Good shooting there sir.

Geneva convention applies to everyone. It's like a human rights thing, just for war.
Actually, it is just for war.


And I can present you with a paradox. It is treason to kill the president of the United states. In your opinion, he must die. Therefore, you must kill him because it is necessary but it's treason.
It is treason, however we do have checks and balances and if it were in the best interest of the state I may do it, however there are many variables

So an occupational force does not take away freedoms?
how are you occupied?

So an armed force that takes money that could better be used elsewhere isn't limiting my freedoms?
Theres nothing better then military spending

I don't see how I am free because of soldiers, it's people that have fought by themselves to get freedom, not soldiers. Soldiers are the type that will invade another country.
Lets we get rid of the soldiers, and allow groups like al-Qeada to attack you, over and over without punishment. It gets to the point where your so afraid to leave your house or you will get blown up, a prisoner inside your house, are you free. What if any heavily armed groups are allowed to occupy your land without punishment, how are you free?
However, the US military is certainly not in existence to protect any freedoms. It takes far too much expenditure and it's being used offensively rather than defensively.
being on the offense keeps our freedom.

*sigh* No, you originally claimed that 'freedom was on the march' without exception. If freedom is merely a tool to be used when it is convenient then it is not freedom that is on the march, it is American interests.
ok fine, I like American interests.


1. So you expect me to believe that purely because you say so? How about no...
2. Again, you attack his integrity and character without even knowing what he says or who he is. You my friend are a sheep.
1. You dont have to believe me, it doesnt make it less true
2.Why shouldnt I question his motive?

You still haven't answered my question: if Saddam had WMD then why didn't he use them against the invasion? He certainly wouldn't have sent them to Syria if he had them available to defend himself.
He got rid of them before the war, he didnt use them to make the US look bad. If he had used them it would have shown the US was right all along, he didnt to try to make it look like the US got everything wrong.


What are you talking about now? You claimed that there have been no terrorist attacks because of Iraq, I've shown you some. Pull your head out of your arse and admit that you were wrong.
And I showed you many more attacks that had nothing to do with Iraq


But you force other people to live without freedom and in oppression if it benifits you and you even try to justify it. You seem to believe that because you happened to have been born in the US you have the right to enslave people who were born elsewhere whenever it suits you. That is why you are as bad as any dictator.
If it benefits me and my country why shouldnt I be ok with it?

You can defend yourself, sure. But the US hasn't done that...ahem...pretty much since people wore white wigs and didn't bathe.
So what about both WW's, civil war, both gulf wars, Afghanistan, the list goes on

Okay, let's imagine there would be no soldiers on the planet.

Who takes your freedom?
terrorists, murders, criminals

I think you lack some sort of basic understanding of how Iraq worked after the Gulf War.
He couldn't deal with anyone. His army was destroyed, he didn't even have the money to even keep his planes maintained (let alone start a WMD program), the Kurdish north was being patrolled by Allied Jets, and on the ground Kurdish militia held everything together.

Saddam couldn't set a foot in there.
That group wasnt just in the north

I can considering that:

LEDCs in the Coalition of the willing:
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan

Countries I think we can agree could do with economic support:
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Ukraine
Oh, so being poor means they cant support us?




Other countries:
Australia, Denmark, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, United Kingdom, United States,

Bearing in mind you still haven’t addressed the corruption of the deals, or how New Zealand was shut out of trade talks, it has to be said that... OMG! AMERICA IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT! :eek:
You dont really have a defense for the rich countries that supported us. New Zealand wasnt shut out just because they didnt agree with us.



Fine then, the whole U.S. government are terrorists for causing the death of 25,000 innocent Iraqi civilians



Even if your definition was correct, U.S. actions can be just as bad if not as worse as terrorism.
wow, I didnt think you'd say it but you did wow
Btw, are you still convinced that 25,000 innocent American civilians could've been killed if Iraq had not been invaded? - Don't make me repeat myself.
with a wmd attack from Saddams stockpile, of course.

So if I cut off your finger, you will reveal valuable information to me?
to get you to stop cutting the rest of them off, absoulutly

Hiding stuff also is bad for PR, so if the public doesn't get every piece of information from a government that is supposed to be of the people, they'll get just as annoyed.
Not if the public never knows about it, like it should be

Chemicals are less dodgy than torture. People want to avoid torture.
which is why they will talk when you torture them.


Yet that doesn't change that dead innocent civilians are worse than living guilty ones.
dead civilians are something people need to deal with

Wars are still not necessary.
some are
If there were no soldiers, who would take away my freedom?
Ive answered this

Ha, for a minute there, I actually thought you supported the use of torture - but no, no-one could be that malicious without being an utter maniac. It must be sarcastic.
I wasnt being sacastic at all, I guess Im a maniac:confused:

Torture can be used to make people say anything, in the past used to make people claim to be witches, heretics - anything. Historically it has not been useful in stopping things such as terrorism and rebellions, and only causes anger and hatred among victims and their peoples.
Torture is wrong. Period.[/QUOTE]
Torture works if you do it right, and if it saves American lives, how is it wrong?

The UN ambassadorship reasons like a child...what are you, 8?

Oh, so being poor means they cant support us?

That wasn't my point, try reading all of it.

You dont really have a defense for the rich countries that supported us. New Zealand wasnt shut out just because they didnt agree with us.

Why were New Zealand shut out of trade talks then? I'm saying you shouldn't claim the moral support from the other countries with so much exchanging going on - makes it a little insincere.

wow, I didnt think you'd say it but you did wow

You're not really saying anything worthwhile there

with a wmd attack from Saddams stockpile, of course.

Saddam was crazy, but what evidence is there to even suggest he dealt with terrorists? Osama Bin Laden actually considers Saddam to be an infidel because he created a secular Iraq instead of a Muslim state/theocracy - blatant then that the Islamic extremist ideology of the terrorists contradicts Saddam's views. The wmds have still not been found, and even so the thought of terrorists smuggling a huge wmd weighing several tonnes into a populous part of the U.S.A. is an insult to American security. Iraq was not the only dodgy dictatorship suspected of having wmds though, plenty of other dodgy dictatorships potentially with wmds could supply terrorists with an arsenal, why don't we invade them as well?

There, you made me repeat myself.

I wasnt being sacastic at all, I guess Im a maniac:confused:

Torture works if you do it right, and if it saves American lives, how is it wrong?

I wouldn't say a maniac, just in my opinion, a lack of understanding, name an incident when it has saved an American life/s. You could benefit from putting yourself into another persective, suppose you were an Iraqi citizen wrongly suspected of being an insurgent, you were taken away and tortured for information - which you knew nothing of. Needles were shoved up your fingernails, you were deprived of sleep with fluorescent lights, you were beaten and electrocuted. How is that right.
Suppose you were an Iraqi insurgent, you were captured and tortured as described above, would you lie to stop being tortured and not betray the other insurgents - the information cannot validly be trusted, making torture an uneccesary abuse of *human* rights.

I find it amusing that the country fearing religious extrimity the most, is allso the one where such silly superstitions still dictate every day life. No where in Europe will you find such idiocy, and power can not be siezed by siding with god..

In addition, Europe is so far ahead in every aspect it's almost embarrasing. There is allways loughter in the theaters when american movie stars whip up their brick-like cell phones, or fire up their 5.6l "muscle" cars when Saab, or BMW go in circles around that same car with their "puny" 1.8l lol

how are you occupied?


Theres nothing better then military spending


1: He was talking about Iraq, you idiot.
2: Yeah! Because it's great to have horrible education, trade, and healthcare. That'd be grand, as long as our military is invading something!:rolleyes:

Theres nothing better then military spending

I shouldn't even have to dignify such a statement with a reply, but you might mean it. Look at the state of many countries in Africa after crazy dictators decided to buy tanks and guns instead of food and medicine. I don't think you meant "military spending is better than spending on other things a country needs", but that's how it's come out. Things such as education, welfare, healthcare, and crime control can always be improved and always should be.

1. You dont have to believe me, it doesnt make it less true

If you can't find any evidence to support it then it probably isn't true.

2.Why shouldnt I question his motive?

Questioning is good. What you did wasn't questioning, it was blindly assuming that he was lying because you didn't like what he said. If you searched and found good reason to doubt his integrity and claims then please present it.

He got rid of them before the war, he didnt use them to make the US look bad. If he had used them it would have shown the US was right all along, he didnt to try to make it look like the US got everything wrong.

Saddam was a coward which is why he was found cowering in a hole. If he had any chance of defending himself then he would have done so using his WMD. He didn't.

And I showed you many more attacks that had nothing to do with Iraq

1. That is irrelevant as your original claim was that attacking Iraq hasn't provoked any attacks. I have shown that it did so you are wrong.
2. How does invading Iraq help fight Chechnyan freedom fighters?

If it benefits me and my country why shouldnt I be ok with it?

Because apparently 'freedom is on the march', because you claim to support liberty and democracy, because if you act with only your own interests at heart then you are no better than the dictators you overthrow (as I have explained several times already).

dead civilians are something people need to deal with

America didn't deal with losing 3,000 civilians on 9/11 very well did it? Why should Iraq deal with losing 25,000 civilians any better?

.... We the strongest military and we spend 400 billion dollars a year on it(I think it should be more) and have over 3,000 nukes(should be more).

From this, i can conclude but one thing....

....you want to kill people

Hello all,

I'd just like to throw my personal feelings in this. I am a soldier in the USAF. I have been to other countries (just more recently, Kyrgyzstan last summer), and I hope to travel to many more. Seeing other countries make you appreciate the positives of your country, and also lets you see the negatives and possible ways to fix them.

I will say that the best thing about America is freedom of speech. It is really a freedom I couldn't possibly imagine not having.

I appreciate being willing to help out other countries, though I wish we would wait for permission to invade sometimes. There comes a point where we are 'mother'ing these countries, and I don't feel that we should be the "world police" so much. Before WWII, the US usually tried to stay out of such situations until necessary. Sadly, since then, we have made sure to stay in some war at least every 20 years.

Our politicians and processes sometimes leave a LOT to be desired.

Americans can often have a "We're the best!" attitude, which is considered very rude by many other countries. However, the flip side of that attitude is (usually) a strong willingness to help people that are down and out

NO WAR IS WITHOUT CIVILIAN CASUALTIES. It just doesn't happen. But there is a difference between targeting combatants and accepting unwanted losses of possible civilian casualties...and targeting those civilians specifically in order to produce terror, fear, etc etc. The WTC provided no military advantage to America.

I am absolutely appalled at the misuse and abuse of laws when it leads to torture, and there is NO excuse for it. Whatsoever.

Anyways, just a few thoughts for people to chew on, debate, or whatever they wish to do. :)

From this, i can conclude but one thing....

....you want to kill people
I wouldnt say I wantto kill people, I just dont mind it.

America didn't deal with losing 3,000 civilians on 9/11 very well did it? Why should Iraq deal with losing 25,000 civilians any better?
Because the death of Iraqis are justified.

Because the death of Iraqis are justified.Why?

Because the death of Iraqis are justified.

How? How are the deaths of 25,000 innocent civilians justified? They posed absolutely no threat to your nation, either directly or indirectly.

1: He was talking about Iraq, you idiot.
2: Yeah! Because it's great to have horrible education, trade, and healthcare. That'd be grand, as long as our military is invading something!:rolleyes:
1. We arent occupying Iraq, we are liberating them
2. Those arent important, a hugh military is important.

You really are the top!
"Education isn't important"
a hugh military is

*salutes*

So what about both WW's, civil war, both gulf wars, Afghanistan, the list goes on


terrorists, murders, criminals


That group wasnt just in the north

America was not defending itself in WWI and WWII. They were helping the Allies defend themselves against two wars that, although they have happened, never should have. Now that they have, might as well make the best of it. The civil war was an internal war, not defensive, nor necessary. The gulf wars hardly protected you, instead you have made more enemies. Afghanistan has also not increased your own security, merely very slowly and painfully increased the security of Afghanistan, at the cost of many many civilian lives.

Murders and criminals are dealt with by police force.
Unless terrorists are soldiers, they are also dealt with by police force.
Police forces tend to be less armed than armies and less able to overrun a country. I am not talking about secret police forces.

how are you occupied?

Theres nothing better then military spending

Lets we get rid of the soldiers, and allow groups like al-Qeada to attack you, over and over without punishment. It gets to the point where your so afraid to leave your house or you will get blown up, a prisoner inside your house, are you free. What if any heavily armed groups are allowed to occupy your land without punishment, how are you free?

being on the offense keeps our freedom.

Iraqis are occupied.

I already pointed out to you, I am going to get a better education than you at a lower cost. I am never going to worry about hurting myself. There are plenty of things better than military spending.

Heavily armed groups = soldiers.
Most police forces are equipped and trained to deal with terrorists in a civil and humane manner compared to soldiers. They usually get better results when they act.

Being on the offense increases anger against you, thus lowering your number of allies and it may ultimately lead to your defeat. Ever thought that keeping friends and being isolated might make fewer enemies so fewer threats?

Actually, it is just for war.

Funny, I said just that: It's like a human rights thing, just for war.

Guess what? it means that it also applies to civilians. In fact, most of the rules are about civilians, soldiers (incl. all combatants) don't get nearly as much protection, because they forfeit their right to safety. They still get a right to certain protections though.

Oh, so being poor means they cant support us?

It means they're not supporting you because they agree with your cause.


You dont really have a defense for the rich countries that supported us. New Zealand wasnt shut out just because they didnt agree with us.

Many of the rich countries' citizens didn't believe that there were WMD (they were right), many of them didn't want to attack (so far, they're pretty much right) and yes, you have a lousy track record of: everyone who isn't with us, is against us (great way to make enemies, woot! get all the neutrals against you!).


wow, I didnt think you'd say it but you did wow

It makes sense, by your logic. You were the first to say it.


with a wmd attack from Saddams stockpile, of course.

Which was never used against an invading force and could have won him the war. But wait! he didn't have any.
to get you to stop cutting the rest of them off, absoulutly

Unfortunately, they'll either lie, tell the truth or say nothing. That gives you, if all chances are equal, 30% chance of getting truth. Chemicals give you much higher with more safety. Also, I bet you'd still rather die. Guess what, the terrorists think very much like you.

Not if the public never knows about it, like it should be

The public should always know what their government is doing. That's why it's a called a government by the people and a democracy.

which is why they will talk when you torture them.

They will lie when they talk. Or just not talk.

dead civilians are something people need to deal with

I would rather deal with living civilians, they're easier to talk to, easier to make deals with, etc... Dead civilians are not just something people need to deal with. They're something which something needs to be done about, such as reducing amounts of dead civilians.

some are

I'll use your logic: no.

I wasnt being sacastic at all, I guess Im a maniac:confused:

Torture works if you do it right, and if it saves American lives, how is it wrong?

See: Witch burnings.

Do you think any of those women were witches? Many claimed to be to escape the torture and die a quicker death, but witches are superstitution. They don't exist. Hence, regardless of how much you get them say "I am a witch! I am a witch!" It will never be true.

Chemicals are still better than torture. Ever considered that torture might hurt an american life? or just a human life?

1. We arent occupying Iraq, we are liberating them
2. Those arent important, a hugh military is important.

Actually, they are liberating themselves. They won't get liberty through soldiers, but politicians and diplomats.

And this is quite ironic. Sooo, you can't even spell, but military is more important? You are aware that it's education that's lead to most military advances, and not military spending? So even by your logic, an education would still lead to a stronger military.

Good shooting there sir.

Thanks :)

1. We arent occupying Iraq, we are liberating them
2. Those arent important, a hugh military is important.
1: Even if we were just liberating them, it would still be an occupation.
2: Uh huh. A huge military can cure cancer, AIDs, and Bird Flu, I see.

2: Uh huh. A huge military can cure cancer, AIDs, and Bird Flu, I see.

Didn't you know? :p you can just shoot everyone who suffers from cancer, AIDs and Bird Flu. Not as good as just using educated doctors to try to find solutions, but sure as hell faster!

(just in case: I am joking)

I wonder if killing someone actually cures them of all their other ills.

1. We arent occupying Iraq, we are liberating them
2. Those arent important, a hugh military is important.

Definition of occupation:

"Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces."
(from dictionary.com by the way)

Isn't that exactly what's being done in Iraq?


So you would give up the right to medical treatment for every citizen of the U.S.A. for a biiger military?

Because the death of Iraqis are justified.
So the death of an innocent citizen of the U.S.A. would not be justified, whereas the death of an innocent Iraqi civilain would be. :rolleyes:

1. We arent occupying Iraq, we are liberating them
2. Those arent important, a hugh military is important.

Blasphemy

Because the death of Iraqis are justified.

So? It was only a few thousand, get over it already.

Kiften would also like to comment that the views of the UN Ambassadorship do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its parent nation.

:)

The Constitution of the United States has got to be one of the most well-written political documents I've ever read. The ideals (life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness) that this country is based on are wonderful. The only problem is the horribly corrupt and power hungry government. This country could have the best quality of life and such if it was run by decent people, which is really ironic, because we are the people who elect government officials. But personally, I prefer Finland and the Netherlands, no RIAA ;)

I wouldn't say a maniac, just in my opinion, a lack of understanding, name an incident when it has saved an American life/s. You could benefit from putting yourself into another persective, suppose you were an Iraqi citizen wrongly suspected of being an insurgent, you were taken away and tortured for information - which you knew nothing of. Needles were shoved up your fingernails, you were deprived of sleep with fluorescent lights, you were beaten and electrocuted. How is that right.
Suppose you were an Iraqi insurgent, you were captured and tortured as described above, would you lie to stop being tortured and not betray the other insurgents - the information cannot validly be trusted, making torture an uneccesary abuse of *human* rights.
I wouldnt give up info, but insurgents would, they are generally weak people. And if I would be wrongful tortured, hey stuff happens. I wouldnt take it personal, I know they are just saving American lives.

Why?
Because they arent Americans and they died in defense of America.

America was not defending itself in WWI and WWII. They were helping the Allies defend themselves against two wars that, although they have happened, never should have.
Wait, so we are directly attacked at pearl harbor and some how we arent protecting ourselves? please

Now that they have, might as well make the best of it. The civil war was an internal war, not defensive, nor necessary.
It was in defense of the union, if the war hadnt been fought, the country would have feel apart.

The gulf wars hardly protected you, instead you have made more enemies.
They greatly protected our interests, which protect our way of life

Afghanistan has also not increased your own security
You cant be serious, tell this is a joke. We completely dismantle al-Qeada and the Taliban, the people who attacked us on 9/11 and somehow we arent safer?

merely very slowly and painfully increased the security of Afghanistan, at the cost of many many civilian lives.
Who care how many civilians died?

Murders and criminals are dealt with by police force.
Unless terrorists are soldiers, they are also dealt with by police force.
Police forces tend to be less armed than armies and less able to overrun a country. I am not talking about secret police forces.
You have no idea how the world works


Iraqis are occupied.
no, we are rebuilding their country so it can be a stable place

I already pointed out to you, I am going to get a better education than you at a lower cost. I am never going to worry about hurting myself. There are plenty of things better than military spending.
You wont care about your education if your dead


Most police forces are equipped and trained to deal with terrorists in a civil and humane manner compared to soldiers. They usually get better results when they act.
So we shouldnt be fighting the war on terror, come on.

Being on the offense increases anger against you, thus lowering your number of allies and it may ultimately lead to your defeat. Ever thought that keeping friends and being isolated might make fewer enemies so fewer threats?
How many times have I said I dont care about allies


Funny, I said just that: It's like a human rights thing, just for war.

Guess what? it means that it also applies to civilians. In fact, most of the rules are about civilians, soldiers (incl. all combatants) don't get nearly as much protection, because they forfeit their right to safety. They still get a right to certain protections though.

Civilians and terrorists dont apply to the convention.


Which was never used against an invading force and could have won him the war. But wait! he didn't have any.
1st, he would have never won the war no matter what he did, also he got rid of them just b4 the war.

Unfortunately, they'll either lie, tell the truth or say nothing. That gives you, if all chances are equal, 30% chance of getting truth. Chemicals give you much higher with more safety. Also, I bet you'd still rather die. Guess what, the terrorists think very much like you.
I'll still take torture.


The public should always know what their government is doing. That's why it's a called a government by the people and a democracy.
No, they shouldnt, it puts this country at a much greater risk when the public knows


I would rather deal with living civilians, they're easier to talk to, easier to make deals with, etc... Dead civilians are not just something people need to deal with. They're something which something needs to be done about, such as reducing amounts of dead civilians.

I perfer dead civilians


Chemicals are still better than torture. Ever considered that torture might hurt an american life? or just a human life?
Torture shouldnt be against Americans, other than that I dont care


Actually, they are liberating themselves. They won't get liberty through soldiers, but politicians and diplomats.
They tried doing it themselves and failed, they needed us.

So the death of an innocent citizen of the U.S.A. would not be justified, whereas the death of an innocent Iraqi civilain would be. :rolleyes:
In certain cases, yes

If you can't find any evidence to support it then it probably isn't true.
not always


Questioning is good. What you did wasn't questioning, it was blindly assuming that he was lying because you didn't like what he said. If you searched and found good reason to doubt his integrity and claims then please present it.
he does have a book deal coming out


Saddam was a coward which is why he was found cowering in a hole. If he had any chance of defending himself then he would have done so using his WMD. He didn't.
I've explained this


1. That is irrelevant as your original claim was that attacking Iraq hasn't provoked any attacks. I have shown that it did so you are wrong.
2. How does invading Iraq help fight Chechnyan freedom fighters?
1.ok, fine
2. Im not sure what your saying



Because apparently 'freedom is on the march', because you claim to support liberty and democracy, because if you act with only your own interests at heart then you are no better than the dictators you overthrow (as I have explained several times already).
If its in the best interest of my country, then fine Im a dictator

Because they arent Americans and they died in defense of America.That remark is borderline racist, I hope you know.

-snip-
You just never cease to amuse me. :p
Please, do carry on!

That remark is borderline racist, I hope you know.
It wasnt meant to be in slightlest. You can call me alot of things, but one of them is not a racist.

It wasnt meant to be in slightlest. You can call me alot of things, but one of them is not a racist.I said borderline, didn't I?
But whether you like it or not, finding it acceptable to sacrifice people to allegedly keep you safe on the grounds that they are not citizens of your country is heading in that direction.

I said borderline, didn't I?
But whether you like it or not, finding it acceptable to sacrifice people to allegedly keep you safe on the grounds that they are not citizens of your country is heading in that direction.
Wouldn't 'non-american-misanthrope' be a more accurate term though?

Wouldn't 'non-american-misanthrope' be a more accurate term though?
Meh. I'm too hungry to argue about semantics right now. I'm off to eat something! :D

I wouldnt give up info, but insurgents would, they are generally weak people. And if I would be wrongful tortured, hey stuff happens. I wouldnt take it personal, I know they are just saving American lives.

How many insurgents do you know? Do you know them to be weak people? I think you would give up any information with enough torture - but then the most logical choice is to lie, to stop yourself being tortured, but also not betray your country. As I said before, torture provides unreliable information and so is an unnecessary abuse of human rights. You still haven't named any instances in which torture has saved American lives, but you seem to think that human rights don't exist - and that those humans don't deserve them - unless they are American.
I think everyone here would be satisfied to have at least convinced one more person that torture is wrong :)

Wait, so we are directly attacked at pearl harbor and some how we arent protecting ourselves? please

I call not being prepared to accept a conditional surrender a non-defensive policy. You beat them away, then what you could do is go on the defensive and let them get beaten trying to attack you. Then you'd be justified in fighting.


It was in defense of the union, if the war hadnt been fought, the country would have feel apart.

whatever


They greatly protected our interests, which protect our way of life

And what interests are those? safety? you're no safer now than you were before. In fact, last time I checked, criminality was the highest cause of death in your country. How about you fix that?


You cant be serious, tell this is a joke. We completely dismantle al-Qeada and the Taliban, the people who attacked us on 9/11 and somehow we arent safer?

AQ is still around. You started by supporting the Taliban. The people who attacked you on 9/11 mostly came from Saudi Arabia.


Who care how many civilians died?

I do, probably a lot of your countrymen do, they do. Especially those that die. Or should I somehow stop caring if you got killed along with a couple thousand americans? I don't think so, I will continue caring.


You have no idea how the world works

That could be greatly argued. Terrorists are a law enforcement problem, not a military issue.


no, we are rebuilding their country so it can be a stable place

And you are occupying them. You invaded Iraq and you currently have an armed force in the country. That's occupation.


You wont care about your education if your dead

I'll be too smart to get myself killed. You, on the other hand, are going to join the military, which is asking to kill and get killed. I feel no pity for soldiers who die, because they know perfectly well what they're signing up for and should get no sympathy from me for their selfish acts. Did they ever stop to think of their loved ones who will miss them?


So we shouldnt be fighting the war on terror, come on.

Yes, you shouldn't. It's a waste of money and it's a waste. It's just one big waste and it's not going to work (anymore than waging a war on freedom is). Please note: you are not fighting the war on terror, you are waging a war on terror. You could use some education.


How many times have I said I dont care about allies

How long will it take before you realize that your super-power status only exists because of your allies?


Civilians and terrorists dont apply to the convention.

It's applicable to all in war-time. You are not permitted to shoot an unarmed civilian, that is a war-crime. You are not permitted to torture an enemy combatant, that is a war-crime. You are not allowed to systematically kill each and every person in a region, that is genocide.


1st, he would have never won the war no matter what he did, also he got rid of them just b4 the war.

BS, nobody I know believed he had any WMD. Not even the politicians did, as you so often claim. I actually think you would have gotten out very fast if he was prepared to use WMD on the US. He didn't have any, so he wasn't prepared to use them.


I'll still take torture.

So you'd tell the truth? or lie?


No, they shouldnt, it puts this country at a much greater risk when the public knows

The public IS the country. The public IS the government. Don't let a few elites take over it.


I perfer dead civilians

I prefer good spelling.


Torture shouldnt be against Americans, other than that I dont care

Unfortunately, it is often used against Americans in your war on terror. Not to mention, an American is not a better human-being than say, an indian.


They tried doing it themselves and failed, they needed us.

When they wanted you, you left them. When they didn't want you, you come and save them. Really bad timing. And they freeing themselves: from you. They're asking everyone else, except the americans, to stay (with the americans, they're doing both: stay! but go, because you make everything worse). Everyone else wants to leave because nobody in their home countries want them there.

In certain cases, yes

That is, as previously said, borderline racist. But then again, we've already determined you are a nazi, right?

In certain cases, yes

Define "certain cases".

I wouldnt give up info, but insurgents would, they are generally weak people. And if I would be wrongful tortured, hey stuff happens. I wouldnt take it personal, I know they are just saving American lives.

Oh yeah, and terrorists are generally much more idealist than your average person. This would make them "stronger" people rather than "weaker" people.

What is your basis for believing that insurgents are weak? Insurgents are necessarily strong.

Your not even maiking sense now, UN ambassidorship, take it, you've lost this argument.

Oh and without education, you wouldn't be able to shoot anyone, we'd still have swords and axes-not guns!

If its in the best interest of my country, then fine Im a dictator

Ladies and gentlemen, I think this is all we need to read. This man is a xenophobe and a racist, he thinks torture is fine as long as you don't torture Americans, he thinks that killing children is fine, he thinks that dead civilians are fine as long as they're not American.

We can't win against this kind of blind bigotry and I would urge everyone on this thread to simply walk away and add the UN ambassadorship to their ignore list. I will lead by example.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think this is all we need to read. This man is a xenophobe and a racist, he thinks torture is fine as long as you don't torture Americans, he thinks that killing children is fine, he thinks that dead civilians are fine as long as they're not American.

We can't win against this kind of blind bigotry and I would urge everyone on this thread to simply walk away and add the UN ambassadorship to their ignore list. I will lead by example.
Seconded.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think this is all we need to read. This man is a xenophobe and a racist, he thinks torture is fine as long as you don't torture Americans, he thinks that killing children is fine, he thinks that dead civilians are fine as long as they're not American.

We can't win against this kind of blind bigotry and I would urge everyone on this thread to simply walk away and add the UN ambassadorship to their ignore list. I will lead by example.
I agree wholeheartedly, and I've been waiting for this for quite some time. I beg you, please, PLEASE let this thread die now. Enough is enough!

Ladies and gentlemen, I think this is all we need to read. This man is a xenophobe and a racist, he thinks torture is fine as long as you don't torture Americans, he thinks that killing children is fine, he thinks that dead civilians are fine as long as they're not American.

We can't win against this kind of blind bigotry and I would urge everyone on this thread to simply walk away and add the UN ambassadorship to their ignore list. I will lead by example.
other than the man comment I agree. We've tried to humanitise him, but it hasn't worked, lets leave him to rot.

Democracy. Right. That solves everything. That's why we have a terrorist group in charge of Pakistan: democracy.

Erm Sorry but that’s crap, Pakistan’s government was removed in a military Coupe by General Musharef due to rampant corruption and criminal activity etc. He has been president since and has also been one of the few Muslim nations to actively support Britain and the US in Afghanistan, the Pakistan Army regularly conducts operations against Taliban and Al Qaeda along the Afghan/Pakistan boarder. Rightly or wrongly Musharef has remained in power and I don't believe (although I may be wrong) that there have been elections since he deposed the government. So where exactly is this democratically elected Pakistani terrorist government?

That most those people were, or could one day become, terrorists. And outside for the fact we are both nationalist and arent afraid of a little bloodshed, I dont see how I am like ol' Adolf.

Because your a bloody right wing Nationalist who dosen't mind spilling blood, and believes that America and Americans are better than the rest of the world and are not subject to international Law and conventions. Try reading up on what the Nazi's (proper name National Socialism) actually stood for and the policys they came to power on you pillock.

Please don't encourage him Foresters, he won't change his mind. Just walk away and let this thread die.

That most those people were, or could one day become, terrorists. And outside for the fact we are both nationalist and arent afraid of a little bloodshed, I dont see how I am like ol' Adolf.

You're not a nationalist.

Want me to tell you just what you are?

You're a racist, ignorant, self-righteous, paranoid prick that only serves to reinforce the stereotype that all Americans are racist, ignorant, self-righteous, and paranoid. You're beliefs are extreme right-wing, past even Nazism, you have no respect for other cultures or nations, hell, even other human beings, and you can't even spell out your warped beliefs properly. You make me ashamed to share the same country with you, and you're an insult to the United States and all it's people.

That's my opinion, and with that, I'm placing you on my ignore list.

Good day to you.

Velkya: Best damn post ever!

So admit there are terrorists in Iraq. then why do you question our involvment there?


If thought it was, then yes. Freedom isnt free you know.

There is terrorism (or insurgency depending on how you look at it BECAUSE you are in Iraq. It did not exist there prior to the invasion but the invasion has bred it. Just to give you a hypothetical, if your nation was the most stable in a region, had the largest army was violently against religious extremism (in contrast to your neighbours) being a secular nation. You get free electricity and water from your government you have huge valuable natural resources, safe streets and a stable government, oh and no weapons’ of mass destruction of course.

What would your reaction be to being attacked out of the blue, have huge numbers of your civilian population killed by the invaders, your army destroyed, your government destroyed what was left of your economy torched, not to mention your electricity and water supplies cut your hospitals and schools bombed and the invaders roving round on vehicles and gunning down people in the streets and then footage is released of the same soldiers who the whole while claim their there for your benefit torturing, abusing and sexually assaulting citizens they’ve taken prisoner. And of course these are the ones who didn't "disappear".

Then it turns out that the invaders justify their actions by claiming your nation was somehow linked to attacks which happened thousands of miles away committed by Religious extremists from another nation, and that you have Nuclear weapons that you were somehow going to use several thousand miles away. Now imagine that it’s your home state in the US and that it’s say the South Americans who are the invaders. If you had the means at your disposal to attack the invaders would you do so? Iraq had nothing to do with the twin towers incidents, as anyone with any sense would know, there may be an argument for saying Iran did (who by the way had regular wars with Iraq, in fact the last one had the largest tank engagements seen since the second world war) but its a bit speculative.

It’s also interesting to note that the US and its citizens have helped set up and fund terrorist groups longer than the present state of Iran has been in existence, Al Qaeda being one. Oh and Osama Bin Laden is in fact from Saudi Arabia and was educated in the US, didn't go to the same school as you did he?

Personally I don't think Saddam Hussain was a nice person and I’m not particularly sorry he's gone, but I didn't support the war in Iraq because it violated international law, which states that you cannot attack a nation purely in order to enact a regime change. Incidentally this is probably why the US made up the whole WMD thing because you can launch a pre emptive strike if you believe that the nation in question is about to attack you. I do having said this support continued involvement of the US and Britain in Iraq until it is stabilised, mainly because we’ve gone in and trashed their nation bringing it to its knees. To say "yeah were bored with you now, and we’ve lost some men so were going home, sorry about the mess hope you country doesn’t self destruct, see ya" is not really fair, we should fulfil our inherent responsibility.

You're not a nationalist.

Want me to tell you just what you are?

You're a racist, ignorant, self-righteous, paranoid prick that only serves to reinforce the stereotype that all Americans are racist, ignorant, self-righteous, and paranoid. You're beliefs are extreme right-wing, past even Nazism, you have no respect for other cultures or nations, hell, even other human beings, and you can't even spell out your warped beliefs properly. You make me ashamed to share the same country with you, and you're an insult to the United States and all it's people.

That's my opinion, and with that, I'm placing you on my ignore list.

Good day to you.Amen.

Please don't encourage him Foresters, he won't change his mind. Just walk away and let this thread die.

Yeah ok given up too tired to be bothered anymore think i'll take your advice, just goes to show there are truly scary people wherever you go.

You're not a nationalist.

Want me to tell you just what you are?

You're a racist, ignorant, self-righteous, paranoid prick that only serves to reinforce the stereotype that all Americans are racist, ignorant, self-righteous, and paranoid. You're beliefs are extreme right-wing, past even Nazism, you have no respect for other cultures or nations, hell, even other human beings, and you can't even spell out your warped beliefs properly. You make me ashamed to share the same country with you, and you're an insult to the United States and all it's people.

That's my opinion, and with that, I'm placing you on my ignore list.

Good day to you.
this could be seen as flamming, you can attack my position, but you dont have to go after me personally.

this could be seen as flamming, you can attack my position, but you dont have to go after me personally.

You don't see the link from the position to the person?

You don't see the link from the position to the person?
but Im not a right-wing nutjob, Im a sensible liberal who just happens to believe in a strong national defense

but Im not a right-wing nutjob, Im a sensible liberal who just happens to believe in a strong national defense
No you aren't. You're an insane fascist who believes in xenophobia and racism.

but Im not a right-wing nutjob, Im a sensible liberal who just happens to believe in a strong national defense

Ah, but here's the crucial point - you are.

You've posted xenophobic stuff, most people would follow xenophobic beliefs to ignorance or racism. Therefore he was well within his rights to label you 'racist and ignorant'.

Good day to you sir :)

No you aren't. You're an insane fascist who believes in xenophobia and racism.
How am I a racist, I have never said my race is better than anothers

How am I a racist, I have never said my race is better than anothers
Saying that non-Americans should be killed and tortured if it helps Americans qualifies as racism.

Saying that non-Americans should be killed and tortured if it helps Americans qualifies as racism.

Come on friend, you'll never convince him. Just walk away and let this sad thread die in peace.

Come on friend, you'll never convince him. Just walk away and let this sad thread die in peace.
No! I'll fight to the death!:mp5:

No! I'll fight to the death!:mp5:
ok, you win, for the love of God you win. Your position is right ok, this post makes me tried and drains my energy. Every argument on both sides has been said and re-said and then said again just for clarity. Its had a good run, much better than I thought. It was fun but its time to say goodbye to the thread. goodbye thread*bows head in respect*

ok, you win, for the love of God you win. Your position is right ok, this post makes me tried and drains my energy. Every argument on both sides has been said and re-said and then said again just for clarity. Its had a good run, much better than I thought. It was fun but its time to say goodbye to the thread. goodbye thread*bows head in respect*
WE WON! WE WON! DOWN WITH THE FASCITS!

Thank god for that, he surrendered.

At least we seem to have now convinced someone that torture is wrong, non-American citizens have human rights, the "Coalition of the Willing" was largely pulled together through corruption (as oppose to moral concerns), and that the deaths of 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilains were not justified.

:)

EDIT: Oh, and: Goodbye thread...

At least we seem to have now convinced someone that torture is wrong, non-American citizens have human rights, the "Coalition of the Willing" was largely pulled together through corruption (as oppose to moral concerns), and that the deaths of 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilains were not justified.

:)

EDIT: Oh, and: Goodbye thread...
Joy to the world! We have preached to the unpreachable and won! Oh happy day!

This thread is back again. It rose from the dead in the same way, dare I say, Jesus did! This thread is JESUS, oh praise the lord

This thread is back again. It rose from the dead in the same way, dare I say, Jesus did! This thread is JESUS, oh praise the lord
Wait, you converted? That explains a lot.

Wait, you converted? That explains a lot.
No, it was joke. Nevermind

No, it was joke. Nevermind
Aww...I thought you might have gained some morals.

Aww...I thought you might have gained some morals.
hahaha, I have morals, just not traditional ones

hahaha, I have morals, just not traditional ones
Killing children for the USA qualifies as morals?

Killing children for the USA qualifies as morals?
You dont understand the difference bettween homocide and justified killing.

You dont understand the difference bettween homocide and justified killing.
Yes, I do. Homocide is what you are advocating. Oh shoot...am I restarting it? Has it come back from the dead? Zombies! We need to kill it now!

Yes, I do. Homocide is what you are advocating. Oh shoot...am I restarting it? Has it come back from the dead? Zombies! We need to kill it now!
This makes me think. Whats the difference between homocide and justified killing. For me, if you walk up to someone on the street and shoot someone, its murder. But in a war, for me anything goes. alls fair in love and war as they say. So what is the difference to you?

Necroposting=bad.

This makes me think. Whats the difference between homocide and justified killing. For me, if you walk up to someone on the street and shoot someone, its murder. But in a war, for me anything goes. alls fair in love and war as they say. So what is the difference to you?
To me, a justified killing is in protection of myself or other people directly (like if a terrorist was shooting into a crowd and I shoot him: that is justified. Killing a child because he may someday become a terrorist isn'). The death penatly is also justified because a person who kills another person and is stupid enough not to get a plea bargain deserves death. Once somebody strips another of their right to live, they forfeit theirs.

Necroposting=bad.
whats that?

Has anyone mentioned Americas debt? Yeah, yay USA..!..

whats that?
It means reviving a dead thread.

Why would you need more nukes? Aren't there enough already to destroy this planet several times?

several times? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Many MANY times!!!! i think washington should have them dismantled. as long as moscow, london, paris, beijing (yeah... good luck on that one), israel (doubt it), pakistan (no way), and india (no way in hell) dismantle theirs. that might ease tensions.

several times? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Many MANY times!!!! i think washington should have them dismantled. as long as moscow, london, paris, beijing (yeah... good luck on that one), israel (doubt it), pakistan (no way), and india (no way in hell) dismantle theirs. that might ease tensions.
What about Iran?

It means reviving a dead thread.
It wasnt dead, it was sleeping:p. Ive seen losts of threads come back, like the paradise beach and am I a lesbian threads. So I dont see how its bad.

It wasnt dead, it was sleeping:p. Ive seen losts of threads come back, like the paradise beach and am I a lesbian threads. So I dont see how its bad.
Changed your opinion at all?

It wasnt dead, it was sleeping:p. Ive seen losts of threads come back, like the paradise beach and am I a lesbian threads. So I dont see how its bad.
Which paradise beach do you mean, paradise beach revivies itselfs so you have Paradise 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ect.

What the devil is this thread doing out of its grave?? :mad:

I guess that when there's no more room in Hell, the bad threads will walk the forums?

Now go away! Shush!

Which paradise beach do you mean, paradise beach revivies itselfs so you have Paradise 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ect.
the 9th one