Rumsfeld is stepping down....

[johnjzjz]

Originally Posted by JL8Jeff

Saddam attacked his own people with chemical weapons. There were terrorist training camps found in northern Iraq with chemical and bio weapons found. This guy was another Hitler. Do you really think we should have just sat around and done nothing? If we did sit around and he killed thousands more then other countries would be complaining that we didn't do anything. It's a no win situation. The UN is a bunch of wussies who don't want to offend anyone so we had to go it alone. But it wasn't just Bush, Congress and the Senate voted that we should go in. Both democrats and republicans voted that we should go in. But all of the sudden the dems turn around and say it was a bad idea so they could get a majority elected. Whatever, it will backfire. I just hope they don't try to remove the troops before the Iraqi people are ready to stand on their own.

ITS HOPELESS TO TRY TO REASON WITH PEOPLE WHO ONLY WATCH THE DRIVE BUY LEFT TV - THEY GET OFF ON MAKING BELIEVE THEY DONT UNDERSTAND -- THEY HAVE NO ANSWERS JUST RHETORIC, CLICHES, AND SOUND BITES -- THEY THINK IS THE TRUTH -- JZ

[johnjzjz]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Whats weak? That he can have dual-citizenship or that we will be there forever?
Dems wont impeach Bush because they dont want to look like bullies and use there newly gained power to upset the people. They will do what must be done to get changes made, and set the stage for the Presidential election in 08. IMO, if Bush wanted to save Congress, he should have kicked Rumsfeld out LONG ago.

LETS HOPE WHAT THEY DO IS WHAT IS THE BEST FOR THE USA -- NOT WHAT IS GOOD FOR ANYONE PARTY -- I AM AN INDEPENDANT WHO WOULD LIKE TO THINK I WILL BE VOTING FOR THE BEST ONE FOR THE JOB BOTH SIDES SUCK AT MODS DONT YOU THINK -- JZ

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by JL8Jeff

Saddam attacked his own people with chemical weapons. There were terrorist training camps found in northern Iraq with chemical and bio weapons found. This guy was another Hitler. Do you really think we should have just sat around and done nothing? If we did sit around and he killed thousands more then other countries would be complaining that we didn't do anything. It's a no win situation. The UN is a bunch of wussies who don't want to offend anyone so we had to go it alone. But it wasn't just Bush, Congress and the Senate voted that we should go in. Both democrats and republicans voted that we should go in. But all of the sudden the dems turn around and say it was a bad idea so they could get a majority elected. Whatever, it will backfire. I just hope they don't try to remove the troops before the Iraqi people are ready to stand on their own.

If you are so worried about Hitler-esque cleansing, take a gander at Africa. There are SEVERAL nations killing millions of people a year. Not like 1 or 2, like 10-11 million people. But hey...why go there?
Republicans keep coming up with distractions.

We went into Iraq to (fill in the blank)

1- Saddam had WMD
So does N.Korea, and they are testing them and threating to use them.
2- Saddam is killing his own people
Several countries in Africa are doing the same, by the millions
3- Saddam backs terror
So does Saudi Arabia, Parts of Africa, Syria, Palastine, Lebanon....

Keep coming up with reasons that we went in, and I could find you a better way of doing things. We all went in on it because we were all duped. We were behind our hurt nation, behind our "great" president, telling the world that he mus tbe stopped. We belived in him. As Lewis Black said in his new show, "We gave him a lot of rope, and he hung all of us with it."

I would like one solid reason, outside the ones listed above, why we picked Iraq to remove from power, when we all know there are far worse enemies.

[johnjzjz]

I would like one solid reason, outside the ones listed above, why we picked Iraq to remove from power, when we all know there are far worse enemies.[/QUOTE]

IT WAS THE SAME REASON THEY USED VIETNAM TO START A WAR WITH -- IT APPEARED TO BE AN EASY TARGET KNOWING FULL WELL OTHER TARGETS WERE MORE DIFFICULT - BUT THE IDEA IS VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND -- WE THE USA WERE LOOKING FOR A FRIEND IN THE IRAKY PEOPLE -- A STRONGHOLD TO LAUNCH OPERATIONS ONCE THAT COUNTRY WAS STABILIZED ------------------------- BUT THAT IS SO FAR OUT THEIR NO ONE ON THE LEFT GETS IT -------- AND BUSH LIED HE WAS TOLD BUY THE US SECRET SERVICE THEIR WERE WMDs -------- AND HE KNEW HE WAS LIEING BUT HE DID BECAUSE THE VICE PRES THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA ------------- AND ENGLAND THE USAs WORST FRIEND ======== TOLD HIM IN A WHITE HOUSE BATHROOM ABOUT THE WMDs ----- SO IT HAD TO BE A LIE SO BUSH LIED ----------AND DRUG US INTO A WAR WE CANT WIN SO THE DEM'S COULD WIN THIS ELECTION I EVEN GET IT NOW --------- JZ

[johnjzjz]

To realize
The value of a sister
Ask someone
Who doesn't have one.



To realize
The value of ten years:
Ask a newly
Divorced couple.




To realize
The value of four years:
Ask a graduate.




To realize
The value of one year:
Ask a student who
Has failed a final exam.




To realize
The value of nine months:
Ask a mother who gave birth to a stillborn.




To realize
The value of one month:
Ask a mother
who has given birth to
A premature baby.




To realize
The value of one week:
Ask an editor of a weekly newspaper.

To realize
The value of one minute:
Ask a person
Who has missed the train, bus or plane.




To realize
The value of one-second:
Ask a person
Who has survived an accident.



To realize that President Bush might have thought what he was doing was for the good of the country ( nah he lied ) -jz

[NJSPEEDER]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

If you are so worried about Hitler-esque cleansing, take a gander at Africa. There are SEVERAL nations killing millions of people a year. Not like 1 or 2, like 10-11 million people. But hey...why go there?
Republicans keep coming up with distractions.

my question to you is simple al, would you rather have the us military walking around protecting people in africa or eliminating the people that are a direct threat to you and me?
the us has sent military forces to africa before, they got kicked out by the local government. although i am sure hte sentiment has changed a bit since that happened in the late 80's, it can't be easy to jsut show up and offer to play cop for a puppet government and some well armed loonies.
i don't see any problem with who the US has gone after, however i do certainly question some of the methods and timing. of course, it is easy to question the situation when we are only offered whatever version of the "truth" is offered from the governments spin and then filtered through teh spin of thepopular press.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by NJSPEEDER

my question to you is simple al, would you rather have the us military walking around protecting people in africa or eliminating the people that are a direct threat to you and me?

How was SADDAM HUSSEIN and his armies were going to attack you?

any one still failed to respond about North Korea, they have nukes (actual WMDs), they've killed MILLIONS of their own people, they keep threating USA, they kicked out UN inspectors. All of the things Saddam has done, only worse. But there's still no action

[Ian]

Originally Posted by NJSPEEDER

my question to you is simple al, would you rather have the us military walking around protecting people in africa or eliminating the people that are a direct threat to you and me?
the us has sent military forces to africa before, they got kicked out by the local government. although i am sure hte sentiment has changed a bit since that happened in the late 80's, it can't be easy to jsut show up and offer to play cop for a puppet government and some well armed loonies.
i don't see any problem with who the US has gone after, however i do certainly question some of the methods and timing. of course, it is easy to question the situation when we are only offered whatever version of the "truth" is offered from the governments spin and then filtered through teh spin of thepopular press.

the US military got booted from a terribly poor third world part of the planet and yet we managed to over take all of Iraq while going against the UN....I dont know, that just doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.

and why protect the tens of millions of people getting killed in africa? well you said it yourself. We're the worlds last standing super power and we have to go out and protect the world from itself.

We also need to spread democracy to every corner of the globe because whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Nevermind the slight resistance that we've been encountering the entire time we've been in the middle east, they'll thank us later after we break down their society and give them a society that we see for for them to live in. If our way of live works for us, the most powerful nation in the world, it will surely work in the middle of the desert.

I am not opposed to fighting terror. I do think that we should go out and kick some ass after being attacked. but the whole situation with the war in Iraq stinks to high hell!

try thinking about it this way...
Suppose for a minute that America wasn't the greatest super power in the world. lets say for now that we were somewhere around 5th. I'll just make up a country like panama to be number one (very hypothetical). well, say a small group of people from our country went out and attacked panama. every single other person in america didnt know that was gonna happen, save for a few politicians. but on crap! panama is pissed! the rest of the world knows that invading america and over throwing their government just because a select few officials granted the american terrorists a little freedom is not the right thing to do. the people of panama are outraged and want something done about this and rightfully so. so panama talks it over with the rest of the world and says they want to invade america and declare war on them. the rest of the world knows that all of america wasnt responsible, so they tell panama to cool their jets, come up with a plan and go after the organization that actually commited the acts. panama says F that, we're taking america over...and they do.

now think about how you would feel about all this. the greatest power in the world has just invaded your country, overthrown your government and hunted and captured your president. Now the people of america are starting to get pissed. how could panama be so irrational as to punish an entire nation for the acts of a select few? so the americans do what the feel is right...they fight back. I know I sure as hell wouldn't want soldiers walking around my town telling me what to do and pointing guns in my face. and panama is trying to setup a governemt that you dont want. great. we went from being content to being completely miserable because panama had a chip on its shoulder and instead of going after the real criminals, they changed every aspect of our american lives.

the end.





I wish to god that we had never tried to force our governmental systems upon the people of Iraq. I wish we spent more time getting useful intel (not torturing someone at gitmo until they lie just to make you stop). if the terrorists we were after crossed the border into afghanistan, why didnt we follow them there? we already invaded one counrty without a TRUE reason, why not another? America has the balls to completely change an entire country, but we cant track down a few terrorists. we send all those troops over there, but we negelct to send them with body armor. thousands of young americans killed and billions of dollars spent... what do we have to show for it?

[Tsar]

to add an evil spin to Ians post about Panama:
Hypothetical of course...

Who here thinks it would be OK for the world to bomb USA into an oblivion for mass murder of Indians?

Or that doesn't count, because USA is the almighty god of the world?

[V]

wow, this thread has a lot of words, probably more already here then in the entire buddy list thread...lol

[JL8Jeff]

Let's try this again. Saddam was trying to get/build nuclear weapons. That makes him a threat to everyone in the world. Africa is not looking for nuclear weapons so they are not near the top of the list. Iraq is a smaller country with an ineffective military so they were the first target. Iran and North Korea are too big with too many people/military to just march in and do anything. Pakistan and India are way too big to try and do anything about them having nuclear weapons but they appear to have them just to keep each other in check. The rest of the world will put enough pressure on North Korea because they are a big threat to China and Japan so we don't need to go into North Korea. Iran will be the biggest problem, but since we now have a foothold in Iraq it gives us a much better ability to keep them in check as we rally the rest of the UN to try and deal with them. The idea is to try and let democracy grab a foothold in Iraq and hope some of the other middle east countries want the same thing. I seriously doubt that will happen in our lifetime but you have to start somewhere. The one thing you don't see on tv is how grateful the Iraqi people are that we came in and ousted Saddam. The media just spins the violence which is all they do for our own news as well.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by JL8Jeff

Let's try this again. Saddam was trying to get/build nuclear weapons. That makes him a threat to everyone in the world. Africa is not looking for nuclear weapons so they are not near the top of the list. Iraq is a smaller country with an ineffective military so they were the first target. Iran and North Korea are too big with too many people/military to just march in and do anything. Pakistan and India are way too big to try and do anything about them having nuclear weapons but they appear to have them just to keep each other in check. The rest of the world will put enough pressure on North Korea because they are a big threat to China and Japan so we don't need to go into North Korea. Iran will be the biggest problem, but since we now have a foothold in Iraq it gives us a much better ability to keep them in check as we rally the rest of the UN to try and deal with them. The idea is to try and let democracy grab a foothold in Iraq and hope some of the other middle east countries want the same thing. I seriously doubt that will happen in our lifetime but you have to start somewhere. The one thing you don't see on tv is how grateful the Iraqi people are that we came in and ousted Saddam. The media just spins the violence which is all they do for our own news as well.

So you're saying you attacked Iraq because they were the easiest target. and the rest is too much for you. great

and of course Saudis have to much oil to **** with

[Ian]

I view north korea as a bigger threat than Iraq was before we invaded. hmm, hostile country that actually has nukes or a weaker country who doesn't have nukes...

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by Ian

I view north korea as a bigger threat than Iraq was before we invaded. hmm, hostile country that actually has nukes or a weaker country who doesn't have nukes...

plus iraq has been crippled by years of sanctions imposed on them. their military was from 80s soviet era..

[Savage_Messiah]

Originally Posted by Savage_Messiah

If I have no idea about war or why we get involved, then why don't you tell me about it.

You still haven't answered.

Originally Posted by johnjzjz

First off ---HAHHAHHAH....actually George Washington's fairwell address was #1 Potomac view terrace, Mount Vernon,Va.--- but than again that is the same way you have chosen to argue -- pick out while standing on the sidewalk what you see is an un truth and soap box it -- my take on your rant is ( you cant see the forest for the trees ) --- I carried WITH ME IN VIETNAM a cig lighter with the inscription --- ( FREEDOM HAS A TASTE THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW ) IT IS AS TRUE TODAY AS IT WAS IN 1968 / 69 -- JUST DIFFERENT YOUNG PEOPLE SAME MIND SET ( CLOSED TO ANY ONE ELSES OPINION ) -- JZ

What does the location of the speech have to do with what I said? I quoted him to illustrate the negative impact of having parties, ESPECIALLY a two party system, how does "but than again that is the same way you have chosen to argue -- pick out while standing on the sidewalk what you see is an un truth and soap box it -- my take on your rant is ( you cant see the forest for the trees " have ANYTHING to do with that?

Funny how my father was in Vietnam as well, fully agrees with me politically and is even more vehement about the matters than I am.

Originally Posted by johnjzjz

who attacked you on sep 11th. I wont even talk about "wmds" aka mustard gas ( ) cuz that's just pathetic. Or the fact that bush LIED about the documents that talked about their existance. How do i know he lied? Blair, who gave him those documents, later admitted in front of British Parlament that they were made up. ohh nooes...


hey oh smart one -- ( who attacked you on sep 11th. ) That should be us or are you illegaly in the united states -- ( existance -- and Parlament )--are spelt EXISTENCE -- PARLIAMENT -- BTW -- and i am sure you would want me to point that out to you - cuz - u youngens r smart u said -- jz

Way to avoid a question yet again, please answer it.

Originally Posted by johnjzjz

I'm a citizen of the United States of America and Russian Federation.

CANT BE BOTH DUDE - LIKE A GUY WITH BOOBS - YOU ARE OR YOUR ONE OF THEM -- HOPE THAT ENGRESS IS SIMPLE ENOUGH 4 U -- JZ

Once again reinforcing my statement about your blatantly ignorant statements.

Originally Posted by johnjzjz

LETS HOPE WHAT THEY DO IS WHAT IS THE BEST FOR THE USA -- NOT WHAT IS GOOD FOR ANYONE PARTY -- I AM AN INDEPENDANT WHO WOULD LIKE TO THINK I WILL BE VOTING FOR THE BEST ONE FOR THE JOB BOTH SIDES SUCK AT MODS DONT YOU THINK -- JZ

I fully agree up to the part where you say you're an independant, that certainly made me laugh.

Originally Posted by johnjzjz

I would like one solid reason, outside the ones listed above, why we picked Iraq to remove from power, when we all know there are far worse enemies.

IT WAS THE SAME REASON THEY USED VIETNAM TO START A WAR WITH -- IT APPEARED TO BE AN EASY TARGET KNOWING FULL WELL OTHER TARGETS WERE MORE DIFFICULT - BUT THE IDEA IS VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND -- WE THE USA WERE LOOKING FOR A FRIEND IN THE IRAKY PEOPLE -- A STRONGHOLD TO LAUNCH OPERATIONS ONCE THAT COUNTRY WAS STABILIZED ------------------------- BUT THAT IS SO FAR OUT THEIR NO ONE ON THE LEFT GETS IT

Actually it has become the same reason... "We have to spread democracy because democracy is the best thing to ever happen to mankind! Oh wait, the natives don't like that we're here in arms to change their way of life? Oh they are kicking our asses? Oh, I guess is was stupid to come here at all, looks like they don't want our help!"

Some stronghold we have there.

Originally Posted by JL8Jeff

The idea is to try and let democracy grab a foothold in Iraq and hope some of the other middle east countries want the same thing. I seriously doubt that will happen in our lifetime but you have to start somewhere.

Why can nobody understand that, while Democracy thrives here and works for us, that it can not work everywhere?? The Iraq situation has shown us that they simply cannot control themselves and are not ready for any form of democracy, and the same goes for most of the middle east.


I've realized that nobody has brought us the similarities of the two attacks on U.S. soil that have happened. Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor, and used the attack as a reason to launch us into WWII. Our government had intelligence that said the 9/11 attack would happen, and that was used as a launching point to go off to war in the middle east. The difference being that WWII was a war that we NEEDED to get involved with right then due to the imminent threat of the Axis powers, where as (ignoring Afghanistan, where our soldiers are still being killed although nobody seems to think about that) Saddam Hussein was, honestly, no threat to us at all.

Bush wanted this war long before he was in office. Only it's not working out the way he thought it would... read. And if you're going to say to say oh that's ********, blah blah blah.... then please accompany that with proof that it is.

[Savage_Messiah]

OK this is weird, I know I have brought up the question of who killed more Iraqi citizens on average, Saddam or the USA... I can't find where I said that now, but I know I did. Tsar found a nice little article about the deaths of the civilians whose lives we are supposedly there to protect...

http://www.russbaker.com/Guerrilla%2...20-%20Bush.htm

Iraqi Official: 150,000 Civilians Dead
By STEVEN R. HURST
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A stunning new death count emerged Thursday, as Iraq's health minister estimated 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war - about three times previously accepted estimates.
Moderate Sunni Muslims, meanwhile, threatened to walk away from politics and pick up guns, while the Shiite-dominated government renewed pressure on the United States to unleash the Iraqi army and claimed it could crush violence in six months.
After Democrats swept to majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned, Iraqis appeared unsettled and seemed to sense the potential for an even bloodier conflict because future American policy is uncertain. As a result, positions hardened on both sides of the country's deepening sectarian divide.
Previous estimates of Iraq deaths held that 45,000-50,000 have been killed in the nearly 44-month-old conflict, according to partial figures from Iraqi institutions and media reports. No official count has ever been available.
Health Minister Ali al-Shemari gave his new estimate of 150,000 to reporters during a visit to Vienna, Austria. He later told The Associated Press that he based the figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals - though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total.
"It is an estimate," al-Shemari said. He blamed Sunni insurgents, Wahhabis - Sunni religious extremists - and criminal gangs for the deaths.
Hassan Salem, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, said the 150,000 figure included civilians, police and the bodies of people who were abducted, later found dead and collected at morgues run by the Health Ministry. SCIRI is Iraq's largest Shiite political organization and holds the largest number of seats in parliament.
In October, the British medical journal The Lancet published a controversial study contending nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war - a far higher death toll than other estimates. The study, which was dismissed by President Bush and other U.S. officials as not credible, was based on interviews of households and not a body count.
Al-Shemari disputed that figure Thursday.
"Since three and a half years, since the change of the Saddam regime, some people say we have 600,000 are killed. This is an exaggerated number. I think 150 is OK," he said.
Accurate figures on the number of people who have died in the Iraq conflict have long been the subject of debate. Police and hospitals often give widely conflicting figures of those killed in major bombings. In addition, death figures are reported through multiple channels by government agencies that function with varying efficiency.
As al-Shemari issued the startling new estimate, the head of the Baghdad central morgue said Thursday he was receiving as many as 60 violent death victims each day at his facility alone. Dr. Abdul-Razzaq al-Obaidi said those deaths did not include victims of violence whose bodies were taken to the city's many hospital morgues or those who were removed from attack scenes by relatives and quickly buried according to Muslim custom.
Al-Obaidi said the morgue had received 1,600 violent death victims in October, one of the bloodiest months of the conflict. U.S. forces suffered 105 deaths last month, the fourth highest monthly toll.
At least 45 Iraqis were killed or found dead in continuing sectarian violence Thursday, with 16 of the victims killed in bombings at Baghdad markets. For the fifth straight day, insurgent and militia mortar teams traded fire in the capital's northern neighborhoods.
Al-Shemari, while not explaining the death toll estimate, was more precise about the government's increasingly public and insistent demands for a speedier U.S. transfer of authority to Iraqi forces and the withdrawal of American troops to their bases and from Iraq's cities and towns.
"The army of America didn't do its job. ... They tie the hands of my government," said al-Shemari, a Shiite.
"They should hand us the power. We are a sovereign country," he said, adding that the first step would be for American forces to leave population centers.
Al-Shemari is a controversial figure and a member of the movement of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Some U.S. officials have complained that the ministry has diverted supplies to al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.
In August, U.S. troops arrested seven of al-Shemari's personal guards in a raid on his office. The U.S. never explained the raid, but Iraqi officials said Americans suspected the guards were part of a militia.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who also has close ties to al-Sadr, told Bush in a video conference last month that he would make renewal of the U.N. mandate under which the U.S. keeps forces in Iraq conditional on a rapid handover of power.
Al-Maliki also said at the time that U.S. forces should clear out of Iraq's cities, according to top aide Hassan al-Suneid. He said the White House agreed, although that was never confirmed in Washington.
Last week, al-Maliki rejected a demand by a visiting top administration official that he move to disband Shiite militias by year's end. A senior al-Maliki adviser, who refused to be identified by name because of the sensitive nature of the talks, said the prime minister told U.S. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte it would be suicidal for the Iraqi leader to move against the heavily armed militias.
The militias are a key player in the sectarian conflict in Iraq, having taken to the streets with extreme vengeance against Sunni insurgents and civilians after the February bombing of a Shiite shrine north of Baghdad.
The militias and their death squads are the armed wings of rival Shiite political parties. One of the militias, known as the Mahdi Army, is loyal to al-Sadr; the second, larger group is known as the Badr Brigade and answers to the SCIRI.
Al-Maliki's hold on power depends on the support of both political organizations and their fighters, hence his reluctance to move against the armed groups.
He also has balked at U.S. demands for passage of a series of laws that would favor minority Sunnis, a group that makes up the bulk of the insurgency that has been fighting U.S. forces and has killed tens of thousands of Shiites.
Sunni members of parliament over the past two days have threatened to walk out of the legislature and take up arms. They charge the Shiite-dominated government with refusing to meet their demands for a fair division of power and natural resources.
The dean of the Sunni politicians in parliament said Thursday there were attempts by Iran to run Sunnis out of the country. Adnan al-Dulaimi then called Arab countries to support Iraq's Sunni minority.
"There is a Safawi (Iranian) plan to root the Sunnis out of this country, and we are confronting it," al-Dulaimi said. "We call on our Arab brethren to support us and confront this Safawi plan."
His political group has five ministers in al-Maliki's Cabinet and al-Dulaimi again threatened to pull them out of the government.

So do you people see yet that democracy is not the answer for these people? They are too divided by centuries-old conflict to unite with one another... Saddam Hussein, as evil as he may be, kept the two sides from violent civil war, which broke out just about as soon as he was gone, and which we have seen in the past 40 something months we cannot stop. Vietnam all over again. We are getting involved in a situation much older than our country, and our presence there does nothing but make matters worse. There cannot be peace between the Iraqi sunnis and shiites, there's less hope there than there is for isreal/palestine peace. No matter how long we stay, we cannot coerce them to peace, and we sure as hell cannot leave any lasting form of democracy in their hands.

[NJSPEEDER]

Originally Posted by Ian

I view north korea as a bigger threat than Iraq was before we invaded. hmm, hostile country that actually has nukes or a weaker country who doesn't have nukes...

let's see, a coutry with few to no loonies walking around in america and ONE successful ground test of a nuclear weapon(all reported flight tests have been failures in some way or another) vs. people walking around with bombs and elaborate plans to attack. gee, i wonder who is the bigger threat here

[NJSPEEDER]

Originally Posted by Tsar

to add an evil spin to Ians post about Panama:
Hypothetical of course...

Who here thinks it would be OK for the world to bomb USA into an oblivion for mass murder of Indians?

Or that doesn't count, because USA is the almighty god of the world?

you have a nice way of blowing things out of proportion when you hope to make a point. i say hope because it is obvious your grasp of US and world history is clearly very weak.
the idealogy of the world, as far as exploration and expansion of nations, accepted the idea of overpowering and enslaving native cultures 200+ years ago. it was jsut an unfortunate part of culture back then.
you may have noticed that the world has changed a bit in the time since then. try to keep up with modern events and look beyond the pop culture spin of how bad everyone is and that the world would be a wonderful place if we all loved each other and hugged a bunny.
fact is people hate the US jsut because of who we are and what we have. they hate you and me and the fidget jsut teh same for the sole reason of where we live. these are the people the war was started and continues to be fought against.
everyone can bring up a leader or a nation here and there to use as an example, but there is still a prevailing failure to look at the global implications of what the US is doing, protecting itself. unless something has dramatically changed while i was aay last week, every human and every nation has the right to protect itself.

[NJSPEEDER]

"It is an estimate," al-Shemari said.

from reading the article it really sounds more like he guessed.

as far as one faction or another threatening to pull out of the government, i woudl take that with a grain of salt. the factions invovled all know that their best interests will remain in being invovled in the governmental process.
that article also seems to point towards some attempt by teh US to create equality among the factions

He also has balked at U.S. demands for passage of a series of laws that would favor minority Sunnis, a group that makes up the bulk of the insurgency that has been fighting U.S. forces

you can drop out all the who killed who crap that is attached to each side, these people have been at war with each other for 400 years, i am sure both sides have killed enough of the other to make a glorious sounding number by now.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by NJSPEEDER

let's see, a coutry with few to no loonies walking around in america and ONE successful ground test of a nuclear weapon(all reported flight tests have been failures in some way or another) vs. people walking around with bombs and elaborate plans to attack. gee, i wonder who is the bigger threat here

small groups of terrorists do NOT account for the views or actions of the entire country of Iraq! and saying that the Iraqis hate us and thats why we invaded them is a load of crap. just because someone doesnt like us doesnt give us the right to overpower them and force our views upon them. thats roman empire/nazi germany stuff right there.

[Savage_Messiah]

Originally Posted by Ian

small groups of terrorists do NOT account for the views or actions of the entire country of Iraq! and saying that the Iraqis hate us and thats why we invaded them is a load of crap. just because someone doesnt like us doesnt give us the right to overpower them and force our views upon them. thats roman empire/nazi german stuff right there.

[NJSPEEDER]

Originally Posted by Ian

small groups of terrorists do NOT account for the views or actions of the entire country of Iraq! and saying that the Iraqis hate us and thats why we invaded them is a load of crap. just because someone doesnt like us doesnt give us the right to overpower them and force our views upon them. thats roman empire/nazi german stuff right there.

wow, you completely missed what i was saying. we went into iraq because of the governments open support of al quida. this was all happily reported by the press when the war started, but i guess that information has gotten lost since the war has lower ratings now.
what i was saying is that there are people who don't liek us all over the world. some of these people will get organized and work to attack the US on our own soil. these are the people teh military is after.
it isn't about a particular government or even an individual leader, it is about those who have the potential to threaten us on our own soil.

[Tsar]

Originally Posted by NJSPEEDER

you have a nice way of blowing things out of proportion when you hope to make a point. i say hope because it is obvious your grasp of US and world history is clearly very weak.
the idealogy of the world, as far as exploration and expansion of nations, accepted the idea of overpowering and enslaving native cultures 200+ years ago. it was jsut an unfortunate part of culture back then.
you may have noticed that the world has changed a bit in the time since then. try to keep up with modern events and look beyond the pop culture spin of how bad everyone is and that the world would be a wonderful place if we all loved each other and hugged a bunny.
fact is people hate the US jsut because of who we are and what we have. they hate you and me and the fidget jsut teh same for the sole reason of where we live. these are the people the war was started and continues to be fought against.
everyone can bring up a leader or a nation here and there to use as an example, but there is still a prevailing failure to look at the global implications of what the US is doing, protecting itself. unless something has dramatically changed while i was aay last week, every human and every nation has the right to protect itself.

ok so you're saying its ok for USA to kill and enslave. now and 200 years ago. i guess it was ok to help overthrow Columbian government to build a Panama canal, or bomb the **** out of Yogoslavia and use depleted uranium to do so (which also happens to be illegal), but thats alright too because you can do no wrong. Basically, in your eyes, USA can do no wrong. i get it. all your arguments are pretty weak, and actually i know my history pretty well unlike you.

Dude, north Korea doesn't have a technology to deliver a nuke to US soil argument is WEAK, you just shot yourself in the foot. N.KOREA has more **** then IRAQ ever did yet you don't consider them a threat cuz they cant bomb your ass? Not like Iraq ever could. and exactly how many suicide bombers were in Iraq BEFORE US got there? yea thats right, there's WAY more of them now because they want your troops to get the **** out of THEIR country which you invaded based on LIE that your president has told you!


Most of the world hates you for your arrogance, ignorance and assholeness towards other people. have you ever seen any US tourists and how they act? have you been outside the country? probably not.
Of course there're a FEW that hate you just because you were born here, but thats only a FEW.

[Ian]

Iraq did let terrorists in and out of their counrty, yes. But so did other countries. why havent we gone after the other countries since they aided terrorists too? lets invade pakistan and try to make them a democratic society. lets invade iran and force a new government upon them too. hell, even afghanistan will have to be converted to our super awesome, one size fits all democracy! but are we gonna do anything about north korea? no, jeff said the rest of the world would take care of them even though tim said we're the worlds police

if you want to hunt terrorists, good, I'm all for it. but the way our administration has gone about it is costly and ineffective at best.

[johnjzjz]

Savage_Messiah --- TELL YOUR DAD FOR ME -- ( WELCOME HOME BROTHER ) -- HE WELL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS -- I WAS IN COUNTRY FROM OCT 23 - 68 -- MY SECOND TOUR WAS CUT SHORT - TILL NOV 17 69 - C - MODEL HUEY GUN SHIP - WITH THE - 101st AIRBORNE - IN ( I CORP )