BPsite Forums

With all the terrorist probelms in the world right now, isn't it better to just take Bush because he can deal firmly with the issue, and let his other shortcomings slide?

Uh, his biggest shortcoming is his cackness at dealing with the rest of the world.

When have you ever paid SS tax?

Well... maybe if the rest of the world acknowledged we were acting in their best interests, and gave us some shred of support

isn't it better to just take Bush because he can deal firmly with the issue, and let his other shortcomings slide? dontgetit.gif

No. He deals firmly with THE WRONG FUCKING ISSUE..

Go back to sorting out your civil problems, then when thats all nice and goodly, you can go about policing the world. The first step in this is electing someone who knows how to govern a country. Like, gods forbid, Ralph Nader!

But, hey, its not like America will ever elect a hardcore left-wing president. So I'll take nice, moderate Kerry, thankyou.

we have kept restrained

the world will give into their demands

The U.S. needs to be a world policeman

we're the only nation powerful enough

we're the only nation who cares

if we don't, the Western world is basically screwed

Now tell me, who's best for that task?

we have kept restrained

The U.S. needs to be a world policeman because we're the only nation powerful enough, we're the only nation who cares (Europeans in general have turned passive and apathetic), and if we don't, the Western world is basically screwed. Now tell me, who's best for that task? wink.gif

Speaking of which, when was the last sucessful U.N. operation? Israel? No. Bosnia? No. Iraq? No.

Saddam, is gone, the world is safe from his plans to build WMD

... rug... if we were in a war against Islam, how is Pakistan our strongest ally?

the evil madman, Saddam, is gone, the world is safe from his plans to build WMD

with a bit of luck and some strong support we'll finally have the first democratic Islamic state!

...why we aren't progressing in Iraq as projected, all these Islamic countries who pay us lip service and secretly support anti-US groups

I will admit that the US's foreign policy decisions are based on the country's needs and desires (i.e. oil, trading partners, resources, etc) BUT..... what country does not use their foreign policy to make their territory more sucessful.

The U.N. is ineffective because it is full of politicians from weak and old countries who do nothing but sit and debate, while accomplishing NOTHING.  The U.S. acts only because the U.N. refuses to do so!  Speaking of which, when was the last sucessful U.N. operation?  Israel?  No.  Bosnia?  No.  Iraq?  No.

I'd like to see how the western world held up without U.S. support.  We'll withdraw all our troops from NATO countries (but *gasp* they're providing much needed revenue for those nations, especially Germany), we'll stop sending financial aid to a majority of the world, we'll stop fighting maniacal leaders like Kim Jong-Il and see how long peace and stability remains!

Oh, and finally, while the U.S. is not superior to other nations, it does have the strongest military, most advanced science and medical programs, the largest economy out of any country, and is the only superpower remaining in the world.   :D

(like one of the students in my grade who went to France last year as an exchange student, and a teacher refused to shake hands because he was American)

And so the world is dominated and cowed into fearful submission by a group of fanatics with no morals nor concern for human life and human rights? 

1) Islam- Pakistan is in fact our strongest supporter (the Saudis have been increasingly reluctant in their dealings with us, while the Pakistanis have captured quite a few Al Qaeda terrorists).

2) WMDs or NBCs... whatever... can you honestly say that Saddam was not planning to build at least one type of them? He'd already used chemical weapons in his wars with the Kurds and Iran, so we know he had the potential to unleash even more of them against his other enemies. Removing him was essential... even if we had waited until a few years later, he would still have been a menace to the global community, and would need to go. Now, did we do things "legitimatly?" That's an opinion question, just like "do the ends justify the means?"

3) Iraq is a war zone, but it is changing! I don't know for sure, but I believe there have already been elections.... if not they'll come soon.

4) About the Ayatollah- first of all, he only held off al-Sadr... he didn't support the U.S. Seconly, he's a SHI'ITE Muslim, while the majority are Sunnis. Do you think the Shi'ites, who gained many rights when the U.S. occupied and Saddam was kicked out, would complain?

6) War over resources, in my opinion, is justified.

maybe that's because of the inaction of every other major power in the world. Other countries are not inferior, just unwilling. There's a big difference.

8) Do you know what sarcasm is? We are the most advanced nation. Europe would be nothing without the U.S. WE rebuilt your continent after WWII, lifting you out of certain depression/communism, WE continue to provide military and economic aid to you, WE are trying to PROTECT you, and all you can do is spit on us!?!? Show some gratitude!   

9) I agree, the U.S. should be abiding by Kyoto, and should accept more UN decisions, but considering how we view the UN as a waste of our time at this current point, we have little incentive to do so.

Cheney Spits Toads
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: September 9, 2004

WASHINGTON — George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have always used the president's father as a reverse lodestar. In 1992, the senior Mr. Bush wooed the voters with "Message: I care.'' So this week, Mr. Cheney wooed the voters with, Message: You die.

The terrible beauty of its simplicity grows on you. It is a sign of the dark, macho, paranoid vice president's restraint that he didn't really take it to its emotionally satisfying conclusion: Message: Vote for us or we'll kill you.

Without Zell Miller around to out-crazy him, and unplugged after a convention that tried to "humanize'' him with grandchildren, horses and wifely anecdotes about his inability to dance the twist, Mr. Cheney is back as Terrifier in Chief.

He finally simply spit out what the Bush team has been more subtly trying to convey for months: A vote for John Kerry is a vote for the terrorists.

"Because if we make the wrong choice,'' Mr. Cheney said in Des Moines in that calm baritone, "then the danger is that we'll get hit again. That we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war.''

These guys figure, hey, these scare tactics worked in building support for the That Stupid Country AGAIN war, maybe they can work in tearing down support for John Kerry. They linked Saddam with terrorism and cowed the Democrats (including Mr. Kerry, who has never been able to make the case against the Bush administration's trompe l'oeil casus belli) and fooled the country into going along with their trumped-up war. So why not link Mr. Kerry with terrorism and cow the voters into sticking with the White House they've got?

It's like that fairy tale where vipers and toads jump out of the mouth of the accursed mean little girl when she tries to speak. Every time Mr. Cheney opens his mouth, vermin leap out.

The vice president and president did not even mention Osama at the convention because of the inconvenient fact that the fiend is still out there, plotting. Yet they denigrate Mr. Kerry as too weak to battle Osama, and treat him as a greater threat.

Mr. Cheney implies that John Kerry couldn't protect us from an attack like 9/11, blithely ignoring the fact that he and President Bush didn't protect us from the real 9/11. Think of what brass-knuckled Republicans could have made of a 9/11 tape of an uncertain Democratic president giving a shaky statement that looked like a hostage tape and flying randomly from air base to air base, as the veep ordered that planes be shot down.

Mr. Cheney warns against falling back "into the pre-9/11 mind-set,'' when, in fact, the Bush team's pre-9/11 mind-set was all about being stuck in the cold war and reviving "Star Wars" - which doesn't work and is useless against terrorist tactics. The Bush crowd played down terrorism because Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger had told their successors that Osama was a priority, and the Bushies scorned all things Clinton. The president shrugged off intelligence briefings with such headlines as "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'' because there was brush to be cleared and unaffordable tax-cutting to be done.

After the blue-ribbon graybeards declared the Bush administration's pumped-up W.M.D. claims and Saddam-9/11 links bogus, the White House went into a defensive crouch - especially the man in the undisclosed bunker, who had veered wildly between overly pessimistic predictions of Saddam's nukes and overly optimistic predictions of grateful Iraqis with flowers and chocolates.

For a time, it seemed that Americans were realizing they'd been flimflammed by the Bushies. But at the convention, the swaggering Bush juggernaut brazenly went back to boasting about its pre-emption doctrine, tracing imaginary connections between 9/11 and Saddam, and calling all our foes terrorists.

Why should the same group that managed to paint a flextime guardsman as a heroic commander - and a war hero as a war criminal - bother rebutting or engaging with critics?

As the deaths of American men and women fighting in That Stupid Country AGAIN topped 1,000, and with insurgents controlling parts of central That Stupid Country AGAIN, the White House trotted out the same old discredited line, assuming it can wear - and scare - everyone down by November.

and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war.

Now, did we do things "legitimatly?" That's an opinion question, just like "do the ends justify the means?"

We can just make sure it doesn't appen again.

8) Do you know what sarcasm is? We are the most advanced nation. Europe would be nothing without the U.S. WE rebuilt your continent after WWII, lifting you out of certain depression/communism, WE continue to provide military and economic aid to you, WE are trying to PROTECT you, and all you can do is spit on us!?!? Show some gratitude!

Lemme ask you this- what have Europeans done recently that sucessfully soved a global issue? Communism? Terrorism? Poverty/human rights abuses in Africa, Bosnia, Kurdistan, etc...? None of the above! Since you refuse to lead, we end up doing it.

However I do think that the rest of the world is unfairly being anti-American. They always side with the extremists in Islam and do not realize that they are perverting the word of Mohammed for their own means and destroying Islam. The rest of the world condemns Israel even though the Palestinian terrorists and the manipulation of the Palestinians by surrounding Arab governments are as bad as Israel.

Point #1 "heh, i liked this bit. so working back wards my main two points are.

No.
and
The U.S. would be nothing without Europe, WE built your continent."



Point #2 "Communism is one of the best theory's of governments"

remember kids, theres no such thing as free speach and you dont live in a free country.

remember kids, theres no such thing as free speach and you dont live in a free country. says:
since when were you a communist?
Cookiemeister says:
since I found out about Comunism and Facist
Cookiemeister says:
*Facism
remember kids, theres no such thing as free speach and you dont live in a free country. says:
who would lead your government?
Cookiemeister says:
you, ofcourse
remember kids, theres no such thing as free speach and you dont live in a free country. says:
that wouldnt work
Cookiemeister says:
cause your a hardcore facist?
remember kids, theres no such thing as free speach and you dont live in a free country. says:
no because id become corrupt so easily
Cookiemeister says:
LOL
Cookiemeister says:
thats the problem
Cookiemeister says:
Communism would work amazingly if someone could just do it properly
Cookiemeister says:
unfortunatly, so far, no-one has
remember kids, theres no such thing as free speach and you dont live in a free country. says:
thats the problem human psychology wont allow it too

You did at first, then left, deserting us

the funding the US gives to the UN

look at the horrible economic state East Germany is in, with the sole cause being Communism

Consider who gives the most international aid (which does not consist of arms) to less fortunate nations. THE US!!!

Hypothetical example- in the interests of every country in the world, the US puts together a coalition of armies designed to topple a dictatorial, anti-Western government that violently seizes control of Saudi Arabia. Read closely, those of you who are idiots.... the key words are: every country, coalition, dictatorial, violent revolution.

-I believe the Bush administration has problems; all administrations do.
-I make a point of calling them French fries, and continue to study French in school.
-Anti-US feelings came before anti-French ones.

Communism is fine in theory, but the likelyhood of it ever working in practice is remote.

I like trickle-down economics and tax breaks for the wealthy

SS is also a crap system and should be eliminated

I'm having a little too much fun typing some of this... ;)

In this scenario, we must assume that the US provided no support, like a true neutral country.  In that case, it's widely accepted that Britain would have fallen years before, since they would have been unable to break the German u-boat blockade without more resources, and would have run out of supplies much earlier.  Of course, it's possible Hitler might have made another tactical blunder, and let the Russians become too strong before finally conquering Britain and redirecting his troops, but I have a strong feeling the outcome of the war would have been different without any US involvement.  ;)

I think we need them

Consider who gives the most international aid (which does not consist of arms) to less fortunate nations. THE US!!!

1) My personal opinion is that war over resources is justified. Hypothetical example- in the interests of every country in the world, the US puts together a coalition of armies designed to topple a dictatorial, anti-Western government that violently seizes control of Saudi Arabia. Read closely, those of you who are idiots.... the key words are: every country, coalition, dictatorial, violent revolution.

My last point: AMERICA DID NOT ACT ILLEGALLY IN IRAQ If all other reasons to support the war are removed (to end human rights abuses, to end Saddam's obvious defiance of the UN and it's resolutions- a legitimate reason to invade by itself, the fact that Saddam was supporting terrorists, the obvious realization that war would invariably have come in the future), consider this:

"The NBCs Saddam Hussein used on the Kurds were sold to him by America and Britian for use in the Iran-Iraq war. Never forget who created Saddam Hussein. We did."

We went in to clean up our joint mess.

-Anti-US feelings came before anti-French ones.

Communism: is an evil idea, which can never be put into practice, is the destroyer of nations (look at the horrible economic state East Germany is in, with the sole cause being Communism), and has caused many problems through it's belief in world revolution.

Mole- I dunno if the English are still supporting us..... I believe I'm wrong though, and the Spanish deserted us. I honestly forgot.

The reason that America is not liked by many of the countries in Europe is simply because the extreme capalist policy some people seem to have

Hyvry- what on earth does capitalism have to do with anything here? 

it's completely possible that russia could have closed the eastern front and that britain could have held out long enough to win a war

the outcome of the war would have been different without any US involvement.

P.S. My personal opinion is that you Europeans should shut up and accept what the US is doing as good.  Criticism of us is fine, so long as you participate (at least a little) in the matters at hand.

it doesn't really matter if what we did was illegal.

You could say we should beware of this type of action in the future

what?... yes it does that the whole point, without laws the civilised world is nothing. you can just make them and break them at your convenience it causes chaos and disrepute

We owe France nothing. Any debt we may have had to them in the past has long since been repaid, while they have yet to repay their more recent debts to the US. And I think that the French started griping about our actions and fighting us in the UN over Iraq. Once that happened, we started getting pissed off at them.

I say to communism- poor people should work for their money; it should not be given to them. Invariably in a communist state, people become lazy, since there is no motivation to work hard (since no one gets more wages). I also say it's the government's responsibility not to interfere with the workings of business/try to control it, or to provide any more than basic welfare support for the lower classes.

Name one time in world history when the US was neutral, and the world was better off for it. hmmm.gif

Prove capitalism has anything to do with the situation. dry.gif

The correct term is Supply-Side Economics. The basic principle is that if major organisations save lots of oney on taxes, they can afford to pay their employees more. What actually happens is they just term those tax breaks into higher profits, and bigger bonuses for the executives. It does NOT[b] work as it is supposed to. The Republicans very own Communism - fine in theory, bullshit in practice.

I say to communism- poor people should work for their money; it should not be given to them. Invariably in a communist state, people become lazy, since there is no motivation to work hard (since no one gets more wages). I also say it's the government's responsibility not to interfere with the workings of business/try to control it, or to provide any more than basic welfare support for the lower classes.

Hehe... nicely said.    :D   

Isn't Britain one of those countries with like a 60% tax rate?  :miffed:

I don’t think that anyone here can possibly claim that they know exactly how to build a country in all it’s intricacy and yet still be viable, or even remotely realistic. And I have a good feeling that Rug might dispute that, but hey, just because he could (per say) rule the whole world in peace and defeating poverty everywhere… why the bloody hell would any current rich man want him to do so.

From Enslavement to Obliteration: Who is he, where does he live, and where's the Beretta?
From Enslavement to Obliteration: "Elitist motherfucker, eh? You're alright, so fuck the little guy, eh? Hope you don't like your kneecaps!" *BLAM*

I honestly don't feel much sympathy for the poor person (he should have found a better job/gotten an education/tried to advance further in life)

which is why I propose a 10% tax rate instead of a 50% one. wink.gif

They need help and welfare is a way to give it to them to support them until they can find a job. The only problem is that due to their position, they can only secure the most menial jobs which also doesn't support them as well.

And the people who are too... well, stupid is the word, to get a high-paying job

Healthcare- I resent having to pay my tax money (well, figuratively, but still) for some idiot who gets injured by risking their own life needlessly, smoking, binge drinking, and basically harming themselves... they should pay for their stupidity. I honestly don't care very much for public healthcare over tax breaks, because if you get injured, you should pay out of your own pocket.

As to your first comment- I am definatly not going to argue that a lot of people cheat the system to get money, however, the rich don't usually cheat the government out of money (at least in a way I recognize... naive me).

And I'm not sure about the statistics, but how many people on long-term welfare actually look for employment?

The government should be providing less help (like medicare/medicade/etc) but the cuts in those services should be accompanied by a reduction in prices in the medical field

Oh my goodness, stop the presses, the people who have invested time and effort in making money want to actually keep some of it?  What a novel idea.  With all due respect to everyone here, the notion that those who have made the effort to place themselves in a position to make good money through years of hard work(read: working their way through college) should bear the burden of the entire society so that everyone is "equal" is preposterous.  Those of you who've read the sword of truth series(i know theres a few of you here) will be familiar with the principals i'm talking about. Don't take me for a cold hearted bastard, i fully agree that "haves" should help the "have nots" but out of their own volition.  Laws that require people who've made money to provide for those who refuse to are nothing but guilt trips.
Wheres the incentive to improve your life when you can force others to do it for you?

Now, before you all go off on me(and i'm sure you will) keep in mind this is not a personal attack on any of you.  I'm perfectly willing to discuss this nicely, so keep that in mind.  Know also that I speak from experience.  I'm currently working my way through college and trying to go to medical school.....when i'm done i'll be hundreds of thousands in dollars in debt to learn a job that will hopefully, save peoples lives.  I'd like to be able to be out of debt eventually.

Haveswill not help have notsout of their own volition, because they are greedy.

You should NOT, however, be getting wealthier at the expense of the poor

Taking $5,000 froma $30,000 salary is the same $5,000 dollars you get from someone with a $300,000 salary! So why not do it that way?

well theres a stereotype if i've ever heard one. Granted, there are lots of greedy wealthy people, but making that kind of sweeping assumption is just plain wrong.
The issue here is not greed. The issue is, at its core, fairness. When it comes right down to it, people who make it their passion to succeed in the United States can and will. I know of many stories, some of them close family friends who started from nothing and now make enough money to donate(whoa, wealthy people donating?! oh my goodness) to local universities to help with research and building new facilities. Now, before you start on that line, success doesn't necessarily imply rich. There are many people who are much more content to be in a profession they truly enjoy than make the sacrifices necessary to make piles of money. I'm planning on being a doctor, but not because i want to get rich. If i wanted to do that, i'd go to law school and work my ass off there to earn a position on a track to being a partner in a huge law firm. But making money would have to be all i'd exist for. Most people aren't willing to make that kind of committment(i know i'm not).

first off, i don't know where you get your idea that i'm rich. working through college puts me in a slightly financially disadvantaged position that will continue for years after i'm done with medical school. In the meantime, i'm working away making not much more than min wage like the "poor working man" But i'm doing it. And i'm working in school to better myself. And i'm going to save peoples lives. And i would really really really like to be out of debt someday. How is any of this at the expense of the poor?

for the record, that is not at all how a flat tax works; i'm sure you knew that, but that particular sentence is very very misleading. Its on percentage. So taking 5,000 from a 30,000 salary is exactly like taking 50,000 from a 300,000 salary cause they're the same percentage. Right now, in the US, in california, the tax on a 300,000 salary is almost 150,000. I don't make anywhere near that much, but i know of people who do, and quite frankly they're taking it rather well. Now you'll argue they're still living on 150,000 while the other is living on 25,000. Its not "fair" you'll say. What does it take to make things fair? The person who makes the 150,000 net(after taxes mind you) has most likely gone to school for half his life and also most likely dedicates much of their life to actually making the money reducing their amount of time to actually enjoy it. A person who enjoys their lifestyle making 25,000 is gonna be "happier" than a person who hates their job that they work 85 hours a week at making 150,000. Yet the person on top is the one supporting the economy for the entire nation. Now whats "fair"?

The issue is greed. You went off topic there - talking about succeeding, when the issue here IS money. You cannot survive on being successful - it does not pay the bills. So, that secretary might have made a huge effort to get that job, and be really proud of themselves for getting it. They're still poor.

If the person works really hard, 85 hours a week for a big salary, they need to ask themselves why they're doing it. If its purely for the money, they should probably take another look at their life, and rearrange some priorites.

comletely beside the point. Someone who can't pay bills on 30,000 needs to reevaluate their priorities....part of the sacrifice you make being content not to have worked harder in education or looked for a higher paying job

My example was 20,000 for a reason. And, no, not everyone can do better than a low paying job, due to the varied reasons RB cited above.

Why exactly does the U.N. have the authority to declare it illegal?

Was it "illegal" for Saddam to support terrorism?

Was it "illegal" for him to use chemical and biological weapons against his people?

The UN made it clear to Saddam that failure to comply would be met with force.

If it makes itself into a toothless and powerless body, then we can't do anything about that

Child rights issues....not really sure what you're referring to by that, i'd appreciate an explanation though i don't doubt that crap happens. I seriously doubt the US is making a determined effort to purposefully ignore child's rights

Nukes......why should we make ourselves more vulnerable just because the rest of the world has decided to? Russia still has ICBMs, (i don't know for sure, but i believe Britain does, correct me if i'm wrong).

Don't get pissy at the US for wanting to have the capability to blast the hell out of something that attacks us.

If we stop building/get rid of our own nukes, that will not change any other country's stance, especially not our enemies'.

WTF are you referring to as the Axis of Evil?

Rug- the fucking Int'l Rights of the Child agreement.... who cares?!?!?!

Prove to me that we sold Saddam actual biochemical weapons, and then I'll agree that was a mistake

Axis of Evil refers to those countries that are rogue states/building up a nuclear program now/supporters of terrorism.

Because you signed up to their authority, saying they make international law and you do not.

If you can provide concrete proof that he was, yes.

Was it illegal for America to sell them to him?

Yes, they did. And Iraq complied with the weapons inspectors. Then... America... invaded...?

Or would you be happier if you ran the show?

The USA is not party to the Intenational Rights of the Child, a treaty signed by 99% of the worlds countries, including ones with abyssal human rights records (Like Turkey).

Yep, Britian has nuclear-capable ICBMs and a number of warheads. About 50, probably a little less. America has access to some 500+ nuclear weapons, and one heckuva lot of biological and chemical agents. Why does it need so many? YOu could keep maybe 30 low-powered tactical nukes, 10 middle-power strategic nukes, and one or two of your continent-levelling fusion weapons - nice enough deterrent, hm?

e reaosn you shouldnt have so many nukes is because retaliation will be worse thantaking the brunt. put money into anti-missile systems. if you want to level a country then just carpet bomb its economy and military sector (also very illegal i seem to remmeber). making the country into a giant soup bowl, civilians and all will piss off its neighbours and you'll make more enemys in the long run than the one you obliterated.
you need missile defense not missile offense

if your commanding officer in the military tells you to do something that is unethical, you are required to disobey that order. If the UN tells us to not free people who are opressed, well, you can finish the analogy. We'll obey the UN when they prove worthy of the respobsibility

thats not evern worth arguing with. if you really believe that saddam did not sponsor terrorism you're not informed enough to be in this sort of argument.

as long as you're asking for concrete proof, why don't you supply some for this?

this statement almost makes me lose interest in this argument with you. If you really believe Iraq was complying with the weapons inspections, you're deceiving yourself. They were hiding and NOT cooperating.

in a word: yes. if that makes me a cocky yank, so be it. The rest of the world isn't stepping up to the plate. Yes, i know you Brits are supporting us, and we definitely appreciate it. We also appreciate every other country that has helped. But the bottom line is without the US, Iraq would still be under the tyranny of a ruthless dictator.

Additionally, go ahead and try to tell me that 99% of the children in the world are treated with more rights than they are in the US and i'll go ahead and laugh in your virtual face.

No single warhead is sufficient to level a continent.

"In 1962, the former Soviet Union exploded a thermonuclear weapon at its Artic test-site at Novaya Zemlya with an explosive yield equivilent to that of the explosion of nearly 60 million tonnes of TNT... ... this is about the amount of destructive power required to level a few countries of Western Europe...

"Some Chinese and American strategic nuclear weapons have yields as high as 5 megatonnes or more."

If a country has a relatively low number of nuclear warheads,(like the numbers you've suggested) then another country has a legitimate chance of destroying all of those weapons with a single strike(nuclear or otherwise) rendering MAD(mutually assured destruction for those of you not familiar with this) worthless.

But i'm sick and tired of the rest of the world trying to villify us for saving your asses.

No single warhead is sufficient to level a continent. We have overwhelming firepower, yes. Why is this a bad thing.

Who, when, why?

Ok, so maybe they weren't complying fully, but they were complying enough not to warrant a full scale invasion. They allowed the inspectors into many key sites, and they found precisely fuck all.

5 megatons is not big enough to level a continent.....sorry, you're wrong about that.

the point is right, now, you're right, if somebody first strikes us, we'll beat the hell out of them.

The others that come to mind are the terrorist training camps located within Iraq.

If you can provide me with what that word really even means then maybe we can discuss that.

The US has spent a rather large amount building crap like that up again.

If you're gonna try to tell me that Iraq was better off with its "infrastructure" intact and with Saddam in power, well, then my talking to you now in this conversation won't do much good.

Your teacher finally forcefully takes your backpack from you and doesn't find your drugs. Does this mean you never had any?

the problem is with such long speaches and arguements is that eventually (and quite quickl;y somtimes) you realise that youve destroyed your own reasoning with examples its very stupid.

s a side note, your government has stated that they are perfectly willing to be the ones to use a first strike themselves. You are no longer content to use them as a deterrent.

I bet you could find 'terrorist training camps' in a heckuva lot of countries. Do you invade them all?

Both of which were destroyed ~deliberately~ by American forces during the war, in order to weaken the Iraqi defences. A valid tactic, that probably worked. necessary? No. Much of Iraq is still without a dependable supply of electricity.

As opposed to in Afghanistan, which was missed off the American budget for aid, repeatedly?

There are other ways of toppling governments than going in with your full military force and annihilating all the key amenities there.

no, but we do invade the ones that sponsor terrorists, use weapons of mass destruction against their own people, have ruthless dictators and are openly hostil towards us.

If Iraq never had anything to hide, why in the world would they not have cooperated.

Used weapons of mass destruction against their own people???
Have you been smoking something?

Because they didnt want idiotic American's walking all over their land pestering everyone seeing the corruption stricken government and dying?

Seems a bit selfish actually, them giving you the rights to search their land for WMD's and anything that could harm neighbouring Countries, then you just go and invade anyway.

Infact, what was the point in the inspectors?
You knew you were going to invade, so why waste a few mens time?

they were fine as they were before hand,

granted, not the best example. but the fact remains that just because they have not been found DOES NOT MEAN they do not exist. I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence before rug, but i am now. If you can't understand that just because something has not been found it doesn't mean they don't exist then you deserve to be insulted.

Your teacher fully strip and body cavity searches you and all your friends. They still find nothing. Can they still legitimately argue you had drugs? 

i personally don't agree with first strike on our behalf. That said, you've completely ignored the issue at hand, the fact that right now, first strike against us is not viable and if we reduced our numbers to what you're suggesting it would be

no, but we do invade the ones that sponsor terrorists, use weapons of mass destruction against their own people, have ruthless dictators and are openly hostil towards us.

Used weapons of mass destruction against their own people???
Have you been smoking something?

with all due respect, how the hell would you know how to conduct a war. An army deprived of things like water and power will not function as well as an army with it. And we have been working to fix this "infrastructure" (which i still maintain is a buzzword activists like to throw around). If you'd like to argue Iraq was better off with their infrastructure intact(and in 3rd world condition) in Saddam's control than with its infrastructure destroyed(and being rebuilt to better standards) and Saddam removed, I'd like to hear how you'd do that.

i can't speak with any authority on this subject, though i'd like to hear where you obtained your information that we have not aided afghanistan with funds to rebuild "infrastructure"

The United States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to request any money in its latest budget.

One mantra from the Bush administration since it launched its military campaign in Afghanistan 16 months ago has been that the US will not walk away from the Afghan people.

President Bush has even suggested a Marshall plan for the country, and the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, will visit Washington later this month.

 
Washington has pledged not to forget Afghanistan but in its budget proposals for 2003, the White House did not explicitly ask for any money to aid humanitarian and reconstruction costs in the impoverished country.

The chairman of the committee that distributes foreign aid, Jim Kolbe, says that when he asked administration officials why they had not requested any funds, he was given no satisfactory explanation, but did get a pledge that it would not happen again.

'Too early'

A spokesman for the US Agency for International Development, which distributes the money, says the reason they did not make a request was that when budgetary discussions began in 2002, it was too early to say how much money they would need.

Jim Kolbe has expressed surprise at the administration's oversight.

The US will spend over $16bn in foreign aid this year.

The main beneficiaries will be Israel, Jordan and a number of anti-Aids programmes.

However, Mr Kolbe says that should there be a military conflict in Iraq, he believes the US will have to find billions more, not only to help Iraq, but also Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

yes, there are. and they're even more long and drawn out. and i'm sure you know more about toppling governments than all the military leaders. once again, with all due respect, i'd trust many people about how to effectively bring down a government than someone like you or me who has absolutely no military, diplomatic or any other relevant experience.

I would point out that if Saddam really didn't have weapons (I can't honestly say he did, but I believe so... or at least all the components to make them), he would have said so in no mistakable terms when Bush started playing hardball. Why knowingly sacrifice your regime and power (yes, I'm pretty sure Saddam knew America would invade when he kept stalling) when you could prove yourself innocent? 

So far i've refrained from name calling

I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence before rug, but i am now. If you can't understand that just because something has not been found it doesn't mean they don't exist then you deserve to be insulted.

no, my friend it is you who are smoking something
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_we...emiraqgas2.html (http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_we...emiraqgas2.html)
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/ (http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/n0..._200301234.html (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/n0..._200301234.html)
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/sile...ed/chemical.htm (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/sile...ed/chemical.htm)

i suggest next time you do a little investigation prior to accusing me of "smoking something"

60,000 dead Iraqi Kurds killed at Saddam's order disagree

If Saddam had NBC weapons, why didn't he use them when we invaded? As whiteknight noted, he had no issues about gassing his own people, so why not invading Americans, who he hates so much? Possibly because he had none when we invaded?

If gassing those who oppose him counts as using WMDs against his own people to you, then I believe we both have different ideas of exactly what was meant by the sentance, I appologise as I assumed you meant something more Nazi-like or infact bombing towns. Case of miss-understanding there.

14,800 dead innocent civilians and over 1,100 Coalition Soldiers killed during the American invasion think otherwise...
May I remind you that nearly all of Britains friendly fire casualties were killed by American soldiers with itchy trigger fingers.

I couldnt find the exact numbers, but I vaguelly remember the total FF count being 20+ with hardly any dead Iraqi's.

I couldnt actually find any pages telling FF kills so I cant back this one up.

Yes, it is viable... someone could nuke Washington D.C, and they'd get nuked back. It doesn't matter if you have 10,000 nukes (current estimate) or 50... anyone who nukes you is going to get it in the shorts.

You do not need more than 5 or 10 nukes to cripple a country, unless its utterly huge. Even America could be laid low by that many weapons; One from D.C, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles... etc.

Saddam didn't consider the Kurds his own people, due to them rising against him. Would you condemn Israel if they dropped Tabun on a Palestinian village?

Because I can read. If you can read, you can research. If you can research, you can become learned.

If Saddam had NBC weapons, why didn't he use them when we invaded? As whiteknight noted, he had no issues about gassing his own people, so why not invading Americans, who he hates so much? Possibly because he had none when we invaded?

We invaded and consolidated our position too quickly for him (and his army for the most part deserted him).
He realized that would be futile, since we were prepared for it (with gas masks, immunizations, etc).
He realized that would piss us off even more, even his Middle Eastern neighbors, and thus he would have no hope of fleeing to another country to escape the US.
He had disassembled/destroyed in advance the weapons so as not to leave proof of their existance.
one word, retaliation. if saddam had used chemical or biological agents against us, the public outcry to do something like nuke them(which, by the way i would not agree with) would possibly win out. saddam knew that.

for this i am deeply sorry. no words can express an adequate amount of sorrow for this loss. but people die in war. I believe this was a just war, and the casualties were less than would have been lost had saddam been left in power. i truly believe that.

maybe i'm not making myself clear. if the number of weapons are reduced, it becomes conceiveable for an enemy to destroy all those weapons and preclude a response. so yes, it does matter if we have 10,000 or 50.

as for funding afghanistan, i don't agree with bush on everything.....i'm arguing america's case, not bush's. your own source says our congress stepped in to fund them

once again, the callousness astounds me. you are claiming the american removal of a dictator was unjust and defending saddam's right to kill his "enemies?"!

yeah, because book learning does a lot of good in things like combat situations. i'm sorry, i just don't believe you're smarter than the people in charge of figuring out how to topple saddam. thats not meant to be insulting, its a simple statement of my opinion.

Well as they say an englishmans house is his castle. Though of course we havent got around to the american way of thinking by arming our castles with firearms, no?

Our government claimed Saddam could launch a chemical weapon in 45 minutes. Highly likely to be bullshit, but it was claimed.

The Government has made claims that Saddam could launch a chemical weapon in 45 minutes. This is assuming it takes 20mins for America or Britain to sell it one.

CO2 being a nice, relatively inert gas for this

Ah, thanks for the explanation.  But... what're the chances of an H2O leak, especially in the US?  I can understand how the Soviet equipment was faulty, but ours?  :miffed:

The accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history(1), even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community...

... The sequence of certain events - - equipment malfunctions, design related problems and worker errors - - led to a partial meltdown of the TMI-2 reactor core but only very small off-site releases of radioactivity...

... Because adequate cooling was not available, the nuclear fuel overheated to the point at which the zirconium cladding (the long metal tubes which hold the nuclear fuel pellets) ruptured and the fuel pellets began to melt...

chernobyl wasnt a nuceal explosion it was just high gas pressure and flying debry

blasted the concrete that prevents radiation escaping into the atmosphere

"There were no stockpiles. There were also no programmes. The report is quite frank about that.

"There were no chemical precursors, there were no biological agents, there were no plants to make them, there were no delivery vehicles to fire them. There was no programme, no capability, no weapons.

"We could have found all that out if we had let Hans Blix finish the job which he wanted to do without fighting a war in which 10,000 people were killed."

ahahaha, i was just watching the canadian representative on the subject of the faulty sub we sold them and the guy cant say ship, it shounds like shit everytime and in context it was killing me.

The US has been blocking full UN inspections in Iraq

I notice there are no articles on all the good the Americans are doing in Iraq . <_<

I wonder why...

Honestly. I am american and was against him even going in office. He clearly lost the last election and has done jack shit.

To bad kerry is a duechebag too....

Oh well, I'll get my mom to vote Ross Perrot(sp?) Kuz he is the coolest

If you want Bush out of the White House, vote for Kerry. A vote for anyone else is almost as good as voting for Bush - you're denying Kerry the votes of those who dislike Bush.

And, like very democratic countries, impossible for anything to get done.  :P

Sorry, I'm just in a temporary pro-dictatorship mood.  LOL

yeah Bush is great, I love a guy who looks like a monkey, lies and gets thousands of people killed, is destroying the environment, presiding over a terrible economy, suppresing votes in black neighborhoods, and spins everything to suit him(some how he called the report that proved Saddam had no WMD's proof that "he was a threat" and then gave no explanation) over a guy who changes his mind frequently and looks like he's taken 30 Botox injections in 1 hour

pe·dan·tic   
adj.
Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.

If you want Bush out of the White House, vote for Kerry. A vote for anyone else is almost as good as voting for Bush - you're denying Kerry the votes of those who dislike Bush.

About the changing minds thing: Wtf? American voters, tell me you haven't changed your mind at all in the last 20 months? If so, you can vote for Bush. If not, you're a fucking hypocrite.

you do know that i was being sarcastic, right?

it'll be quite interesting to see the voter turn out i reckon loads wont vote

because its a pressing world issue.
when america seeks to press laws on the rest of the world we become interested in whos pulling what strings.

When America is the only Western nation that decides to confront world issues, we're interested in seeing who the leadership is for us and the rest of the lazy bums.  LOL

i was mainly thinking of your proposal for a world wide ban on stem cell research. of which no other countrys have accepted so far.

Um... yes, Lanair. Living in a box, I see. How's the cardboard holding up? Got any rot yet? Plenty? Oh dear...

a worldwide ban?

way to be dramatic

I don't know much about Parliamentary gov't, but I thought you can hold elections to determine the Prime Minister practically whenever, and when the ruling party loses support in the legislature, they and their leadership gets tossed out and replaced by a totally new group.  :unsure:

Was just following suit....


If gassing those who oppose him counts as using WMDs against his own people to you, then I believe we both have different ideas of exactly what was meant by the sentance,  I appologise as I assumed you meant something more Nazi-like or infact bombing towns. Case of miss-understanding there.



14,800 dead innocent civilians and over 1,100 Coalition Soldiers killed during the American invasion think otherwise...
May I remind you that nearly all of Britains friendly fire casualties were killed by American soldiers with itchy trigger fingers.

I couldnt find the exact numbers, but I vaguelly remember the total FF count being 20+ with hardly any dead Iraqi's.

I couldnt actually find any pages telling FF kills so I cant back this one up.

How the hell are all these getting past Akismet when my not-even-slightlyspam stuff isn't? :|

Turn.

Guest.

Posting.

Off.

You.

Dumb.

Sod.

britain, after reading lanair's post, ive come to this conclusion:
taxation without representation really wasnt so bad. wanna come run the country again?