IF U.S went to war with IRAN

[GsrTurbo320]

Would that be a good Idea?

[4dmin]

ummm no but i'm sure we will just find another 200+ billion to spend there to liberate the world :rolleyes:

[Hulud]

ummm no but i'm sure we will just find another 200+ billion to spend there to liberate the world :rolleyes:
FTW

anyways no we dont need to play world police anymore. we have shit to fix here first.

plus we need to finish in iraq and find osama first (since thats the original reason to be over there to begin with)

[{X}Echo419]

War sucks. nobody in their right mind wants to do it.

but it sure beats the hell out of getting Nuked.

[blacknightteg]

fuck no, its ridiculous even the thought of going to war. if we do, IM GOIN TO CANADA! lol

[{X}Echo419]

fuck no, its ridiculous even the thought of going to war. if we do, IM GOIN TO CANADA! lol

maybe you should go now. unless you think you can talk the Iranian leaders out of building a Nuclear fuck-bomb

[HyPer50]

Israel will take care of Iran before we need to worry about them.

[The Golden Child]

FTW BRETT LOVES COCK .. LOLZ

[The Golden Child]

FTW

anyways no we dont need to play world police anymore. we have shit to fix here first.

plus we need to finish in iraq and find osama first (since thats the original reason to be over there to begin with)

hmmm theyve been trying to find that fucker since i dont know how long ..
you would think by now they would have him and arrested and what ever else ..
prolly in the white house with bush drinking tea and laughing at all of us ..

[Julio]

I cant believe some of you guys. Some of oyu need to stop listening to CNN and FM radio and get with the real details and educate yourself a little more before asking questions.

[R3RUN]

hmmm theyve been trying to find that fucker since i dont know how long ..
you would think by now they would have him and arrested and what ever else ..
prolly in the white house with bush drinking tea and laughing at all of us ..

well about osama, i think they honestly dont know where he is or they know/killed him already and used his name to gain support.

also at the current enrichment rate that Iran has it would take them a few years to enrich enough uranium for just one bomb. basically right now we need to focus on Iraq. i didnt support the invasion but now that were there we cant just leave the country in shambles. at any rate Iran can wait a while, i doubt they even have a weapon platform powerful enough to get a missle/bomb into the US.

[MitsuEvo6]

I didn't cast a vote w/ this one. In no way do I want to go to war, but I do believe it is essential. However, I don't think we have the man power. With the help of Isreal we would be able to accomplish it, but we'd have to expect many more casualties. I wouldnt be surprised if that started the 3rd world war. The way I see it, my units deployin in less then a year anyway...its only a question of where we go.

I agree war sucks, but as stated above, its better to take it to them, then to be nuked here at home.

and to the one who'll go to canada if we go to war... http://4th25.com/album.php?id=C0_15_4 check that out

[C22H19N3O4]

These issues aren't new. They've been around a VERY long time. Presidents like to renew Mid-East resentment to increase approval ratings. As far as Osama is concerned, I bet he's on AIM chatting with Rumsfeld and Bush right about now. There are bigger threats to our way of life than Osama and Iran. How about pollution, hunger, healthcare, or just taking care of our own citizens first. Let's not forget the fact that industry experts are concerned that we will run out of fossil fuels within the next 10-15 years. We are nowhere close to a feasible alternative energy source. Imagine what life would be like when oil hits $100 a barrel. The biggest threat to America is Americans. Our greed and gluttony have slowly torn apart the fabric of civic duty and patriotism. As the gap b/w the rich and middle-class get larger, the working poor will fail to survive. While we are enjoying SUV's that get 10 miles to the gallon, vengeful countries are waiting for us to implode, which I believe will happen. All it probably takes is China, North Korea, and whoever the Taliban can round up to give the U.S. a run for its' money.

"The things that will destroy America are
prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price,
safety-first instead of duty-first,
the love of soft living,
and the get-rich-quick theory of life."

-Theodore Roosevelt

[Scgrandprix]

Uh guys yall r retarded, there is a lot of talk about military action to keep the pressure on Iran, if Bush or anyone else simply says ya we arent going to attack plain and simple then Iran will simply do what the fuck they want. There isnt going to be a military strike on Iran for the foreseeable future, until we are done in Iraq the US military wont really have any major plans to attack Iran..common sense its basic Politics 101 u dont leave out any options and if you do u certainly dont let the enemy know about it

[HyPer50]

Uh guys yall r retarded, there is a lot of talk about military action to keep the pressure on Iran, if Bush or anyone else simply says ya we arent going to attack plain and simple then Iran will simply do what the fuck they want. There isnt going to be a military strike on Iran for the foreseeable future, until we are done in Iraq the US military wont really have any major plans to attack Iran..common sense its basic Politics 101 u dont leave out any options and if you do u certainly dont let the enemy know about it

I've been sayin' since last year that Israel is going to take Iran out. And I really believe that. Iran having nukes is a much bigger threat to Israel than it is to us. And seeing as how Israel doesn't have the world breathing down there neck like the US does, I still feel it's going to come down to Israel preemptively defending itself.

[Scgrandprix]

Ya it will be the same stuff they pulled in iraq in the early 80s send fighters over there bomb the shit outta the reactor end of story for a few years. If Russia would stop fucking around and stop giving them the shit they need to build the reactor we wouldnt have this problem.

[ShooterMcGavin]

still though, as tight as the us and israel seem to be, u know if they went to war we'd at least be helping (given they could find a reason to help, which i'm pretty sure someone in the white house could cook up something...)

[MitsuEvo6]

Russia...ahhh. After findin out 'bout some of the many weapons and chem agents they have against us (Military) and our equipment...i hate them.

[{X}Echo419]

Russia...ahhh. After findin out 'bout some of the many weapons and chem agents they have against us (Military) and our equipment...i hate them.

their some sneak mo' fo's fo sho'. AHHH MOTHER LAND!!! :crazy:

[SwurvinIn]

I cant believe some of you guys. Some of oyu need to stop listening to CNN and FM radio and get with the real details and educate yourself a little more before asking questions.
:goodjob: :werd:

[Hondatwin23]

most of the new you see on tv is very misleadind but imo bush has f@ck this country a good bit but we can make it out with some good moves and new leaders.

[Scgrandprix]

Theres nothing wrong with bush at all he hasnt done much wrong, the economy is doing great, The US is pretty much back to pre9-11 standards with money and such so u cant really bitch about anything besides us being in Iraq. Complain about it as much as u want and say bush this bush that but in all honesty hes done just as good as any other president would...besides u think we would have been better with Kerry?

[ShooterMcGavin]

^^^what are you smoking? maybe you're not living in the same USofA as us.

doing just as well as any other president has? name one other president that has had the same approval rating GW has.

money back to pre 9/11 standards? the dollar is worth less now against every major currency than back before 9/11.

whether or not kerry would have been better is a moot point because of the fact of the matter is, bush is the president right now and he's doing a piss poor job of running this country.

[Scgrandprix]

approval rating has nothing to do with how the economy is doing thats just what ppl think about the president so that has no bearing on the arguement. Ok the dollar has gone down but the stock market was what i was talking about.

[ShooterMcGavin]

approval rating has nothing to do with how the economy is doing thats just what ppl think about the president so that has no bearing on the arguement. Ok the dollar has gone down but the stock market was what i was talking about.

so you don't think his shitty approval rating is AT LEAST partially because of how his policies have had ill effects on the economy? fine, make that argument if you want. but how can you honestly say the economy is doing well (pre 9/11 well to quote you) when major airlines are going bankrupt left and right, the stock market is about as risky as it has been since he's come into office, and we're looking at new record highs daily when it comes to $/barrel of crude oil?

you know what, i was right, you ARE living in a different USofA than everyone else here.

[Scgrandprix]

No im in savannah for the current time, but uh ya if u wanna say the stock market sucks u go ahead and say that but my stocks are doing pretty good right now so ya..oil isnt really is fault there was this thing called a hurricane that destroyed almost the entire gulf of mexico oil drilling industry, and its still getting worked on no where near as good as it used to be. O ya far as the airlines go im pretty sure they r doing good now rnt they so ya, u made some good points but no

[ShooterMcGavin]

so how big of a portfolio of stocks do you have? and you're saying EACH AND EVERY ONE of them is doing well? well i'll be damned you must be that rare warren buffet type then.

but no, in all seriousness the stock market is pretty shitty. and hurricane? yeah you bring up a good point of how he fucked up yet again so why don't you try and leave it out of this discussion. not to mention i personally don't see any hurricanes right now yet oil just hit $74 a barrel today. no you see, if you had done some hw you'd know that we're gettin raped in the ass at the pumps because his administration decided to force all oil companies to comply with new regulations at a time when refining is already tough.

airlines doing well? i guess you must not see the news much considering just about every major airlines in the US is currently operating at a loss, not a profit. oh right, and delta just declared for bankruptcy not even 6 months ago.

now as far as you being in savannah? i hope you're there to learn how to write better because right now i'd say you form sentences about as well as a 3rd grader. but hey, i spent part of my childhood growing up there so i have faith that you too can one day learn to write and actually contribute something that even remotely resembles reality :goodjob:

[Scgrandprix]

Uh just a few shares of S&P500, ya the refineries have been hit hard by the hurricanes by the way, you seem to be a liberal so i dont see why your upset with the Administration making oil companies comply with new regulations. Usually the airlines are typically losing money due to high gas prices. Delta is coming back anyways so ya they r doing better i didnt say they were perfect but doing better...as for my ability to type a sentence i could really care less im not typing a thesis so i just type as if i were on AIM or w/e, you can still read what im typing and clearly you can read it so ya there is no reason to follow proper grammar and other rules...by the way u didnt capitalize your letters at the beginning of a sentence you might wanna fix that

[ShooterMcGavin]

Uh just a few shares of S&P500, ya the refineries have been hit hard by the hurricanes by the way, you seem to be a liberal so i dont see why your upset with the Administration making oil companies comply with new regulations. Usually the airlines are typically losing money due to high gas prices. Delta is coming back anyways so ya they r doing better i didnt say they were perfect but doing better...as for my ability to type a sentence i could really care less im not typing a thesis so i just type as if i were on AIM or w/e, you can still read what im typing and clearly you can read it so ya there is no reason to follow proper grammar and other rules...by the way u didnt capitalize your letters at the beginning of a sentence you might wanna fix that

right, just a FEW shares of the S&P500, so you're not the warren buffet type who knows everything about stocks huh? surprise surprise, in that case why don't you pipe down about how the market is doing.

i don't see how me being a liberal has anything to do with the shitty decision making of the bush administration, and where you get the idea that these new regulations were meant to help the PEOPLE (as opposed to the environment, which is why they were put into effect, once again if you would've done some hw you'd know this).


O ya far as the airlines go im pretty sure they r doing good now rnt they so ya, u made some good points but no

i do believe you JUST made a statement about the airlines doing "good", now you're retracting you're statement and saying they're "better"? right, i can see you know EXACTLY what you're talking about. in fact i think you should encourage everyone out there to invest heavily in delta since you seem to be able to see the future and know for a fact that they're "coming back". and from the sound of it you also think they're probably going to come back fairly quickly (i guess you didn't pay attention to how long it took UA to get out of bankruptcy huh?)

as far as your typing skills go, i never said i couldn't understand it, i just brought up the point because i feel myself losing brain cells attempting to decipher your shitty attempts at composing reasonable and mature sentences. in fact i'm surprised you know what a thesis is. and you're right, this is the internet where there are no rules concerning grammar, but if you want others to perceive you as one who thinks he's omniscient of world affairs, at least write like one instead of a grade school toddler?

[Julio]

Hahaha .. this country is booming.. economy booming... unemployment is down..

Im not going to write all this crap again. Dont blame your mishaps on BUSH. Bush is doing what all these other pussy ass presidents shouldve done a few years back, including Bush SR.

You Liberals need to pull your head out of your a$$es and realize facts.

[Scgrandprix]

Better and good are pretty much the same thing, IE: doing good now, meaning doing good since they went bankrupt, that also means doing better than after 9-11, PS: I know a little bit more about the airline industry than u think i never said anything about them doing GREAT or w/e u seem to think i was talking about. Yes u being a liberal has a lot to do with how u think the Bush administration, bc everything they decide is a dumbass decision to you, and to us Conservatives we generally agree with his decisions.

[sebastianHoff]

there arent enough troops to take iran. iran is twice the size of iraq and has twice as many people. they werent laid to waste 16yrs ago and the ruling party has done a very good job of keeping up the country and the military. it would not be possible to win such a war, even with nukes. we would need the help of russia and china to win and that wont happen.

[ShooterMcGavin]

Better and good are pretty much the same thing, IE: doing good now, meaning doing good since they went bankrupt, that also means doing better than after 9-11, PS: I know a little bit more about the airline industry than u think i never said anything about them doing GREAT or w/e u seem to think i was talking about. Yes u being a liberal has a lot to do with how u think the Bush administration, bc everything they decide is a dumbass decision to you, and to us Conservatives we generally agree with his decisions.

better and good isn't "pretty much the same thing" when it comes to a multibillion dollar industry. and so you do know more about the airline industry now? first i thought you were some investment guru, now on top of that you're also an expert on the airline industry, well hot shit then what're you doing pissing your time away in savannah learning how to write for?

[HyPer50]

there arent enough troops to take iran. iran is twice the size of iraq and has twice as many people. they werent laid to waste 16yrs ago and the ruling party has done a very good job of keeping up the country and the military. it would not be possible to win such a war, even with nukes. we would need the help of russia and china to win and that wont happen.

Umm... ya, I completely disagree with you in pretty much every statement you said aside from the size of Iran... It wouldn't be possible to "win" (if you want to call it that) a war against Iran if nukes were used? Are you retarded? If a nukes were used, trust me, the war would be over VERY quickly. It will never come to that though, I seriously doubt another nuke will ever be used by the US military. Way too many "innocents" of war dieing.

Even without nukes, you dont think this war could be won with simply the US and Israel (yes, they would jump at a chance to take them out)? You seem underestimate Israel and the US...

[Scgrandprix]

there arent enough troops to take iran. iran is twice the size of iraq and has twice as many people. they werent laid to waste 16yrs ago and the ruling party has done a very good job of keeping up the country and the military. it would not be possible to win such a war, even with nukes. we would need the help of russia and china to win and that wont happen.

Ya im done lissening to liberal boy, The size of the army dosnt matter in 1991 during the persian gulf war the Iraqis had the 3rd or 4th largest army in the world cant remember(over a million men), but with 550000+ troops we kicked the shit outta them, and at the time our smart bomb technology was no where near as good as it is now, during the first gulf war 10% of all bombs dropped were smart bombs so that speaks for itself. Iran has hardly the amount of weaponry that the Iraqis had, 70 F14 tomcats were sent to Iran before 1979 but those are in complete disrepair b/c they havnt been able to get parts from them and before the US advisors left they sabotaged the aircraft...Yes we could take Iran by ourselves it would just have to be a much longer bombing campaign. For the next 10 years the US probably wont be engaged in another major war. We may be involved in small policing actions like that in Liberia, Bosnia, Kosovo where some military force is required but nothing like a full scale war.

[ClipseGST]

9 times outta 10, we will go into some type of war w/ Iran eventually. With the way that they run things, it's going to be inevitable. The same thing goes w/ N.Korea. It's unfortunate that we'll have to waste money on something so worthless but... that explains why we spend THE MOST money than all other nations combined.

[CopyRight]

Umm... ya, I completely disagree with you in pretty much every statement you said aside from the size of Iran... It wouldn't be possible to "win" (if you want to call it that) a war against Iran if nukes were used? Are you retarded? If a nukes were used, trust me, the war would be over VERY quickly. It will never come to that though, I seriously doubt another nuke will ever be used by the US military. Way too many "innocents" of war dieing.

Even without nukes, you dont think this war could be won with simply the US and Israel (yes, they would jump at a chance to take them out)? You seem underestimate Israel and the US...


You are right on, every single human activist group would come out of the woodworks if they had even the slightest feeling that the US would use a nuke. I swear to god, I hate all these pussy ass bastards that always want to protest about something...what happened to the people who believed in their country and govt, instead of whining about it?

If US did decide to take Iran up on their threat, Hyper was right....Israel would jump right in line to help us out, and that would cause a whole shit storm for Iran.

[91DSM]

Bush sucks Dick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[2.0civic]

i dont think that right now the US can afford to go to war with another country. Look at how numbers of enlistments have dropped since the war in iraq has been going on. I think if they went into another war, enlistments would drop even more and they would have to reinstitute the draft.

[HyPer50]

i dont think that right now the US can afford to go to war with another country. Look at how numbers of enlistments have dropped since the war in iraq has been going on. I think if they went into another war, enlistments would drop even more and they would have to reinstitute the draft.

Chances are if we went to "war" with Iran, it wouldn't be a full out assault like we did on Iraq. It'd be mostly an air campaign, taking out there Air defense, then going after there suspected "nuclear" facilitys.. Atleast thats how I see it. No need to waste the lives of American soldiers when you can simply take out there air defenses and bomb them at will all you want.

[ShooterMcGavin]

yeah but then what? take out their defenses, take out their suspected nuclear capabilities, then just up and leave? we didn't do that for a shitty country like iraq (for which we're STILL bogged down in), what makes you think that we'll just up and leave and bombing them to kingdom come?

[HyPer50]

yeah but then what? take out their defenses, take out their suspected nuclear capabilities, then just up and leave? we didn't do that for a shitty country like iraq (for which we're STILL bogged down in), what makes you think that we'll just up and leave and bombing them to kingdom come?

there current threat is the nuclear program... we destroy there facilities and let them know that if they keep pressing the issues we'll destroy rest of Iran.. lmao... hell if i know. i'm a mechanic, not a politician = P

[Sthrnba711]

War with Iran would be the worst thing Bush could do for America. So far during his presidency its been one screw up after another and our country cant take another non-sense war, using troops we dont have and budgeting billions we should be using somewhere in America to fight our own problems. We screwed up in Afghanistan, and then came Iraq which was a joke, which i think Bush did cause he knew he could get Saddam but had no clue about Bin Laden. I mean come on this guy thinks he can just take over the world and pretty soon he is going to take it too far and we will become even more hated by the world. China will side with us, nor any other major counrtry but instead it will be the usuall, America, England, Australlia, Sweden, maybe Isreal, and probably a few other meanenless countries. The truth is a war with Iran will lead to all out choas in the world and World War 3. Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, and who knows who else against, United States, Canada, England, Australlia and thats about it. Most of the European countries are smart and stay out of stupid wars and maybe for once we should use their philosophy and save some American troops, save American money and show the world that we arent just a bunch of dumb selfish people that think we are so much better then everyone else in the world and think that everyone wants and should be like the United States, cause the reality is hardly any country does.

[HyPer50]

War with Iran would be the worst thing Bush could do for America. So far during his presidency its been one screw up after another and our country cant take another non-sense war, using troops we dont have and budgeting billions we should be using somewhere in America to fight our own problems. We screwed up in Afghanistan, and then came Iraq which was a joke, which i think Bush did cause he knew he could get Saddam but had no clue about Bin Laden. I mean come on this guy thinks he can just take over the world and pretty soon he is going to take it too far and we will become even more hated by the world. China will side with us, nor any other major counrtry but instead it will be the usuall, America, England, Australlia, Sweden, maybe Isreal, and probably a few other meanenless countries. The truth is a war with Iran will lead to all out choas in the world and World War 3. Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, and who knows who else against, United States, Canada, England, Australlia and thats about it. Most of the European countries are smart and stay out of stupid wars and maybe for once we should use their philosophy and save some American troops, save American money and show the world that we arent just a bunch of dumb selfish people that think we are so much better then everyone else in the world and think that everyone wants and should be like the United States, cause the reality is hardly any country does.

So whats your suggestion then Mr. Pacifist? Just let them continue there nuclear progress uninterupted until it's too late and they end up blowing up US cities?

[ShooterMcGavin]

honestly, we MIGHT be lucky in the sense that even if war with iran is inevitable, it might be after bush gets out of office. i say this because currently, it would take another 5-7 yrs or something like that before iran is expected to build a nuclear weapon (yes, that's taking into account their newfound technology to better and more quickly enrich uranium).

[Sthrnba711]

So whats your suggestion then Mr. Pacifist? Just let them continue there nuclear progress uninterupted until it's too late and they end up blowing up US cities?

No you dont just wait but there are other options besides war. I mean the rest of the freaking world seems to be okay with not invading so why does the United States seem to be the only country that feels that war is the only way. And also, you do realize that Iran is on the other side of the world and it would be almost and thats about 99% impossible for them to blow up our cities with their missiles.

[HyPer50]

No you dont just wait but there are other options besides war. I mean the rest of the freaking world seems to be okay with not invading so why does the United States seem to be the only country that feels that war is the only way. And also, you do realize that Iran is on the other side of the world and it would be almost and thats about 99% impossible for them to blow up our cities with their missiles.

We are doing the other option right now, trying to talk them down, war is always the last option, but it is sometimes a neccesary one. Ok, so maybe Iran possibly couldn't reach us, there would still be nothing to stop them from selling the materials to terrorist unable to enrich uranium themselves. Ya dont need countries with bad intentions having the power to remove cities from the face of the earth.

[Sthrnba711]

Okay so we are trying to talk them down. Who is it for us, in the United States to say who can, and who cant have nuculear weapons or experiment for who knows what reason with enriching uranium. Hell Pakistan and India have them too, and Isreal, and China. I mean come on, when is American going to stop being trying to be parents to the rest of the world are realize that we have many problems of our own that could use the attention more then something occuring on the other side of the world. America is hated by a majority of the world for our ways of thinking and the way our government feels its our responsibility to take care of the world. I mean come on, how many times are we going to invade a country cause we dont like whats going on, blow them up, and then rebuild them which last years and billions of American dollars. Its time that America and mainly the American politicans start to think about the people who put them in office and problems that are within our borders first and then work on the problems of the world. Its dumb to think that the United States can fix the worlds problems and in every try we make the rest of the world sits backs and laughs at how dumb we are and how imperialistic how government is. Let countries do what they want and when they want to go to war, then war will happen, but right now Bush is looking for war and thats the last thing our country needs.

[HyPer50]

Okay so we are trying to talk them down. Who is it for us, in the United States to say who can, and who cant have nuculear weapons or experiment for who knows what reason with enriching uranium. Hell Pakistan and India have them too, and Isreal, and China. I mean come on, when is American going to stop being trying to be parents to the rest of the world are realize that we have many problems of our own that could use the attention more then something occuring on the other side of the world. America is hated by a majority of the world for our ways of thinking and the way our government feels its our responsibility to take care of the world. I mean come on, how many times are we going to invade a country cause we dont like whats going on, blow them up, and then rebuild them which last years and billions of American dollars. Its time that America and mainly the American politicans start to think about the people who put them in office and problems that are within our borders first and then work on the problems of the world. Its dumb to think that the United States can fix the worlds problems and in every try we make the rest of the world sits backs and laughs at how dumb we are and how imperialistic how government is. Let countries do what they want and when they want to go to war, then war will happen, but right now Bush is looking for war and thats the last thing our country needs.

Ya, the entire world hates America, until shit goes wrong, then they all look at the US for help and ask why we didn't prevent shit..

[MitsuEvo6]

Ya, the entire world hates America, until shit goes wrong, then they all look at the US for help and ask why we didn't prevent shit..

so true. I simply have this to ask....do we have to wait for another terrorist attack, a nuclear attack where thousands will die and millions will be hurt to realize that some countries intend to hurt the US? I don't.

[ShooterMcGavin]

but i mean it's sad but true that we're the target of these terrorist attacks because of our foreign policy. i mean why didn't al qaeda go after a european country initially or china? or fuckin zimbabwe? america sticks its neck out too far sometimes and that leaves us vulnerable.

[Sthrnba711]

so true. I simply have this to ask....do we have to wait for another terrorist attack, a nuclear attack where thousands will die and millions will be hurt to realize that some countries intend to hurt the US? I don't.

No, we dont have to wait for another terrorist attack but you have to realize that what Iran right now has nothing to do with terrorism. They are exploring nuclear options and who is for the United States to say a country can't do that, I mean we have nuclear weapons and I think we are more dangerous then Iran. And yes some countries want to hurt the US but if we didnt try to be parents to the rest of the world then we would be like most of the countries of the world and not be hated by so many and targets by terrorist. If you want a terrorist country go after Palisitan who currently is being controlled by a terrorist organization but Iran is no terrorist threat.

[{X}Echo419]

So whats your suggestion then Mr. Pacifist? Just let them continue there nuclear progress uninterupted until it's too late and they end up blowing up US cities?

^pwned^ LIRL! :lmfao:

[{X}Echo419]

the Liberal/socailist(you know I'm not counting you decient lib folks:) motto: "It's better to Die on your knees than Live on your feet." <If you think that's backwords look ata again and think about a sec....roflmao!

[Xan]

Iran has openly expressed hatred for the US as well as the destruction of Israel(Our allies). They have also openly expressed support for Palistine(Currently being run by Hamas---Terrorists)
I foresee use of tactical ballistic missles in neutralizing(sp) Irans Uranium enrichment facilities after years of threats and negotiations from the US as well as Israel and the rest of the UN. If and when we are "forced" to attack Iran will either do the smart thing and back down, or they'll stand and we'll blow the shit out of them. Who the president is at the time won't matter. Republican or Democrat. The only reason liberals are so against the war in Iraq and our foreign policy is because they didn't write it and they aren't in office. Iraq had TWELVE YEARS to dismantle it's chemical weapons(The same weapons Sadaam was using on his people as well as the Kurds(sp) to the south) Sadaam REPEATEDLY denied UN weapons inspectors access to his country to scan for chemical and biological agents. Everyone saying "Bush" went to Iraq for the "oil" is a moron. The funny aspect of the previous statement is that those same people are the ones bitching about rising gas prices(Something Bush has NO CONTROL OVER). The reason the airline industry is doing badly is because TERRORISTS HYJACK(sp) PLANES(something Bush has NO CONTROL OVER). You say we are nowhere close to an alternative for petroleum fuels. Bush enforces stricter regulations on refining these fuels, but then you bitch about the rising gas prices. We have ample oil supplies in Alaska, but tree huggers won't let us drill for it. Hurricane Katrina decimates our gulf coast oil operations. That's somehow Bush's fault? ok...You people are so blinded by your hatred for this man(thinking he is the source of ALL these problems) that it clouds your judgement until EVERYTHING he does is a "stupid" move. You think Bush "lied" about Iraq having WMD's. He was going off info from the UN, not to mention WMD's were one of SIXTEEN COUNTS against Iraq and Sadaam's regime. Bill Clinton flat out LIED TO YOUR FACE ON NATIONAL TV AND NOONE GAVE TWO SHITS!? You tell everyone to pull their heads out of their asses. Maybe it's you who should see the light. World affairs are OUR affairs whether you like it or not. And how someone types has no bearing on this topic. That's a liberal's attempt at changing the subject.

[HyPer50]

No, we dont have to wait for another terrorist attack but you have to realize that what Iran right now has nothing to do with terrorism. They are exploring nuclear options and who is for the United States to say a country can't do that, I mean we have nuclear weapons and I think we are more dangerous then Iran. And yes some countries want to hurt the US but if we didnt try to be parents to the rest of the world then we would be like most of the countries of the world and not be hated by so many and targets by terrorist. If you want a terrorist country go after Palisitan who currently is being controlled by a terrorist organization but Iran is no terrorist threat.

You're a moron and have no clue what your talking about, flat out. US is more dangerous to WHO? And Iran has already let it be publicly known that they have bad intentions with the whole "Israel must be wiped from the map" comment. Do you think that Iran would allow nuclear inspectors to keep tabs of what they are doing? Fuck no, it's already been tried. They are CLEARLY hiding there operation, i.e, up to no fucking good. Why dont you go hang out in Irans capital for an hour, and if your still alive, then you can tell me that the US is still more dangerous.

[ShooterMcGavin]

Iran has openly expressed hatred for the US as well as the destruction of Israel(Our allies). They have also openly expressed support for Palistine(Currently being run by Hamas---Terrorists)
I foresee use of tactical ballistic missles in neutralizing(sp) Irans Uranium enrichment facilities after years of threats and negotiations from the US as well as Israel and the rest of the UN. If and when we are "forced" to attack Iran will either do the smart thing and back down, or they'll stand and we'll blow the shit out of them. Who the president is at the time won't matter. Republican or Democrat. The only reason liberals are so against the war in Iraq and our foreign policy is because they didn't write it and they aren't in office. Iraq had TWELVE YEARS to dismantle it's chemical weapons(The same weapons Sadaam was using on his people as well as the Kurds(sp) to the south) Sadaam REPEATEDLY denied UN weapons inspectors access to his country to scan for chemical and biological agents. Everyone saying "Bush" went to Iraq for the "oil" is a moron. The funny aspect of the previous statement is that those same people are the ones bitching about rising gas prices(Something Bush has NO CONTROL OVER). The reason the airline industry is doing badly is because TERRORISTS HYJACK(sp) PLANES(something Bush has NO CONTROL OVER). You say we are nowhere close to an alternative for petroleum fuels. Bush enforces stricter regulations on refining these fuels, but then you bitch about the rising gas prices. We have ample oil supplies in Alaska, but tree huggers won't let us drill for it. Hurricane Katrina decimates our gulf coast oil operations. That's somehow Bush's fault? ok...You people are so blinded by your hatred for this man(thinking he is the source of ALL these problems) that it clouds your judgement until EVERYTHING he does is a "stupid" move. You think Bush "lied" about Iraq having WMD's. He was going off info from the UN, not to mention WMD's were one of SIXTEEN COUNTS against Iraq and Sadaam's regime. Bill Clinton flat out LIED TO YOUR FACE ON NATIONAL TV AND NOONE GAVE TWO SHITS!? You tell everyone to pull their heads out of their asses. Maybe it's you who should see the light. World affairs are OUR affairs whether you like it or not. And how someone types has no bearing on this topic. That's a liberal's attempt at changing the subject.


what reason did saddam have for letting un inspectors in? he didn't like us (or other countries) for obvious reasons, his being an ass about it seems very sensible to me, but that still doesn't mean he was hiding wmds. regardless, 1 of 16 counts, who cares? when did those other counts become a personal issue for any of us living here in the US? i mean i'm not trying to sound like a heartless assholes but it's clear that there are plenty of issues in the homeland that need to be addressed, why spend the money and lives of our citizens to rid the world of its wrongs?

the administration has plenty of control over rising gas prices, and while enforcing stricter refining regulations is a GREAT idea, the timing couldn't have been much worse. also, are you saying that the shitty preparation for katrina is in no way the govts fault? cuz that'd be one helluva claim.

i'm not blinded by my hatred for anyone or anything, a long string of facts (and no, i'm not talkin about fahrenheith 9/11) and observations have led me to believe bush is the most retarded president we have ever had. and clinton lying to me in my face? that's a good one. but you know what the difference is? his lie on national tv affected his PERSONAL life, it did not tie in the lives and money of the united states and its hardworking citizens. not to mention anyone with half a brain KNEW he was lying anyway and can even comprehend (key word here) why he lied.

and you're right, how someone types does not have bearing on the TOPIC at hand. but it does have bearing on the character and potentially the intellect of the person typing it, in fact part of the reason i respect what you posted.

now welcome to the boards :goodjob: even if you're not a cool subject changing liberal (read: sarcasm).

[{X}Echo419]

...but you have to realize that what Iran right now has nothing to do with terrorism...

that's like saying, "It's not like Nextel has anything to do with Nascar...or construction workers....or MOBILE FUCKING PHONES." :wtf:

[Xan]

You got it wrong. The countries around Sadaam didn't like him because he was experimenting on his neighboring nations with nerve gases and biological weapons.
As far as Iraq not having WMD's when we invaded; numerous sources reported multiple convoys of heavy axle cargo trucks fleeing Iraq into Syria at the start of the war. Not exactly troop transport, and if it was they were heading in the wrong direction. One of Sadaam's generals appeared on national television not too long ago verifying this. (of course he is lying though(read:Sarcasm)) Sadaam agreed to let UN inspectors enter Iraq so we would end Desert Storm. Peace treaties are a bitch. Clinton lied on national tv, to your face, and under oath. Yes, that is a good one. Clinton selling our information on production nuclear bombs to the Chinese could have a very real effect on your life or the lives of your children in the future. Prepping for Katrina wasn't in my argument. Even still, you can't exactly "pick up" an oil rig(sp) and move it. If Bush's administration could do ANYTHING to bring down gas prices(other than investigating price gouging, which they're doing) then I am all ears. Keep in mind. OIL IS PRODUCED AND SOLD OVER SEAS. WE IMPORT OIL BASED ON HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO SELL IT TO US FOR. Katrina response had much left to be desired I agree with you there. Then again, that was the most destructive natural dissaster(sp) in our nation's history. Noone really knew what to expect and I HIGHLY doubt repsonse would have been any better with Kerry in office. It may have gone smoother if the rescue teams weren't having to dodge gang bullets, but that's another issue. Rescue teams wouldn't have been necessary if everyone would have gotten out in the first place. The bus rides were free(So I've heard from someone in NO) so why they didn't is beyond me.

Thanks for welcoming me to the boards by the way. Glad to be here.

[ShooterMcGavin]

You got it wrong. The countries around Sadaam didn't like him because he was experimenting on his neighboring nations with nerve gases and biological weapons.
As far as Iraq not having WMD's when we invaded; numerous sources reported multiple convoys of heavy axle cargo trucks fleeing Iraq into Syria at the start of the war. Not exactly troop transport, and if it was they were heading in the wrong direction. One of Sadaam's generals appeared on national television not too long ago verifying this. (of course he is lying though(read:Sarcasm)) Sadaam agreed to let UN inspectors enter Iraq so we would end Desert Storm. Peace treaties are a bitch. Clinton lied on national tv, to your face, and under oath. Yes, that is a good one. Clinton selling our information on production nuclear bombs to the Chinese could have a very real effect on your life or the lives of your children in the future. Prepping for Katrina wasn't in my argument. Even still, you can't exactly "pick up" an oil rig(sp) and move it. If Bush's administration could do ANYTHING to bring down gas prices(other than investigating price gouging, which they're doing) then I am all ears. Keep in mind. OIL IS PRODUCED AND SOLD OVER SEAS. WE IMPORT OIL BASED ON HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO SELL IT TO US FOR. Katrina response had much left to be desired I agree with you there. Then again, that was the most destructive natural dissaster(sp) in our nation's history. Noone really knew what to expect and I HIGHLY doubt repsonse would have been any better with Kerry in office. It may have gone smoother if the rescue teams weren't having to dodge gang bullets, but that's another issue. Rescue teams wouldn't have been necessary if everyone would have gotten out in the first place. The bus rides were free(So I've heard from someone in NO) so why they didn't is beyond me.

Thanks for welcoming me to the boards by the way. Glad to be here.

i don't see how i have it wrong? just because the countries around him didn't like him, at what point did it make it our problem and our duty to protect these countries? last i checked most of these countries don't pay taxes to the US? and for the "numerous" sources that said there were mass convoys leaving iraq shortly before the war/invasion, did i just completely miss this story? (please if you can, just give me like 3 sources, that'll be plenty) and as for saddam's former generals speaking out against him on wmds, would it be the first time ever in history that someone else has tried to shift the blame with hopes maybe of gettin their own ass out of the fire? doesn't seem such a shocking idea to me.

clinton lying on national tv, obviously we were on different pgs on that one. regardless, i would find it hard to believe that he's the first president ever to have ever leaked out secrets (or at least had a hand in it). if he is the first and only president to do so, then shame on him, but hey, good thing china doesn't harbor many terrorists eh?

correct, bush is not quite powerful enough to pick up oil rigs (or cities for tha matter) and move them out of katrinas way. however, how can u argue the possibility that if he hadn't blown so much money on defense and the war, there would potentially be at least a little more money to have bolstered the levees around NO? as for its citizens not leaving, i'm not arguing that at all, i personally think as well that its ridiculous ppl stayed behind.

and finally, i'm liberal, i think bush is inept (to put it kindly) but nowhere in any argument have i said kerry would've done better. however, i do not leave out the huge possibility that he would've been the lesser of 2 evils.

[HyPer50]

For those of you who keep saying it's not our place to "police the world", the US isn't policing the world, it is simply protecting the US and our intrests. If we were policing the world, we'd take more action in all this crazy shit goin' on in Africa. But no, they aren't truely threatening US, so we don't put as much emphasis on them. But if you think an Iran with nuclear weapons isn't a threat to America/Israel/England, then your just flat out in denial.

[{X}Echo419]

For those of you who keep saying it's not our place to "police the world", the US isn't policing the world, it is simply protecting the US and our intrests. If we were policing the world, we'd take more action in all this crazy shit goin' on in Africa. But no, they aren't truely threatening US, so we don't put as much emphasis on them. But if you think an Iran with nuclear weapons isn't a threat to America/Israel/England, then your just flat out in denial.
and ignorant

[ShooterMcGavin]

For those of you who keep saying it's not our place to "police the world", the US isn't policing the world, it is simply protecting the US and our intrests. If we were policing the world, we'd take more action in all this crazy shit goin' on in Africa. But no, they aren't truely threatening US, so we don't put as much emphasis on them. But if you think an Iran with nuclear weapons isn't a threat to America/Israel/England, then your just flat out in denial.

well first off, africa is a lost cause, and i think just about every developed nation out there knows it.

now onto the US policing the world, u can argue all day we're only "protecting" our interests but seriously, if u look at it like that then our interest is the whole world (except africa once again, and maybe antarctica too), and of course we're goin to get involved in everything.

i'm not saying iran is not a threat, but for once u would think we could just let some of the european countries handle it? i mean if they are inept (which they proved to be in ww2), then we can jump in and help, but there's no point in always pre-emptively goin ou there and flexing our muscles (at the expense of our citizens lives and $$$).

[Sthrnba711]

well first off, africa is a lost cause, and i think just about every developed nation out there knows it.

now onto the US policing the world, u can argue all day we're only "protecting" our interests but seriously, if u look at it like that then our interest is the whole world (except africa once again, and maybe antarctica too), and of course we're goin to get involved in everything.

i'm not saying iran is not a threat, but for once u would think we could just let some of the european countries handle it? i mean if they are inept (which they proved to be in ww2), then we can jump in and help, but there's no point in always pre-emptively goin ou there and flexing our muscles (at the expense of our citizens lives and $$$).

Thank you, finally someone see's whats going on in the world. Yes, Iran might be a threat to the US, but thats years from now and I dont doubt that. All im saying is that why is it our job or duty to go out to the rest of the world and tell them what they can and can't do. Isreal has nuclear weapons and no one is pissed at them, as well as India and Pakistan. And what about North Korea and China, ever thought of them seeing they already have nuclear weapons and increadible armies. I mean you could probably go and find something wrong with every country in the world but thats no reason to go and stick our nose in the middle of it. Our country has made too many miltary mistakes in the past and we need start thinking and planning things better or else we are going to run into a world war in which we shouldnt have been near in the first place.

[{X}Echo419]

Thank you, finally someone see's whats going on in the world. Yes, Iran might be a threat to the US, but thats years from now and I dont doubt that. All im saying is that why is it our job or duty to go out to the rest of the world and tell them what they can and can't do. Isreal has nuclear weapons and no one is pissed at them, as well as India and Pakistan. And what about North Korea and China, ever thought of them seeing they already have nuclear weapons and increadible armies. I mean you could probably go and find something wrong with every country in the world but thats no reason to go and stick our nose in the middle of it. Our country has made too many miltary mistakes in the past and we need start thinking and planning things better or else we are going to run into a world war in which we shouldnt have been near in the first place.

Isreal's not going to shoot them at us!!! China has little/no reason to use them on US! No one said N.Korea having Nukes was a good idea either!
Don't sit here and try and justify wrong doing with other wrong doing. that's foolish :2cents:

[Sthrnba711]

Im not trying to justify anything. All im trying to say is why is it our responsilbilty to say who can and can't have nukes. I know Isreal is not going to use them on us but China has always had bad blood for the US and is helping Iran and just becames Irans largest country that they export oil to. And North Korea is run by a crazy man who would probably love a war. The Isreal situation has been going on since the beginning of time and will never end till world war and then its going to be a big area of nothing cause of complete distruction using nuclear weapons.

[HyPer50]

Im not trying to justify anything. All im trying to say is why is it our responsilbilty to say who can and can't have nukes. I know Isreal is not going to use them on us but China has always had bad blood for the US and is helping Iran and just becames Irans largest country that they export oil to. And North Korea is run by a crazy man who would probably love a war. The Isreal situation has been going on since the beginning of time and will never end till world war and then its going to be a big area of nothing cause of complete distruction using nuclear weapons.

They aren't saying who can have nukes and who can't. The US is just defending itself. Iran has made it public knowledge that they hate the US and Israel and want to rid the world of the 2 countries... so what your suggesting is that since they dont have the weapons yet, we should just leave them alone til they start shooting at us? It's pre-emptive defense. If they wanted to use nuclear power for energy, they could go about that with no problem, by letting inspectors in to ensure that THAT is all they are using the reactors for. They declined.

As for the North Korea part, thats not over.. They are still in talks, but it's a little more difficult a situation with North Korea since they pretty much already have the weapons, so if we try and stop them with force, they will in retaliation nuke the US or S. Korea. Requires a lil more delicacy than it does with Iran, since they are not at that point yet.

[Sthrnba711]

Iran does hate America and Isreal but that doesnt mean we have the right to say what they can and cant do. Yes in the future they might use them against the United States and Isreal but Isreal has already said that if anything starts they will return fire with nukes even if the first strike on them was not with nuclear weapons. Yes we probably should be caustious but war with them is not the answer. Our military is already spread way to thin and billions have already been spent on the meaningless Iraq war. Maybe we wouldnt be so hated by some countries of the world if we didnt try to police countries and just stayed out of issues that arent our business.

[HyPer50]

Iran does hate America and Isreal but that doesnt mean we have the right to say what they can and cant do. Yes in the future they might use them against the United States and Isreal but Isreal has already said that if anything starts they will return fire with nukes even if the first strike on them was not with nuclear weapons. Yes we probably should be caustious but war with them is not the answer. Our military is already spread way to thin and billions have already been spent on the meaningless Iraq war. Maybe we wouldnt be so hated by some countries of the world if we didnt try to police countries and just stayed out of issues that arent our business.

We wouldn't need our entire military to take out there nuclear sites... A few air attacks and there nuclear capabilities would be back in the stone age, where they were before we gave them the reactors.

[Sthrnba711]

We wouldn't need our entire military to take out there nuclear sites... A few air attacks and there nuclear capabilities would be back in the stone age, where they were before we gave them the reactors.

And what about their Navy, and other military capabilities? Iran will just move their nuclear sites into cities and shove citizens in front so we blow up innocent citizens infront of the entire world. Iran uses kids to clear mine fields and in their army if need be so I dont think they will have a problem putting them in front of our missles. And what do you do afterwards, you bomb them and then they start to do all this in secret locations in the country and cut off all the oil export to any country. Not to smart.

[MitsuEvo6]

Anyone who believes that Iran is years and years away from nuclear bombs is either nieve, or retarted. The US gov't keeps alot from the people but in the intrest of our safety. WMD in iraq...they were discovered. My sgt's have pics of them takin tank after tank filled with mustard gas from buildins in the box. There's a reason the UN was denied access to so many places.
And bout all the other countries...there are many troops freezin their ass off controlin the DMZ. China? We have troops on the border. Africa...yalls lost cause, we have troops all thru Africa.
And this reasonin one of yall used that we should let Irans nuclear progam get to where they'll come out and say "we're gonna bomb you know because we have enough to blow yu into oblivion"...real smart. Cut the problem off at the knees. Im not lettin the kids I'll one day have be the aftermath of a nuc attack. But of course, that's why I enlisted.

[ShooterMcGavin]

i believe myself to be neither naive nor retarded so i'm going to have to disagree with you on your opening statement. unless the IAEA and the UN is trying to lie to us (not saying they wouldn't, but someone would have to give me a really good reason why they would about this), iran, even with new uranium enrichment technology, is at least a few yrs away from being able to build a real bomb (key word real, i'm sure they already have enough or will soon have enough for a dirty bomb).

[{X}Echo419]

i believe myself to be neither naive nor retarded so i'm going to have to disagree with you on your opening statement. unless the IAEA and the UN is trying to lie to us (not saying they wouldn't, but someone would have to give me a really good reason why they would about this), iran, even with new uranium enrichment technology, is at least a few yrs away from being able to build a real bomb (key word real, i'm sure they already have enough or will soon have enough for a dirty bomb).

that's why action is needed now! a country sitting on 1 of the biggest known oil deposits dosen't need Nuclear power for their 3 TV's and 53 radios.

[Xan]

i don't see how i have it wrong? just because the countries around him didn't like him, at what point did it make it our problem and our duty to protect these countries? last i checked most of these countries don't pay taxes to the US? and for the "numerous" sources that said there were mass convoys leaving iraq shortly before the war/invasion, did i just completely miss this story? (please if you can, just give me like 3 sources, that'll be plenty) and as for saddam's former generals speaking out against him on wmds, would it be the first time ever in history that someone else has tried to shift the blame with hopes maybe of gettin their own ass out of the fire? doesn't seem such a shocking idea to me.

clinton lying on national tv, obviously we were on different pgs on that one. regardless, i would find it hard to believe that he's the first president ever to have ever leaked out secrets (or at least had a hand in it). if he is the first and only president to do so, then shame on him, but hey, good thing china doesn't harbor many terrorists eh?

correct, bush is not quite powerful enough to pick up oil rigs (or cities for tha matter) and move them out of katrinas way. however, how can u argue the possibility that if he hadn't blown so much money on defense and the war, there would potentially be at least a little more money to have bolstered the levees around NO? as for its citizens not leaving, i'm not arguing that at all, i personally think as well that its ridiculous ppl stayed behind.

and finally, i'm liberal, i think bush is inept (to put it kindly) but nowhere in any argument have i said kerry would've done better. however, i do not leave out the huge possibility that he would've been the lesser of 2 evils.

It became our problem and duty when Sadaam began funding terrorist factions. As for the convoys and WMD movement, check CNN's website. I would, but I don't feel like it. The Cargo vehicles I heard from my uncle(He's in the marines and saw them with his own eyes. Not how credible you might think that is, but I don't see why he would lie) The Liberal Propaganda machine known as "the news" is probably why you never heard about the guy who spoke out about the WMD movements(It was aired once and only because it was live). China is our ally for now, but things change and shit happens. own the road that could come back to bite us in the ass. As for not having the man power and resources for Katrina rebuild. You can't deny that our taking the war over seas and the lack of terrorist attacks(Zero by my calculations) we've had since 9/11 aren't DIRECTLY related. Furthermore, had the president and joint chiefs known the devastation that would be left in Katrina's wake, I think they would've sent more people in. Sadly, technology hasn't progressed to the point of predicting the future.(It would be cool though). Bolstering the levee system around NO wouldn't have kept it above sea-level. Maybe Ray Nagen should send some of his campaign contributions that way. Everyone knows NO's is/was the dirtiest, most corrupt city in the country(especially after the literal shit-bath it just took. I'm still having trouble figuring out why the hell we are rebuilding it.

I'm going to end on this. Since Bush is "inept" and makes stupid mistakes all the time; how should he have handled Katrina and the War on terror? What should he do to prevent rising gas prices? Nothing personal against any of you, but hear alot of bitching and no alternatives.

[Xan]

i believe myself to be neither naive nor retarded so i'm going to have to disagree with you on your opening statement. unless the IAEA and the UN is trying to lie to us (not saying they wouldn't, but someone would have to give me a really good reason why they would about this), iran, even with new uranium enrichment technology, is at least a few yrs away from being able to build a real bomb (key word real, i'm sure they already have enough or will soon have enough for a dirty bomb).

Amhadenajad or however you say his name has openly declared multiple times that he wishes the destruction of Israel as well as the US. Under no circumstances whatsoever should he be allowed to build, experiment, or even think about having a nuclear program. Primary reason is that the bastards are crazy enough to use it. He beds with terrorists. Simple as that.

[{X}Echo419]

Amhadenajad or however you say his name has openly declared multiple times that he wishes the destruction of Israel as well as the US. Under no circumstances whatsoever should he be allowed to build, experiment, or even think about having a nuclear program. Primary reason is that the bastards are crazy enough to use it. He beds with terrorists. Simple as that.

^exactally^ what more do people want?

[ShooterMcGavin]

It became our problem and duty when Sadaam began funding terrorist factions. As for the convoys and WMD movement, check CNN's website. I would, but I don't feel like it. The Cargo vehicles I heard from my uncle(He's in the marines and saw them with his own eyes. Not how credible you might think that is, but I don't see why he would lie) The Liberal Propaganda machine known as "the news" is probably why you never heard about the guy who spoke out about the WMD movements(It was aired once and only because it was live). China is our ally for now, but things change and shit happens. own the road that could come back to bite us in the ass. As for not having the man power and resources for Katrina rebuild. You can't deny that our taking the war over seas and the lack of terrorist attacks(Zero by my calculations) we've had since 9/11 aren't DIRECTLY related. Furthermore, had the president and joint chiefs known the devastation that would be left in Katrina's wake, I think they would've sent more people in. Sadly, technology hasn't progressed to the point of predicting the future.(It would be cool though). Bolstering the levee system around NO wouldn't have kept it above sea-level. Maybe Ray Nagen should send some of his campaign contributions that way. Everyone knows NO's is/was the dirtiest, most corrupt city in the country(especially after the literal shit-bath it just took. I'm still having trouble figuring out why the hell we are rebuilding it.

I'm going to end on this. Since Bush is "inept" and makes stupid mistakes all the time; how should he have handled Katrina and the War on terror? What should he do to prevent rising gas prices? Nothing personal against any of you, but hear alot of bitching and no alternatives.
what became our duty and when at this point boils down to a matter of belief and opinion, we've argued both points and i don't see why one is more valid than the other so i'm going to end that.

as far as the convoys of wmds being moved to syria, i have looked it up and indeed there are some articles stating/speculating when they might have moved and how russia might have helped blah blah blah. my point on that is, if indeed they were moved, why wouldn't the bush administration try to chase down every possible lead to recover them to prove that one of the major points on which he went to war with in the first place was valid, as opposed to just having to concede on national television that he/they were wrong? just doesn't make sense to me why he wouldn't go for the "cool" points on that (especially since we all know that he is in need of more support, not less).

you are right, things can change down the road, but does that mean we need to take an aggressive defense approach to all of our allies? i mean france and germany disagreed pretty wholeheartedly on our decision to go to war...i know likelihood is small, but if you're going to be paranoid about countries turning on you then everyone is a suspect no? (ok fine we'll leave out the british since they've been kissing our ass for a record period of history)

0 terrorist attacks in 9/11 is impressive yes, and i'm sure the war on terror (even though i still don't see how you can declare war on a noun) has had something to do with this. however, i don't see enough direct evidence that it is because we're in a war in afghanistan and iraq. i personally feel that all this homeland security and tsa bullshit aside, we've just been lucky. after all, it's not like other countries haven't been targeted during this time. and still, more than one study has shown just how much exactly is being done at airports and such (and how easily it still is to sneak weapons on board). argue that til your face is blue, it is your prerogative, but that's just how it breaks down for me.

just because you can't predict the future doesn't give an excuse as to the piss poor job of preparing for this storm. you're right, the levees wouldn't have caused NO to NOT be under sea level, but more than 1 expert source have agreed that it would've prevented some MAJOR flooding to some of the surrounding parishes. and dragging nagin (as much of a dumbfuck as he is) into this is rather irrelevant, the same can be asked of why president bush didn't send some of his campaign funds that way (lest you argue that they're not as great as nagin's funds?). as far as NO being dirty and corrupt? dirty i agree, corrupt i agree, but then again, how many politicians aren't corrupt? lest you forget what bush has done for the big businesses and how it just so happens some of these fortune 500 companies happens to donate or have donated in the past to his campaign? and for the record, i don't understand why NO is being rebuilt either.

well, imho, i don't think bush should've declared war on iraq, pure and simple. plenty of people have on here have suggested the best method for dealing with iran is to use airstrikes or whatever, but no physical invasion. i would've done that, along with using economic sanctions to fuck with that country as much and as long as ABSOLUTELY possible before sending in our troops to fight in an urban war for which the army is not suited for anyway. obviously, if we had not committed so much of our resources to a fullout war, it would seem to me (since all this is just hypothetical anyway) that there'd be more funds to go around for other things, oh say disaster preparation and relief?

and gas relief? well at the moment i guess all that can be done is the great gesture of temporarily seizing to add to the strategic reserve (read: no effect whatsoever on the prices at the pump). realistically these new guidelines on cleaner burning fuels could've been eased into effect with a longer range of time, as opposed to the 6 months time (i think) that the refineries have to comply. oh yeah and one more thing, do you know how much diesel/oil it takes to run ONE abrams m1 tank for ONE day? or hell maybe toss in a couple of bradley fighting vehicles, a few hummers, convoy trucks, helicopters......i think you get the drift :)

[Xan]

what became our duty and when at this point boils down to a matter of belief and opinion, we've argued both points and i don't see why one is more valid than the other so i'm going to end that.

as far as the convoys of wmds being moved to syria, i have looked it up and indeed there are some articles stating/speculating when they might have moved and how russia might have helped blah blah blah. my point on that is, if indeed they were moved, why wouldn't the bush administration try to chase down every possible lead to recover them to prove that one of the major points on which he went to war with in the first place was valid, as opposed to just having to concede on national television that he/they were wrong? just doesn't make sense to me why he wouldn't go for the "cool" points on that (especially since we all know that he is in need of more support, not less).

you are right, things can change down the road, but does that mean we need to take an aggressive defense approach to all of our allies? i mean france and germany disagreed pretty wholeheartedly on our decision to go to war...i know likelihood is small, but if you're going to be paranoid about countries turning on you then everyone is a suspect no? (ok fine we'll leave out the british since they've been kissing our ass for a record period of history)

0 terrorist attacks in 9/11 is impressive yes, and i'm sure the war on terror (even though i still don't see how you can declare war on a noun) has had something to do with this. however, i don't see enough direct evidence that it is because we're in a war in afghanistan and iraq. i personally feel that all this homeland security and tsa bullshit aside, we've just been lucky. after all, it's not like other countries haven't been targeted during this time. and still, more than one study has shown just how much exactly is being done at airports and such (and how easily it still is to sneak weapons on board). argue that til your face is blue, it is your prerogative, but that's just how it breaks down for me.

just because you can't predict the future doesn't give an excuse as to the piss poor job of preparing for this storm. you're right, the levees wouldn't have caused NO to NOT be under sea level, but more than 1 expert source have agreed that it would've prevented some MAJOR flooding to some of the surrounding parishes. and dragging nagin (as much of a dumbfuck as he is) into this is rather irrelevant, the same can be asked of why president bush didn't send some of his campaign funds that way (lest you argue that they're not as great as nagin's funds?). as far as NO being dirty and corrupt? dirty i agree, corrupt i agree, but then again, how many politicians aren't corrupt? lest you forget what bush has done for the big businesses and how it just so happens some of these fortune 500 companies happens to donate or have donated in the past to his campaign? and for the record, i don't understand why NO is being rebuilt either.

well, imho, i don't think bush should've declared war on iraq, pure and simple. plenty of people have on here have suggested the best method for dealing with iran is to use airstrikes or whatever, but no physical invasion. i would've done that, along with using economic sanctions to fuck with that country as much and as long as ABSOLUTELY possible before sending in our troops to fight in an urban war for which the army is not suited for anyway. obviously, if we had not committed so much of our resources to a fullout war, it would seem to me (since all this is just hypothetical anyway) that there'd be more funds to go around for other things, oh say disaster preparation and relief?

and gas relief? well at the moment i guess all that can be done is the great gesture of temporarily seizing to add to the strategic reserve (read: no effect whatsoever on the prices at the pump). realistically these new guidelines on cleaner burning fuels could've been eased into effect with a longer range of time, as opposed to the 6 months time (i think) that the refineries have to comply. oh yeah and one more thing, do you know how much diesel/oil it takes to run ONE abrams m1 tank for ONE day? or hell maybe toss in a couple of bradley fighting vehicles, a few hummers, convoy trucks, helicopters......i think you get the drift :)

Sadaam was harboring terrorists. That doesn't mean every Iraqi(sp) citizen is a terrorist. Carpet bombing for as long as possible would result in record civilian cazualties not to mention even worse publicity. The same goes for Iran. Last I checked, an M1 requires 55 gals just to crank or something ungodly like that, let alone stay running. The fact of the matter is, THEY ATTACKED US. The war on terror is a hypothetical term. "declaring war on terrorist factions and the nations that harbor them" is more accurate. We didn't chase down the fleeing WMD's because we wouldn't be able to link them back to Sadaam and his gang. Russia provides close to all arms being used in the Middle East conflicts on the insurgency side. What country over there is going to turn down free WMDs? Entering another country without permission could be misconstrued(sp) as an act of war. Wars faught on multiple fronts are strategically unsound and even harder to conduct. Look at WWII and Germany. The strategic reserve isn't going to effect pump prices, but it's still gas and it's all we can do for now. If we pulled out of Iraq without completing our mission(Which was/is freeing the Iraqi people, establishing a national government, and granting them a means to defend themselves) all lose faith. Throwing the Iraqi people to the wolves isn't going to end this conflict. In-fact, it could very well worsen it. Abandoning Iraq now would cause the Iraqi people to lose faith. That produces another enemy for the US. Iraq is also the front for this war. Fighting over there keeps the fighting from coming over here. IMHO I think we were too soft. You bring a good point to the table as to why Bush couldn't donate funds. I'm not sure I can answer that. As for luck being the deciding factor on the halt of terrorist attacks on US soil. I wonder how we caught that guy at GATech? Airport security could be tighter. Liberals arguing for the rights of terrorists doesn't help that situation at all though. There are those that say we should protect ourselves and our allies at any and all costs. There are also those that say we should do it in the realm of legality so as to retain the values and freedoms our nation was founded on. My problem with that is that we are fighting a guerilla war with open war concepts. Make no mistake. we are going through the crucible. I only wonder if we will still be here when it's over.

[MitsuEvo6]

absoludely, if you think todays Army isn't able to fight in an urban enviornment, you are wrong. We train many times weekly for urban enviornments. Room clearin and dismounted movement is part of the Army's trainin. We train for any enviornment.

[ShooterMcGavin]

absoludely, if you think todays Army isn't able to fight in an urban enviornment, you are wrong. We train many times weekly for urban enviornments. Room clearin and dismounted movement is part of the Army's trainin. We train for any enviornment.

mitsu, u obviously didn't understand what i was goin for. i did not say today's army is incapable of fighting in urban environments, but if i give u the option of fighting a real war on a battlefield, where u know exactly who ur enemies are, or to fight in a city where u have no idea if the kid walkin down the street is a suicide bomber, or if the next car that stops at the checkpoint has in ied, what would u honestly prefer? my point was that it's a shitty thing to make our army have to fight this type of a war.

[{X}Echo419]

ya'll write way to much shit in your posts :2cents:

[ShooterMcGavin]

Sadaam was harboring terrorists. That doesn't mean every Iraqi(sp) citizen is a terrorist. Carpet bombing for as long as possible would result in record civilian cazualties not to mention even worse publicity. The same goes for Iran. Last I checked, an M1 requires 55 gals just to crank or something ungodly like that, let alone stay running. The fact of the matter is, THEY ATTACKED US. The war on terror is a hypothetical term. "declaring war on terrorist factions and the nations that harbor them" is more accurate. We didn't chase down the fleeing WMD's because we wouldn't be able to link them back to Sadaam and his gang. Russia provides close to all arms being used in the Middle East conflicts on the insurgency side. What country over there is going to turn down free WMDs? Entering another country without permission could be misconstrued(sp) as an act of war. Wars faught on multiple fronts are strategically unsound and even harder to conduct. Look at WWII and Germany. The strategic reserve isn't going to effect pump prices, but it's still gas and it's all we can do for now. If we pulled out of Iraq without completing our mission(Which was/is freeing the Iraqi people, establishing a national government, and granting them a means to defend themselves) all lose faith. Throwing the Iraqi people to the wolves isn't going to end this conflict. In-fact, it could very well worsen it. Abandoning Iraq now would cause the Iraqi people to lose faith. That produces another enemy for the US. Iraq is also the front for this war. Fighting over there keeps the fighting from coming over here. IMHO I think we were too soft. You bring a good point to the table as to why Bush couldn't donate funds. I'm not sure I can answer that. As for luck being the deciding factor on the halt of terrorist attacks on US soil. I wonder how we caught that guy at GATech? Airport security could be tighter. Liberals arguing for the rights of terrorists doesn't help that situation at all though. There are those that say we should protect ourselves and our allies at any and all costs. There are also those that say we should do it in the realm of legality so as to retain the values and freedoms our nation was founded on. My problem with that is that we are fighting a guerilla war with open war concepts. Make no mistake. we are going through the crucible. I only wonder if we will still be here when it's over.

i was not suggesting carpet-bombing entire cities, simply that we could use surgical strikes to target what needs to be targeted (yes i know you can argue that he will stash kids and women there or whatever but that would be blood on his hands, and at least there's only a certain number of people you can stash at any given warehouse or whatever). see when you say "they attacked us" it just sounds bad...who is they exactly? you are talking about a few (proportionately speaking) islamic extremists in the midst of an entire country that did not wish to be engulfed in a war (yes, i do realize the shit saddam did). and once again, tasking ourselves with freeing the iraqi people and helping them set up a democracy, i mean when did it become our job to make sure the world is free? i never said we shouldn't protect ourselves, but i don't see that being done or at least being done the right way when we're always immersed in a conflict in someone elses backyard, the whole pre-emptive thing seems to be taken a bit far.

and you played down what i had to say about the gas crisis a good bit, i mean did you or did you not get what i was getting at asking you how much oil it took to run a tank or any other military vehicles? do you not believe that oil can be much better used back at home? and you're right, not adding to the strategic reserve is "all we can do now" but honestly, that's like saying you're going to fight a large fire with a bucket because the fire truck is on the other side of town watering someones lawn. it's all you can do right now and it's better than nothing, but it's one shitty alternative and it's damn sad that it's what we're reduced to.

well i think the case of the guy from GT that just got arrested is but one straw from a mountain of hay, not saying it's not a good thing but hell we don't even know what building they were planning on destroying or have enough information to know how big exactly of a catch he really is. and i'm glad you agree that tsa is not doing enough other than making people strip down every time just to get on a damn plane. i honestly believe if someone out there wanted to attack us again, they can succeed, and isn't that a loss for us in this war on terror? after all this homeland security shit and the wars and all that, i still do not feel any safer than right after 9/11, and if you go out and ask others (as news and other sources have before), i'm sure you'll find plenty of people that believe and feel the same way as myself.

and please don't attempt to group me as "just another liberal". i rather dislike being generalized along with the at large population seeing as how i'm not a democrat, i'm not a republican, and i share both conservative and liberal views. for instance i don't believe in rights for terrorists, i believe in the death penalty...but at the same time i believe this administration (which happens to be republican and pretty conservative) has done a shitty job at steering this country through this crucible you speak of. and given the fact that they're the ones that led us into it, i find that highly unacceptable.

[AtifSajid]

Israel will take care of Iran before we need to worry about them.

You got your countries wrong there??

[MitsuEvo6]

mitsu, u obviously didn't understand what i was goin for. i did not say today's army is incapable of fighting in urban environments, but if i give u the option of fighting a real war on a battlefield, where u know exactly who ur enemies are, or to fight in a city where u have no idea if the kid walkin down the street is a suicide bomber, or if the next car that stops at the checkpoint has in ied, what would u honestly prefer? my point was that it's a shitty thing to make our army have to fight this type of a war.

your right, I was not understandin whst you wrote. However, the days of seein your enemy are over. The world realizes the US's military power and see that gaurilla tactics are what works. At the beginin of the war, they were dressed in uniforms or wore colors as identification, but they abandoned that as soon as they saw how they had no power to stand toe to toe with us.

[HyPer50]

You got your countries wrong there??

Not sure what you mean Atif. What I was saying is that, Israel knows that if Iran is able to get nuclear weapons, nothing is stopping them from attacking Israel, therefore I think Israel is going to stop them before they have completed there program. Just how I've felt for quite awhile now.

[ShooterMcGavin]

your right, I was not understandin whst you wrote. However, the days of seein your enemy are over. The world realizes the US's military power and see that gaurilla tactics are what works. At the beginin of the war, they were dressed in uniforms or wore colors as identification, but they abandoned that as soon as they saw how they had no power to stand toe to toe with us.

absolutely, but you still did not respond as to which you would prefer if were given the choice. i never once stated you didn't train for it and wouldn't be able to deal with it, just that it's obviously more difficult and results in more casualties then you would otherwise sustain, am i wrong?

[Xan]

i was not suggesting carpet-bombing entire cities, simply that we could use surgical strikes to target what needs to be targeted (yes i know you can argue that he will stash kids and women there or whatever but that would be blood on his hands, and at least there's only a certain number of people you can stash at any given warehouse or whatever). see when you say "they attacked us" it just sounds bad...who is they exactly? you are talking about a few (proportionately speaking) islamic extremists in the midst of an entire country that did not wish to be engulfed in a war (yes, i do realize the shit saddam did). and once again, tasking ourselves with freeing the iraqi people and helping them set up a democracy, i mean when did it become our job to make sure the world is free? i never said we shouldn't protect ourselves, but i don't see that being done or at least being done the right way when we're always immersed in a conflict in someone elses backyard, the whole pre-emptive thing seems to be taken a bit far.

and you played down what i had to say about the gas crisis a good bit, i mean did you or did you not get what i was getting at asking you how much oil it took to run a tank or any other military vehicles? do you not believe that oil can be much better used back at home? and you're right, not adding to the strategic reserve is "all we can do now" but honestly, that's like saying you're going to fight a large fire with a bucket because the fire truck is on the other side of town watering someones lawn. it's all you can do right now and it's better than nothing, but it's one shitty alternative and it's damn sad that it's what we're reduced to.

well i think the case of the guy from GT that just got arrested is but one straw from a mountain of hay, not saying it's not a good thing but hell we don't even know what building they were planning on destroying or have enough information to know how big exactly of a catch he really is. and i'm glad you agree that tsa is not doing enough other than making people strip down every time just to get on a damn plane. i honestly believe if someone out there wanted to attack us again, they can succeed, and isn't that a loss for us in this war on terror? after all this homeland security shit and the wars and all that, i still do not feel any safer than right after 9/11, and if you go out and ask others (as news and other sources have before), i'm sure you'll find plenty of people that believe and feel the same way as myself.

and please don't attempt to group me as "just another liberal". i rather dislike being generalized along with the at large population seeing as how i'm not a democrat, i'm not a republican, and i share both conservative and liberal views. for instance i don't believe in rights for terrorists, i believe in the death penalty...but at the same time i believe this administration (which happens to be republican and pretty conservative) has done a shitty job at steering this country through this crucible you speak of. and given the fact that they're the ones that led us into it, i find that highly unacceptable.

Bin Laden and his men attacked us(or at least they claim responsibility for it). We initially went after Bin Laden, Al Quida, and their affiliates. I will however admit that it was rather naive of Bush and his administration to think this war would be won in a week. Terrorism is an idea and it is attracting new recruits as we speak, but taking the fight to them has kept it from coming over here IMO.

Strategic strikes would'nt have worked in this conflict. Targeting people is alot trickier than a weapons cache. It's true that Sadaam would have women and children guard these facilities. It's also true that the liberal media would turn this into the bombing of "innocent civilians" whether they had the facts or not(Look at the mine disaster in West Virginia). That would be the first and last time that would happen. None of the "blood on the hands" would reflect back to Sadaam.

I totally understood what you meant about saving gas by pulling out the tanks and APC's. The simple facts are these. Armor is needed in guerilla warfare due to the fact that a flak(sp) jacket won't stop an RPG. Look at Somalia for instance. Had Clinton sent in one armored unit I would almost guarantee that our casualties would have been cut in half. Tanks save lives and they should stay there until the fight is over IMO. Besides, how do we even know that bringing them home to save gas would effect prices at the pump?

I didn't mean to group you as a Liberal per say. However, you do share Liberal points of view on the topic at hand. As you stated earlier. You looked at the " facts as they were presented to you(as did I) and drew your own conclusion(as did I). Our primary difference is that I think the cause for fighting is "noble" on our behalf. It is the responsibility of the strong to fight for those who can't fight for themselves. I'm not in the military. I probably never will be, but I respect a man who is willing to volunteer to fight for something he believes in. Anyone who puts their life on the line to protect someone they've never met, but they do it souley(sp) because it's "the right thing" gets mad props from me.

Bush's administration didn't lead us into this. The hyjackers that destroyed the world trader center and killed 2000 innocent people did.

You know. I like arguing with you Lude. You don't get all pissy and start the name calling and shit. I respect that alot.

[ShooterMcGavin]

Bin Laden and his men attacked us(or at least they claim responsibility for it). We initially went after Bin Laden, Al Quida, and their affiliates. I will however admit that it was rather naive of Bush and his administration to think this war would be won in a week. Terrorism is an idea and it is attracting new recruits as we speak, but taking the fight to them has kept it from coming over here IMO.

Strategic strikes would'nt have worked in this conflict. Targeting people is alot trickier than a weapons cache. It's true that Sadaam would have women and children guard these facilities. It's also true that the liberal media would turn this into the bombing of "innocent civilians" whether they had the facts or not(Look at the mine disaster in West Virginia). That would be the first and last time that would happen. None of the "blood on the hands" would reflect back to Sadaam.

I totally understood what you meant about saving gas by pulling out the tanks and APC's. The simple facts are these. Armor is needed in guerilla warfare due to the fact that a flak(sp) jacket won't stop an RPG. Look at Somalia for instance. Had Clinton sent in one armored unit I would almost guarantee that our casualties would have been cut in half. Tanks save lives and they should stay there until the fight is over IMO. Besides, how do we even know that bringing them home to save gas would effect prices at the pump?

I didn't mean to group you as a Liberal per say. However, you do share Liberal points of view on the topic at hand. As you stated earlier. You looked at the " facts as they were presented to you(as did I) and drew your own conclusion(as did I). Our primary difference is that I think the cause for fighting is "noble" on our behalf. It is the responsibility of the strong to fight for those who can't fight for themselves. I'm not in the military. I probably never will be, but I respect a man who is willing to volunteer to fight for something he believes in. Anyone who puts their life on the line to protect someone they've never met, but they do it souley(sp) because it's "the right thing" gets mad props from me.

Bush's administration didn't lead us into this. The hyjackers that destroyed the world trader center and killed 2000 innocent people did.

You know. I like arguing with you Lude. You don't get all pissy and start the name calling and shit. I respect that alot.

i agree, it was al qaeda that cast the first stone (well, more like a giant boulder but whatever), and i agree wholeheartedly that we should get that bastard. however, while i do realize saddam harbors terrorists, the war AT THE TIME was not with him and his regime. there are many countries that harbor terrorists, and it really wasn't the right time to go after any of them. you spoke not long ago about what a poor choice it would be to fight a war on multiple fronts, do you not think that is partly what we have done already by attacking iraq before all the scores were settled in afghanistan and al qaeda?

the point about the tanks and apcs you might have taken too literally. it wasn't that i was suggesting pulling some out because our men and women who are putting their lives on the line need them over there. i was simply pointing out that if we did not get into this war in the FIRST PLACE, there wouldn't even be an issue at all and we'd be saving shit-tons of oil for our domestic consumption. but now that we are fully immersed in the shit storm that is policing and trying to right the ship in iraq, we have no choice but to keep all those gas guzzling machines over there until everything is said and done (god willing we see it in our lifetimes).

strategic strikes once again is but an alternative, never said how good or bad. in fact, it still goes back to the fact that we should not have acted on iraq when we did.

i'm not arguing how noble this war may be, i can clearly see the other side of the argument for fighting for iraqi freedom and democracy. however, this immediately has me questioning WHY we need engage in these noble and respectable actions when there are plenty of people in our own country who could use help. not to mention, when does it end? when will we ever fix our own problems before reaching out the world to save its people? because like we'd mentioned, africa sure could use some help (hell they could've used help for decades).

and i don't even consider this as an argument, more like a debate, something that two intelligent (party demonstrated by ones ability to write clearly, something which others on here cannot do) and self respecting human beings can engage in without resorting to red herring tactics and personal attacks. kudos to you :goodjob:

[Xan]

i agree, it was al qaeda that cast the first stone (well, more like a giant boulder but whatever), and i agree wholeheartedly that we should get that bastard. however, while i do realize saddam harbors terrorists, the war AT THE TIME was not with him and his regime. there are many countries that harbor terrorists, and it really wasn't the right time to go after any of them. you spoke not long ago about what a poor choice it would be to fight a war on multiple fronts, do you not think that is partly what we have done already by attacking iraq before all the scores were settled in afghanistan and al qaeda?

the point about the tanks and apcs you might have taken too literally. it wasn't that i was suggesting pulling some out because our men and women who are putting their lives on the line need them over there. i was simply pointing out that if we did not get into this war in the FIRST PLACE, there wouldn't even be an issue at all and we'd be saving shit-tons of oil for our domestic consumption. but now that we are fully immersed in the shit storm that is policing and trying to right the ship in iraq, we have no choice but to keep all those gas guzzling machines over there until everything is said and done (god willing we see it in our lifetimes).

strategic strikes once again is but an alternative, never said how good or bad. in fact, it still goes back to the fact that we should not have acted on iraq when we did.

i'm not arguing how noble this war may be, i can clearly see the other side of the argument for fighting for iraqi freedom and democracy. however, this immediately has me questioning WHY we need engage in these noble and respectable actions when there are plenty of people in our own country who could use help. not to mention, when does it end? when will we ever fix our own problems before reaching out the world to save its people? because like we'd mentioned, africa sure could use some help (hell they could've used help for decades).

and i don't even consider this as an argument, more like a debate, something that two intelligent (party demonstrated by ones ability to write clearly, something which others on here cannot do) and self respecting human beings can engage in without resorting to red herring tactics and personal attacks. kudos to you :goodjob:

Are we still fighting in Afghanistan? I was under the impression that the Taliban and Al Quida fled into Iraq. Sadaam gave them refuge. We said "stop that. Don't harbor terrorists or we will invade." He was disinclined to oblige our request. So we went it. That's how I saw it unfold anyway. Maybe I missed something. We should begin pulling out fairly soon I believe(Within the next 2-3 years) The Iraqi army is starting to take shape and they should be more than able to police themselves.

As far as gas goes, I feel we would be better off if Katrina hadn't come through and screwed our Gulf coast production. That being said, one can't predict the future. Gas wasn't $3.50/gal in 01'. I heard on the news last night that they are putting a bill through congress that, if passed, would allow digging for oil in Alaska. Only problem there is that it could take years to see an effect at the pump. Sure, if we hadn't gone to war, there would be more gas to go around. Oil however isn't a renewable resource and the prices would still end up climbing 4-5 years down the road.

Looking back, Maybe we should have waited on invading Iraq. I'm not going to say it was a stupid move, but given the intelligence at the time. It seemed to me to be the most logical one.

We help Africa plenty. We sell them the guns they use to kill each other.

On a more serious note. A co-worker of mines son was visiting Africa(not sure which part) when a bunch of black guys beat him to death for his laptop. That place is fucked up.

[ShooterMcGavin]

Are we still fighting in Afghanistan? I was under the impression that the Taliban and Al Quida fled into Iraq. Sadaam gave them refuge. We said "stop that. Don't harbor terrorists or we will invade." He was disinclined to oblige our request. So we went it. That's how I saw it unfold anyway. Maybe I missed something. We should begin pulling out fairly soon I believe(Within the next 2-3 years) The Iraqi army is starting to take shape and they should be more than able to police themselves.

As far as gas goes, I feel we would be better off if Katrina hadn't come through and screwed our Gulf coast production. That being said, one can't predict the future. Gas wasn't $3.50/gal in 01'. I heard on the news last night that they are putting a bill through congress that, if passed, would allow digging for oil in Alaska. Only problem there is that it could take years to see an effect at the pump. Sure, if we hadn't gone to war, there would be more gas to go around. Oil however isn't a renewable resource and the prices would still end up climbing 4-5 years down the road.

Looking back, Maybe we should have waited on invading Iraq. I'm not going to say it was a stupid move, but given the intelligence at the time. It seemed to me to be the most logical one.

We help Africa plenty. We sell them the guns they use to kill each other.

On a more serious note. A co-worker of mines son was visiting Africa(not sure which part) when a bunch of black guys beat him to death for his laptop. That place is fucked up.

i am pretty sure that we still have some troops left in afghanistan, as well as special forces teams out in the mountains still between there and pakistan still hunting for bin laden and his crew. and honestly, i don't know how good of shape iraq will be even a couple yrs down the road. i believe that they can and will raise an army and a govt, but the infighting and terrorist acts i really don't see coming to an end (see al sadr's newly released video from this weekend? that guy doesn't make it seem at all like he's planning on stopping). so it still pisses me off that unfortunately, there will still be losses ahead for our troops over there.

you're right about katrina, it got us real good at a bad time. however, you'll recall that gas was already high last summer before the hurrican ever hit. and while i agree that it being a limited resource and prices are bound to go up, i don't feel the administration is doing enough to help it (ie getting a grip on oil companies, i mean it's ridiculous that exxon should have the highest profit for a company EVER when everyone is suffering at the pump, and please, no lectures needed about free trade and capitalism, some of what they're doing is just ridiculous).

and we don't help africa enough, russia has just as much of a hand if not more in providing them the munitions for their wars. on a serious note, that place is indeed fucked up and i'm sorry to hear about your coworkers loss. once again though, it proves that there are a seemingly endless list of places that could truly use our help.

[Xan]

i am pretty sure that we still have some troops left in afghanistan, as well as special forces teams out in the mountains still between there and pakistan still hunting for bin laden and his crew. and honestly, i don't know how good of shape iraq will be even a couple yrs down the road. i believe that they can and will raise an army and a govt, but the infighting and terrorist acts i really don't see coming to an end (see al sadr's newly released video from this weekend? that guy doesn't make it seem at all like he's planning on stopping). so it still pisses me off that unfortunately, there will still be losses ahead for our troops over there.

you're right about katrina, it got us real good at a bad time. however, you'll recall that gas was already high last summer before the hurrican ever hit. and while i agree that it being a limited resource and prices are bound to go up, i don't feel the administration is doing enough to help it (ie getting a grip on oil companies, i mean it's ridiculous that exxon should have the highest profit for a company EVER when everyone is suffering at the pump, and please, no lectures needed about free trade and capitalism, some of what they're doing is just ridiculous).

and we don't help africa enough, russia has just as much of a hand if not more in providing them the munitions for their wars. on a serious note, that place is indeed fucked up and i'm sorry to hear about your coworkers loss. once again though, it proves that there are a seemingly endless list of places that could truly use our help.

They've started an investigation into Exxon and shit to stop the price gouging. I don't see how we could stop an independent organization from charging whatever the hell they feel like for their product.

It's true that there are many places around the globe that could use our support. Iraq had a prior interest in the form of Sadaam and the terrorist factions(and yes. Even oil). I don't see how best to approach a situation like Africa. From everything I've heard, it's total chaos down there, but it's not effecting us ATM I don't think. These days it seems like the old "they need our help" excuse isn't reason enough for most people to justify jumping into conflict. Maybe liberating Iraq is the by-product of the war and not the reason for it.

[ShooterMcGavin]

and as well as they should investigate. to me though part of what pisses me off is the fact that bush's administration has been giving nothing but one break after another to all big companies, not just the oil ones, and it's hurt our economy (there's plenty of facts out there to prove this). i just hope it's not another one of those investigations that turn up no real results/solutions and just becomes another waste of taxpayers money.

you're right, africa is just fuckin themselves right now and every developed nation out there knows it's potential suicide to send in real help and real troops.

and i can't agree more with your notion that liberating iraq was not a primary objective, that's what makes this invasion in my mind so ludicrous and unnecessary. in fact i don't think in this case, the ends can ever justify the means.

[Xan]

It's kind of like we went in and busted everything up. Now we are obligated to help out with the reconstruction. Hmm. I relapse...

[MitsuEvo6]

yes, i'd rather have a war where they all line up, and we smart bomb the piss outta them, but that aint gonna happen. I'm almost sure nobody will go back to that kind of war after seein the way the attacks on US troops in iraq have been successful. Sucks, but its true. And yes, we still have soldiers in Afgan

[sina518]

i was born in iran so if i was america i would go and bomb the shit out of that place. thats one fucked up country and i can care less for it

i accidently posted under b@d@pple so that was me that said all thAt not him. his name was just signed in and i didnt realise it

[Julio]

7 pages of bullshit and I can count the smart posters in this thread in one hand.

sad..sad...sad.

[Brut]

fuck no, its ridiculous even the thought of going to war. if we do, IM GOIN TO CANADA! lol

Im doing the same thing lol

[Slow Motion]

I want these bad decision that our government is making to stop......sometime war is nesassary but its not a cure to bad deligation, poor judgements and decisions...and the line between the rich and poor in america is getting thicker and thicker by the day.
What can we possibly do....the government is blaming others in government and not resolving anything.......Just my view IA.

[AFSil80]

I've been sayin' since last year that Israel is going to take Iran out. And I really believe that. Iran having nukes is a much bigger threat to Israel than it is to us. And seeing as how Israel doesn't have the world breathing down there neck like the US does, I still feel it's going to come down to Israel preemptively defending itself.

My thoughts exactly.

And I don't think most people realize this, but Israel is NOT as kind as we are if they are to invade. I hate saying this, but unlike the US, Israel does not beat around the bush.

[Scgrandprix]

All I ever hear about is people bitching that the US is policing the world and crap. Ya we are trying to keep the peace. Liberia, Haiti, Kuwait in 1990-1991, and shit ton of other places, and people often bitch about things like that. Then when something happens to their country they are the first to jump up and say why hasnt the US come to our aid yet? Its why we wont get involved in Africa, that place is so backwards that if we went there and tried to help people would ending blaming all of Africas problems on us. The US always works for its own interests, and we try not to do anything that goes against our own interests. Now we are calling on the world to do something about Iran before shit gets outta hand. No one wants to fucking step up to the plate, and we are to busy to currently handle the situation because we are in Iraq. If they get a Nuke and use it on another country once again it will come to why didnt the US do something about this earlier? Im so sick of the Hypocritical bullshit in the US and the world. You love the US you hate the US make up your fucking minds.

[{X}Echo419]

All I ever hear about is people bitching that the US is policing the world and crap. Ya we are trying to keep the peace. Liberia, Haiti, Kuwait in 1990-1991, and shit ton of other places, and people often bitch about things like that. Then when something happens to their country they are the first to jump up and say why hasnt the US come to our aid yet? Its why we wont get involved in Africa, that place is so backwards that if we went there and tried to help people would ending blaming all of Africas problems on us. The US always works for its own interests, and we try not to do anything that goes against our own interests. Now we are calling on the world to do something about Iran before shit gets outta hand. No one wants to fucking step up to the plate, and we are to busy to currently handle the situation because we are in Iraq. If they get a Nuke and use it on another country once again it will come to why didnt the US do something about this earlier? Im so sick of the Hypocritical bullshit in the US and the world. You love the US you hate the US make up your fucking minds.

I said that in Model UN in highschool and I almost got stabbed. :lmfao:
you Sir are right on. damned if we do damned if we don't.

[devinwebb907]

i havent kept up with this in a good month to a month and a half so i put wtf is going on, but going to war with iran would be alot of dead [middle easterners?] and a lot of dead americans. no good.

[Z33_kid]

wouldnt be good if we went to war with Iran. Might just start more bloodshed n death & where on a low on soldiers our military line is getting thinner theyll start randomly getting people to go to war not good at all. Making the U.S. a open target sorry to say but this is true

[GTScoob]

7 pages of bullshit and I can count the smart posters in this thread in one hand.

sad..sad...sad.

Agreed.

It's too late for me to write a good response. I'm taking a course on the Ethics of International Affairs right now and we've been doing a lot of debating about this topic. If this thread is still active in another day I'll post up my opinion.

[{X}Echo419]

wouldnt be good if we went to war with Iran. Might just start more bloodshed n death & where on a low on soldiers our military line is getting thinner theyll start randomly getting people to go to war not good at all. Making the U.S. a open target sorry to say but this is true
you have 30+ years of military budget cut back backs by democrates in Washington to thank for that.