Originally posted by lardmouth There is absolutely nothing wrong with the confederate flag. It is part of history and is a distinguishable icon of the south. Before there was such a thing as a confederate flag the slave trade flourished under the US and other nations' flags. Perhaps, those too should be done away with too?
the only difference between slaver in the 18th century, and slavery in the 21st century, is that you used to have to give your slaves enough compensation to feed themselves, give them a place to sleep etc.
now were all mired in equality, and destitute poverty together.
aparrently 'equal rights' means we all have equal rights to be ass raped by the WTO.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Originally posted by shmig I skimmed alot of your posts, some random lines for you all to think about:
Treason is a relative thing; democrats and republicans all but changed sides 45 years ago so bashing on democrats for something done in the 1860s is irrelevant to contemporary politics; there are no wmd's in iraq, chuck norris lives in texas; look up the rally-round-the-flag effect, and try comparing it to Bush's political agenda and the republican party's support of that agenda; war tends to inflate national expenditure, but it never comes down.
why not compare the use of 'rally round the flag' effect by bush, fox news, rupert murdoch, and the WTO today.......
to the 'rally round the flag' effect used by adolph hitler to enslave the working class, kill jews, and start a devastatingly useless war/genocide.
'victory is in our flags' - look it up on google images, it's a famous nazi propaganda poster.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Originally posted by hlampert I've got a few things to say about the "war":
There isn't anyone who still seriously expects to find in Iraq the kind of stockpiles of WMDs and delivery systems it would take to threaten the United States or any allies, yet we are still there spending 6 Billion plus dollars a month... building permanent bases.... Why? because we plan on living there, and 'borrowing' their oil fields. we'll probably throw in some abu-graibs to piss off the muslims into fighting us, so we can sustain troop presence there forever.
Are we there to promote Democracy? Then why don't we give a serious rat's ass about democracy in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia? EVERYONE knows it was NOT about democracy, it was SUPPOSEDLY about the WMD's that do NOT exist in any kind of quantity to justify an invasion.... where's the "OK, we made a mistake, cya?" we dont care about democracy in china, bangledesh, africa, or any other 3rd world country, because that would mean the end to unhindered human rights abuses by u.s. corporations there. i mean really, if people could vote for laws, they'd probably create a minimum wage, or ban child labor, or ask u.s. factories to control their emissions or something. that's just un-american. silly poor non whites... you're about to experience globalization!
Are we fighting terrorists? There weren't any terrorists there before we made it the Disneyworld of terrorism! you're trying to suggest that had we not invaded poland... er iraq that the 40,000+ plus US soldiers, 'terrorists', children, civilians that died wouldnt have.... so what? if the slave trade taught us anything, it's that when people and profits go to war with each other, you can be sure our rich, landowning, aristocratic elite will be there to make a decision- for you. it's so rigged, that conflict of interest would be a euphemism to apply to the situation. but hell, you voted for them, because the advertisements on t.v. said they were out there for the little people. you were free to vote, after being propagandized, lied too, and jerrymandered, but it's cool. cause guess what? soon as they're in office, you cant get rid of them no matter what they do. not even if they start a war that slaughters your own people in the name of free trade! huzzah! good job educated voter! you realized people have multimillion dollar campaigns--- to help you--- understand who the weathly party promoted canidate was! then you cast your ballot! not becuase they'll make huge returns by passing laws to screw you over! it's an american value. honestly, who really cares about all the poor people that died. halliburton made a killing, finacially speaking.
The "war" does serve one purpose however: It allows George W. Bush (or more likely the unknown people behind him - Cheney, et al) to declare they can do whatever they want and FU to the constitution, established law, etc. Take you off the street, declare you an suspected terrorist, fly you to Deer Hunter land and wire up your nuts to a car battery.... well, it's a "war" isn't it? Listen to all your phone calls, read all your e-mails, examine all your banking records, well, we need to stop the terrorists don't we? Except what kind of moronic terrorists would actually those things?
the patriot act sure is fun. we've really destroyed so many american laws and international treaties that the UN pretty much realizes it's powerless to stop rich people in america. whenever children ask what the bill of rights is for, you can now safely answer- 'to marginalize our rights according to how rich person x says they should be' - thats what i call a safer stronger america for tommorrow. visionary.... now rich elites will control us forever... kinda like having a king, or being raised in a facist nation... hm... democracy in action. good work democracy. police state anyone?
It's pretty obvious the real justification for the war is a powerplay by the elitist powers of neoconservatism - just watch what happens in the midterm elections if you doubt this.... what? poor people like dying for the WTO. they're trying to help us poor people. dont be fooled by intellectualism.
questions answered by slap me 7 times
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Heh, I found this on page 10 of this thread and it gave me a chuckle.
"The point is simple, if the military thought there were any WMD in Iraq, the troops would be issued with chem suits. They aren't."
Hmmm, last time I checked, i was issued a chem suit (actually called MOPP gear). Also, last tiime I checked, not all WMD were chemical related. So what the hell would a chem suit do for a nuclear explosion/radiation???
I'm a Libertarian too gnomexxx, a registered card carrying member. I'm a gun toting, pro-choice enviromentalist, an agnostic, who is pro-military and believes in strong foreign policy. While I am socially liberal, Democrats in particular rub me wrong. Maybe I'm just exposed to them more often and thats the reason, I don't know.
Wake up Slapme7times! The communist revoltuion was a failure, the workers of the world will not unite, the states built upon socialist principles were some of the most oppressive in history. You need to clean your brain of these ridiculous military-industrial conspiracy theories; they are taking up way to much space in your cranium. You sound like an anacronistic cartoon character.
Yes They found but made in USA ,GB, French and Deutschland mark on the equipment, So they did not say a word. Now they can talk because there are more major problems at Iraq now, so no one gives any attention what they are or where they are from.
Napoleon ; Veni, Vidi, Vici,
USA-GB ; Veni, Vidi, god dam what we going to do.
Novus ordo Seclorum... find it on google.. You will have a better view of the world.
Originally posted by gnomexxx The Democrats are too liberal economically. And the Republicans are too conservative socially. They need to go away and leave us alone so we can get back on our feet.
Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are on the conservative in their economic policy and of the two the democrats are further right IMO.
Democrats support spending money on more social programs but in practice most of these are small ticket items that can show a positive cost benefit. To pay for these they support higher taxes, but at least they support the idea of paying the bills rather then living on borrowed money.
Republicans support spending money on large ticket programs, and try to justify it with insignificant cuts to social programs. They end up spending even more money then democrats and try to make up the difference by cutting taxes and borrowing massive amounts of money to keep their spending afloat. The bottom line is that although the Republicans should be the best at managing the economy they have been so corrupted by special interests and political agendas that they can’t even manage basic fiscal responsibility.
Libertarians are a fringe party and therefore free to ignore reality when setting up their policies, and proceed to do so extensively. And, although they talk a good game regarding free market economies they never bother to go out and take a look at conditions required for a free market to function.
My build: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850, Asus P5GC-MX/1333 Motherboard, 4gb G.SKILL DDR2 667MHz RAM, Core 2 Duo e7200 CPU, 250gb Western Digital SATA Harddrive, Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit.
Originally posted by Dakaas Wake up Slapme7times! The communist revoltuion was a failure, the workers of the world will not unite, the states built upon socialist principles were some of the most oppressive in history. You need to clean your brain of these ridiculous military-industrial conspiracy theories; they are taking up way to much space in your cranium. You sound like an anacronistic cartoon character.
Communism failed because it wasnt communism. You cant have a leader and then claim everyone is equal. Russia was too industrial and totalitarian and only wanted to be able to compete with the western powers no matter what toll it took on the people, the same can be said about China. Communism is impossible because its impossible to have a classless society theres always someone to look down upon and always someone to look up too.
Even though you dont like to admit it, iraq was not right, they said it was for democracy and to take away the opression all weve done is add more opression and there are so many more countries that have more oppressed people than iraq. Even if the cause of iraq wasnt for the WTO it was still wrong and you cant deny that.
Well Cloudfire, I must somewhat agree on the first point, and disagree on the second. Communism failed for a number of reasons, the number one reason being it does not take into account the nature of human beings. The most important hindrance is that human ambition; human initiative is stifled under a communist system. When everyone is treated equally, what incentive is there to do a good job? There is none. The person next to you doing the bare minimum at their task while you, who might be doing his best gets nothing more, and nothing less. What is the point of working hard? Why would one be inventive, be efficicient, get better at their job when all the benefits of your labor go back into the state, when their is no upward advancement? I have recently personally encountered the results while at a job. I was on a shoot on a cruise ship that had a russian crew. The ship itself was falling apart and was barely functional. I asked why this was and I was told that they have difficulty getting Russian crews to do anything more than the bare minimum. They had been under the communist so many years that they naturally had difficulty adjusting, the result being a barely functional ship. You take into account the stifling of personal iniative with the mechanics of a socialist state and you set yourself up for disaster. A state that runs every program through government institutions incurs a monumental bureaucracy. Money is inefficiently spent to pay for a nation wide bureaucracy that has to reach every corner of the country and handle every problem. It is much more efficient to have that money allocated by local systems who know the problems first hand. A huge social program has no end in sight either, it must become bloated by its own momentum. When a social program asks for funds the next year it will of course ask for more than the previous year. When a social program does well; does more for less, it is punished for its own effectiveness by trimming its funds for the next year. So what do you get? A social system that inherently becomes more bloated every passing year, which lends itself to corruption and puts more strain on the population, which eventually leads to a huge government debt and ultimately to collapse. This is the conceptual problem for ALL Social programs, they are conceptually flawed. This is exactly why the USA won the cold war. It was not won through force of arms, but through the economic superiority of system versus the other.
And now on to the second point. I Throughly have to disagree with you on that one. I have allready stated my reasoning for it. Please refer to this.
What I can add is only personal and contextual. War is an uneasy choice, but I believe it to be a decisive, and unfortunate necessity in this case. I would like you to consider the time scale here. The American Democratic revolution took over 8 years to succeed and to stabilize, the Philipine insurrection took 10 years, the occupation of Germany took 9 years. War is a dirty business. War is always ugly. But there are worse things than war. A monster state like what Iraq was is worse than their current situation. They now have the chance to make a better life, to empower themselves and better themselves. This would never have happened by itself it could only have happened with outside help. No revolution in history has ever succeeded without the help of an outside nation. On a personal note I live with a guy for six months who was from Iraq. He had to walk out through the desert into Turkey and then into Greece because they were going to kill not only him but his whole family because he dissented. He could talk for days about how bad things were under Saddam, and Sam was dancing in the street when the US invaded. We Americans have never had to live under an oppressive system, we have no idea how bad it is, so yes, I must say there are worse things than war, you want to find out, talk to someone who has lived under one. You say that their are other countries that suffer under equal or more oppression? I assume you refer to the Sudan? The Ruwadan genocide? Sierra Lione? N. Korea? Then I must say Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. It was tragic, continues to be, The UN stood by and did nothing or pondered semantics to avoid it's duty to intervene, I think it is unforgivable. Would I advocate intervention? Yes. I think the UN need to step up, I also think the USA should too. It just happens to be that Iraq is in the particular region that we need to be. It was factions from the Middle East that struck us and it is that region that needs particular attention.
some more useful info, this time specifically about the rally around the flag effect.
Although the existence of the rally effect has long been taken for granted by scholars and journalists, it received its first systematic treatment in John Mueller’s landmark War, Presidents, and Public Opinion (1973), a work that spawned a cottage industry of related studies. Mueller defined the rally effect as “being associated with an event which (1) is international and (2) involves the United States and particularly the president directly; and it must be (3) specific, dramatic, and sharply focused”.
The “rally-round-the-flag effect” sparked by the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington and by President George W. Bush’s prompt launching of the War on Terrorism cries out for the kind of timely analysis that political scientists sometimes can provide. A rally effect is the sudden and substantial increase in public approval of the president that occurs in response to certain kinds of dramatic international events involving the United States. The September 11 rally effect is distinctive for at least three reasons. First, of all the recorded rally effects, it is the largest. Bush’s approval rating soared in the Gallup Poll from 51% on September 10 to 86% on September 15. This 35-point increase nearly doubles the previous record, the 18-point boost triggered by his father’s launch of Operation Desert Storm in January 1991. Second, the further increase in Bush’s approval rating to 90% on September 22 represents the highest rating ever recorded for a president (Morin 2001). Third, the September 11 rally effect has lasted longer than any in the history of polling.
Excerpted from "Anatomy of a Rally Effect: George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism"
In response to the last post, war is never necessary. Though you would have a strong argument under the condition of being attacked, as the agressor it is very hard to say it is necessary to go to war. Granted, this is a general argument. However, in considering the recent war in Iraq, the rally around the flag effect stated above, and the complete lack of tangible evidence supporting claims made by Bush and his cabinet in justifying the war, it is very very hard to say this war was necessary.
Something else for you all to think about.
According to the facts given by my professor in my Politics and War class, (more striking is the existence of these facts at all): The expected duration of the war in Iraq US using a maneuver strategy, Iraq an attrition, in open terrain - 0.88 months
US maneuver, Iraq attrition, mixed terrain (open and urban) - 2.50 months
US attrition, Iraq attrition, open terrain - 10.63 months
US attrition, Iraq attrition, mixed terrain - 12.27 months
Actual length of war - 0.9 months. The first possible outcome was likely the correct one.
The current war in Iraq involves the US using an attrition strategy, and the AIF a punishment strategy, in mixed terrain. Expected duration of war: 83 months. That's why we're still in Iraq.
Democracy can't spread through the barrel of a gun? What universe are you in bhagamu? What history are you reading? Hmm let me pick a couple. The English civil war? The American Revolution? Lets go further back. How about the overthrow of Draco the tyrant in 7th century Athens; the first Democracy? READ A BOOK! Maybe that will give you some perspective.
War is never necessary shmig? That attitude is what got over 50,000,000 people killed during WWII. Tell that to Neville Chamberlain who proclaimed "Peace in Our Time" in 1938. History has shown time and again the necessity to go to war to avert an even worse inevitable conflict. History has also clearly shown what the failure of decisive military action reaps. When you talk peace to brutes you only give them time to properly stab you.
Originally posted by Dakaas War is never necessary shmig? That attitude is what got over 50,000,000 people killed during WWII. Tell that to Neville Chamberlain who proclaimed "Peace in Our Time" in 1938. History has shown time and again the necessity to go to war to avert an even worse inevitable conflict. History has also clearly shown what the failure of decisive military action reaps. When you talk peace to brutes you only give them time to properly stab you.
Your so incorrect i don't know where to begin, America struck the first blow against lot's of countries since the second world war, people don't call WWII the last truly justified war for no reason, it's a pretty bad example.
over one million cambodians (mostly civilian) were killed with carpet bombs by america for reasons long forgotten, the American military has been a global bully ever since the second world war, you my friend are a fool for believing the propaganda that it's in the name of freedom. unless it's the freedom to victimize and bomb whoever they want.
The American military follows it's own economic agenda, and feeds crap to the civilians so they think it was justified, There is still no evidence Bin Laden or anyone in Saudi Arabia had anything to do with 9/11, you are merely a puppet, acting just as they want you to.
Just a couple days ago Something like a dozen military groups in Iraq said they would never attack anymore American military people there if they promised to leave in 2 more years, which was flatly denied by the Bush Administration, looks like they plan on occupying Iraq for at least 2 more years.
Do you even know what a Jihad is? Protecting their own country from invaders is what it is, This whole idea you've been trained to believe that there are people out there that "hate freedom" is completely crazy, the reason other countries are pissed at the American Military is because they started messing with them in the first place.
And there's no shortage of people like you who are stupid enough to believe and even defend the propaganda Bush spews, in the entire history of Iraq there was never a single suicide bombing until the American occupation. There is more evidence Bush being elected was rigged than there is about Sadam being elected, but still it's important you believe saddam's a "dictator".
And your acting surprised other countries have learned from the American example that "might is right", and maybe want to make a single nuke, America has thousands of nukes, and have even used them on cities full of innocent people, and your trying to tell me other countries can't be trusted with one? smarten up.
Maybe instead of reading Biased historical texts from long ago you should do a bit of research on whats going on in the modern world.
Comments
you cant report a war crime...
if the war crime was against the reporters
or if the war crime was perpetuated by the reporters /cough fox news.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
the only difference between slaver in the 18th century, and slavery in the 21st century, is that you used to have to give your slaves enough compensation to feed themselves, give them a place to sleep etc.
now were all mired in equality, and destitute poverty together.
aparrently 'equal rights' means we all have equal rights to be ass raped by the WTO.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
why not compare the use of 'rally round the flag' effect by bush, fox news, rupert murdoch, and the WTO today.......
to the 'rally round the flag' effect used by adolph hitler to enslave the working class, kill jews, and start a devastatingly useless war/genocide.
'victory is in our flags' - look it up on google images, it's a famous nazi propaganda poster.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Heh, I found this on page 10 of this thread and it gave me a chuckle.
"The point is simple, if the military thought there were any WMD in Iraq, the troops would be issued with chem suits. They aren't."
Hmmm, last time I checked, i was issued a chem suit (actually called MOPP gear). Also, last tiime I checked, not all WMD were chemical related. So what the hell would a chem suit do for a nuclear explosion/radiation???
Yes They found but made in USA ,GB, French and Deutschland mark on the equipment, So they did not say a word. Now they can talk because there are more major problems at Iraq now, so no one gives any attention what they are or where they are from.
Napoleon ; Veni, Vidi, Vici,
USA-GB ; Veni, Vidi, god dam what we going to do.
Novus ordo Seclorum... find it on google.. You will have a better view of the world.
Peace at home Peace in the World ..M.K.Atatürk
Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are on the conservative in their economic policy and of the two the democrats are further right IMO.
Democrats support spending money on more social programs but in practice most of these are small ticket items that can show a positive cost benefit. To pay for these they support higher taxes, but at least they support the idea of paying the bills rather then living on borrowed money.
Republicans support spending money on large ticket programs, and try to justify it with insignificant cuts to social programs. They end up spending even more money then democrats and try to make up the difference by cutting taxes and borrowing massive amounts of money to keep their spending afloat. The bottom line is that although the Republicans should be the best at managing the economy they have been so corrupted by special interests and political agendas that they can’t even manage basic fiscal responsibility.
Libertarians are a fringe party and therefore free to ignore reality when setting up their policies, and proceed to do so extensively. And, although they talk a good game regarding free market economies they never bother to go out and take a look at conditions required for a free market to function.
My build: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850, Asus P5GC-MX/1333 Motherboard, 4gb G.SKILL DDR2 667MHz RAM, Core 2 Duo e7200 CPU, 250gb Western Digital SATA Harddrive, Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit.
Even though you dont like to admit it, iraq was not right, they said it was for democracy and to take away the opression all weve done is add more opression and there are so many more countries that have more oppressed people than iraq. Even if the cause of iraq wasnt for the WTO it was still wrong and you cant deny that.
-Cloudoffire-
Well Cloudfire, I must somewhat agree on the first point, and disagree on the second. Communism failed for a number of reasons, the number one reason being it does not take into account the nature of human beings. The most important hindrance is that human ambition; human initiative is stifled under a communist system. When everyone is treated equally, what incentive is there to do a good job? There is none. The person next to you doing the bare minimum at their task while you, who might be doing his best gets nothing more, and nothing less. What is the point of working hard? Why would one be inventive, be efficicient, get better at their job when all the benefits of your labor go back into the state, when their is no upward advancement? I have recently personally encountered the results while at a job. I was on a shoot on a cruise ship that had a russian crew. The ship itself was falling apart and was barely functional. I asked why this was and I was told that they have difficulty getting Russian crews to do anything more than the bare minimum. They had been under the communist so many years that they naturally had difficulty adjusting, the result being a barely functional ship. You take into account the stifling of personal iniative with the mechanics of a socialist state and you set yourself up for disaster. A state that runs every program through government institutions incurs a monumental bureaucracy. Money is inefficiently spent to pay for a nation wide bureaucracy that has to reach every corner of the country and handle every problem. It is much more efficient to have that money allocated by local systems who know the problems first hand. A huge social program has no end in sight either, it must become bloated by its own momentum. When a social program asks for funds the next year it will of course ask for more than the previous year. When a social program does well; does more for less, it is punished for its own effectiveness by trimming its funds for the next year. So what do you get? A social system that inherently becomes more bloated every passing year, which lends itself to corruption and puts more strain on the population, which eventually leads to a huge government debt and ultimately to collapse. This is the conceptual problem for ALL Social programs, they are conceptually flawed. This is exactly why the USA won the cold war. It was not won through force of arms, but through the economic superiority of system versus the other.
And now on to the second point. I Throughly have to disagree with you on that one. I have allready stated my reasoning for it. Please refer to this.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/82792/page/23
What I can add is only personal and contextual. War is an uneasy choice, but I believe it to be a decisive, and unfortunate necessity in this case. I would like you to consider the time scale here. The American Democratic revolution took over 8 years to succeed and to stabilize, the Philipine insurrection took 10 years, the occupation of Germany took 9 years. War is a dirty business. War is always ugly. But there are worse things than war. A monster state like what Iraq was is worse than their current situation. They now have the chance to make a better life, to empower themselves and better themselves. This would never have happened by itself it could only have happened with outside help. No revolution in history has ever succeeded without the help of an outside nation. On a personal note I live with a guy for six months who was from Iraq. He had to walk out through the desert into Turkey and then into Greece because they were going to kill not only him but his whole family because he dissented. He could talk for days about how bad things were under Saddam, and Sam was dancing in the street when the US invaded. We Americans have never had to live under an oppressive system, we have no idea how bad it is, so yes, I must say there are worse things than war, you want to find out, talk to someone who has lived under one. You say that their are other countries that suffer under equal or more oppression? I assume you refer to the Sudan? The Ruwadan genocide? Sierra Lione? N. Korea? Then I must say Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes. It was tragic, continues to be, The UN stood by and did nothing or pondered semantics to avoid it's duty to intervene, I think it is unforgivable. Would I advocate intervention? Yes. I think the UN need to step up, I also think the USA should too. It just happens to be that Iraq is in the particular region that we need to be. It was factions from the Middle East that struck us and it is that region that needs particular attention.
Although the existence of the rally effect has long been taken
for granted by scholars and journalists, it received its first
systematic treatment in John Mueller’s landmark War, Presidents, and
Public Opinion (1973), a work that spawned a cottage industry of
related studies. Mueller defined the rally effect as “being associated
with an event which (1) is international and (2) involves the United
States and particularly the president directly; and it must be (3)
specific, dramatic, and sharply focused”.
The “rally-round-the-flag effect” sparked by the September 11, 2001,
attacks on New York and Washington and by President George W. Bush’s
prompt launching of the War on Terrorism cries out for the kind of
timely analysis that political scientists sometimes can provide. A
rally effect is the sudden and substantial increase in public approval
of the president that occurs in response to certain kinds of dramatic
international events involving the United States. The September 11
rally effect is distinctive for at least three reasons. First, of all
the recorded rally effects, it is the largest. Bush’s approval rating
soared in the Gallup Poll from 51% on September 10 to 86% on September
15. This 35-point increase nearly doubles the previous record, the
18-point boost triggered by his father’s launch of Operation Desert
Storm in January 1991. Second, the further increase in Bush’s approval
rating to 90% on September 22 represents the highest rating ever
recorded for a president (Morin 2001). Third, the September 11 rally
effect has lasted longer than any in the history of polling.
Excerpted from "Anatomy of a Rally Effect: George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism"
Marc J. Hetherington, Bowdoin College
Michael Nelson*, Rhodes College
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/AnatomyRallyEffect-Hetherington.pdf
In response to the last post, war is never necessary.
Though you would have a strong argument under the condition of being
attacked, as the agressor it is very hard to say it is necessary to go
to war. Granted, this is a general argument. However, in considering
the recent war in Iraq, the rally around the flag effect stated above,
and the complete lack of tangible evidence supporting claims made by
Bush and his cabinet in justifying the war, it is very very hard to say
this war was necessary.
Something else for you all to think about.
According to the facts given by my professor in my Politics and War
class, (more striking is the existence of these facts at all): The expected duration of the war in Iraq
US using a maneuver strategy, Iraq an attrition, in open terrain - 0.88 months
US maneuver, Iraq attrition, mixed terrain (open and urban) - 2.50 months
US attrition, Iraq attrition, open terrain - 10.63 months
US attrition, Iraq attrition, mixed terrain - 12.27 months
Actual length of war - 0.9 months. The first possible outcome was likely the correct one.
The current war in Iraq involves the US using an attrition strategy,
and the AIF a punishment strategy, in mixed terrain. Expected duration
of war: 83 months. That's why we're still in Iraq.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
America struck the first blow against lot's of countries since the second world war, people don't call WWII the last truly justified war for no reason, it's a pretty bad example.
over one million cambodians (mostly civilian) were killed with carpet bombs by america for reasons long forgotten, the American military has been a global bully ever since the second world war, you my friend are a fool for believing the propaganda that it's in the name of freedom.
unless it's the freedom to victimize and bomb whoever they want.
The American military follows it's own economic agenda, and feeds crap to the civilians so they think it was justified, There is still no evidence Bin Laden or anyone in Saudi Arabia had anything to do with 9/11, you are merely a puppet, acting just as they want you to.
Just a couple days ago Something like a dozen military groups in Iraq said they would never attack anymore American military people there if they promised to leave in 2 more years, which was flatly denied by the Bush Administration, looks like they plan on occupying Iraq for at least 2 more years.
Do you even know what a Jihad is?
Protecting their own country from invaders is what it is,
This whole idea you've been trained to believe that there are people out there that "hate freedom" is completely crazy, the reason other countries are pissed at the American Military is because they started messing with them in the first place.
And there's no shortage of people like you who are stupid enough to believe and even defend the propaganda Bush spews, in the entire history of Iraq there was never a single suicide bombing until the American occupation.
There is more evidence Bush being elected was rigged than there is about Sadam being elected, but still it's important you believe saddam's a "dictator".
And your acting surprised other countries have learned from the American example that "might is right", and maybe want to make a single nuke, America has thousands of nukes, and have even used them on cities full of innocent people, and your trying to tell me other countries can't be trusted with one? smarten up.
Maybe instead of reading Biased historical texts from long ago you should do a bit of research on whats going on in the modern world.
lol:::)
rofl!!! true that !!!!
but i am not american!!!!
lol:)
for the love of god, LET THIS TOPIC END!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if u want to chat about this GO TO CNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!