Mike P, you are blind, just like all the other trigger happy rednecks

[SenorDevilBoy]

Bush's concern is NOT for your safty (unless there's something that may happen that will make him look bad). His concern is for money and power, let's face it he's not too bright. As for the troops, I support them. I'd like to see them come home. I feel bad that they have let an idiot tell them what to do. Bush is terrible with foreign policy, untill recently, the only country he's been to is Mexico! Which, I might add, he doen't think IS foreign policy. How am I supposed to beleive that this man can run the U.S.? He's never even seen the world, and his only peers have been millionairs. He can't possibly know what it is like to live in reality.

[Jimbo Jizzum]

and oil, you forgot oil.

[Unregistered]

you dumbass they've been trying to stop saddam for 12 years now what do u want him to do just let him get bombed and just ask saddam oh please stop bombing me?

[Unregistered]

Thank you senior for your childish views about "reality"

[robw720]

oh how silly you are.

diplomacy was tried for 12 years. Lets face it The UN security council failed to uphold the stuff they wrote in there own resolutions of disarmament of Iraq. 12 years of bullshit. glad Its coming to an end.

[Unregistered]

I am a member of the United States Air Force. You better believe that when I get the chance to go to Iraq I will ask to stay there until the war is over. Im for war. All these anti war hippies dont understand that if we never took out Hitler in Germany there'd be no America! Sadam is building the same regime! If we stand back and let him get more powerful It would only make things worse for the US down the road. Bush is right, by stepping in before these things in Iraq get out of hand. You think we are killing innocent people? These people are not innocent, they cheered and partied when are blood was shed Sept. 11th. If any one of those bastards have the chance they would murder your parents, kids, friends and you with no delay and no guilt at all. So I ask you all this do you want to wait until your learning Araibic and riding a camel? Well I dont so I say we stop the problems before they get worse. So I ask you to support me and the rest of our troops that are fighting for you and your future families. We are not trying to create another Vietnam where our soldiers return and are spit on by their own brothers and sisters.

[chris_78660]

you have just said everything that i have said in the past on these boards....but protesters aren't hippys.
i don't think highly of protesters that are tearing the moral of this nation in half, but i do not think that they are peace loving hippys...they are more like confused sheep
ggod luck if you are ever called on to fight....you have my full support

[acdmyb]

UR A FUCKING IDIOT WHOEVER POSTED THIS. G.W. HAS BEEN THE BEST PRESIDENT THIS COUNTRY HAS SEEN FOR A LONG TIME. MAYBE THE REASON HES ONLY GONE TO MEXICO IS BECAUSE HE WOULDNT BE SAFE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. U CRITICIZE HIM CAUSE U THINK HE WANTS MONEY AND POWER. U ARE UNIMFORMED AND HE IS DOING IT FOR THE SAKE OF THIS COUNTRY. SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS KILLED MILLIONS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE AND WE MAY KILL A FEW HUMDRED MORE BUT IT WILL STOP THEIR. BUT OTHERWISE THANK U FOR UR CHILDISH VIEWS OF UR LITTLE DEMOCRACTIC ASS WIPE WORLD.

[Unregistered]

We are in Iraq fighting for our freedoms and the freedoms of
people we dont even know. It is kinda funny to see dip shits
like you using that freedom to to bad mouth the president
who is fighting for you freedom to bad mouth him. You should
get off your ass and go see the world and then and only then
will you know how great America is and that what the president
is doing is the right thing. I moved to China when I was 18 years
old and currently live here now and you know what they say you
dont know what you have until it's gone. I never really under-
stood why people always wanted to come to America before I
got here to China but now that I see how other people live I can
fully understand why. And the Chinese have it 100 times better
than the Iraqi's do.

[Brycelink]

ouch. that devilboy didn't get too far with that statement now did he. I'm pro war. why shouldn't we be at war? more people would die without this war then with it.

[shade]

Diplomacy is nothing without the threat of war. You can decree all you want, but the only time it is worth 2 shits is if someone is willing to kill someone else over it or risk their life in support of it.

War is the period at the end of the sentence that is diplomacy.

[Unregistered]

Go fuck yourself

[akat79]

It seems very apparent to me that those protesting this war against Iraq have never studied 20th century history. In the years preceding WWII and post-dating WWI, the majority of the world thought Adolf Hitler was simply a dictator/ruler in his own country, Germany. Everyone turned a blind eye to what was happening in Germany; the persecution of Jews, those that opposed the Nazi party, and those that attempted to help the Jewish population all occured long before Hitler started taking over Europe. Did anyone pay attention? Not until it came to their soil.
The parallels between Hitler's Nazi Germany in post-WWI and Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq are unbelievable. The only difference is that this time its the Kurds that are being killed by the hundreds, all while Iraq is building up its weapons arsenal for mass destruction. Does anyone want a repeat of WWII? I'm of the opinion that a much smaller scale war to avoid another world war is a positive thing.
The U.S. and the U.N. have been attempting a diplomatic solution for the last 12 years -- since we first went to the gulf in 1991. Has it worked? No. U.N. weapons inspectors that were supposed to be patrolling the country were forced out by un-favorable conditions 4 years ago. Only 5 months ago did they finally go back in, at the U.S.'s insistence. And we've found evidence of weaponry--satellite photos, statements by ex-Iraqi scientists, and emtpy warheads stashed in ditches and fields.
There's been confirmation by exiled scientists that Iraq is moving its laboratories in vans so they won't be found, and that they've hidden other labs in underground bunkers. The U.N. inspectors have no chance of finding these on missions where their next location must be given in advance to the Iraqi government, and when they are required to have Iraqi soldiers accompany them on these excursions.
I fully believe in the right to protest peacefully. That is exactly what we are fighting for in this war. It is what we have fought for in many previous wars, and I only wish that these protestors recognize that our soldiers and leaders give them the access to these privledges not afforded to much of the world.
I support our troops for the effort they put in so that I may live in a free country and feel safe from the evil in this world.

[Unregistered]

here here to the fellow airman and the others the made that first persons attempt to sound intellectual to protesting this war. I am also a member of the US air force my view is id say 90% of these protesters are just people looking for someone to stand up for and have no intellect on anything this war is about. they all have the same stupid reason that it is unjust, freakin oil and money. and the other 10% are hippies. i was in downtown portland on a day where 50000 protester were suspected and let me tell you, the smell of pachoulie oil in the air was strong. these people are just ignorant and are taking their hopes of peace in the world and their own problems in their life and taking it out on our president and the idea of a war that, in the end IS going to sacve lives. Its a dog eat dog world and u cant be blind because it DOES take sacrifice to make things right. it is a sad thing and not only are iraqi civillians dying which, were celebrating sept 11th but we still help them. if the same thing happened in iraq, or somewhere like that, would hundereds of thousands of americans take to the street and celebrate and burn their flags? i doubt it. we're bigger people than that which is why WE take the responsibility to keep this world as peaceful as possible. lets face it people, there will never be peace in the world, but, we can insure we dont to be scared to walk out of our house every day even here on our own soil. i could go on forever but, i wont. i just know if the protesters didnt have such thick heads and weren't afraid to be taught a little bit about what really goes on, they would understand.

[Unregistered]

SenorDevilBoy....Your a total idiot....Bush's concern is not only for the power and wealth...it is also for the people of the United States....we must take Saddam and his regiem out of power....and all you who think we should not go to war bc it will kill innocent people....ON SEPT 11th THAT WAS THE GOAL OF THE TERRORISTS! And I listened to an interesting convo where an immigrant from Iraq pointed out that "Yes, there will be deaths in the war, but if Saddam stays in power, there will be GUARANTEEDED deaths." I don't see how so many can be blind until one day Muslims will eventually make an inpact on our society... and your "freedom of speech" won't be your anymore. Now, I am not heartless, I can imagine the suffering of the families of those innocent Iraquis that will die...just like the familes of the victims of Sept. 11th....but that is war...you will have deaths.

[Unregistered]

What all you damn hippies need to relieze, is how long this has been going on. If we let him stay as president, he will keep on killing his own people. Another thing they need to learn and be thankfull for is the fact that they CAN protest here. if they were to go to iraq, and protest against the government, they would be shot there on the spot. Bush will not change his view, and thank god for that. Since he wont change his mind, go over to iraq like i said and protest there. we wont expect you back. GOD BLESS AMERICA .and may god help us to finnaly bring saddam out of power.

[Unregistered]

and another thing, if you havn't noticed, i bet over 60% of the people out there are teenagers who havn't lived long enough to know how good they have it. they think every one else in the world have as much freedom as they do, when the truth is they dont. i'm a teenager my self, but latley i've begun to notice how good i have it here, so when they need me to go over and fight for my FREEDOM, i would drop what i'm doin and go there to fight, so my CHILDREN will have the FREEDOM i have now. democrats want everything to be given to them, but in reality, you hafta work for what you get, and thats why i say we should fight for the continuing of our freedom, and fight so maybe in iraq will get that chance too.

-Bush is the best danm president we've had in a long time, and i wish all of you would begin to notice that. if gore was in office right now, he'd be hiding. thank god we have a true republican in the house.

[Bob40]

People in this Country have the right to protest, or support the action of our leaders.
People in Iraq die if they don't agree with their leaders.
They die for being the wrong religion, or tribe, etc etc.
Think about it.
Maybe killing a few hundred or thousand innocent people is a better price to pay than leaving Saddam in power to kill MILLIONS MORE PEOPLE. He already has the blood of over 2 million on his hands, most of whom were Iraqis.
War is bad.. but leaving Saddam in power is worse.

I don't know if I like President Bush, but at least he is doing what he thinks is best, no matter the political costs.
And if some people think Bush is stupid... remember you can't always judge a book by its cover.
Bob

[ab5169]

Look ass to say Bush's foreign policy sucks you're just ignorant. Are you comparing his policy to Clinton? I mean Clinton goes and bombs Iraq and never tells us, never tells anyone. Just does it. Now you take Bush who has gone to the U.N. for peace but Saddam wouldn't give it to him, then we find out the U.N. is filled with pussys so they won't go to war and then Saddam has a deadline to leave but no he doesn't so yeah Bush decides hell lets go to war and end this. He is finishing a job his father and Bill Clinton left to him. Do you not remember 9/11. Bush was a hero then. Its amazing how quickly some forget, but that was an attack here, in our home, in the greatest city of all time and Saddam finacially supported that attack. So is Bush alittle pist, yeah but shouldn't you be too?

[AcdnluvsUSA]

BUSH HAS MILLIONAIRE BUDDIES, YES INDEED, AND DON'T YOU THINK YOU NEED TO BE BRILLIANT TO HAVE MONEY LIKE THAT?

POWER AND MONEY IS WHAT SADAAM AND BILL CLINTON AND JEAN CHRETIEN WANT..

BUSH AND BLAIR ARE THE ONLY ONES STEPPING UP TO A MURDERER.


AND U KNOW WHAT, IF IT WASN'T FOR THAT PRESIDENT STEPPING UP TO RUSSIA ALL OF YOU LIBERAL FUCKS WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN SPAWNED.

IT'S A SHAME IN A WAY, BUT IN ANOTHER IT'S NOT CUZ WE HAVE BRILLIANT RICH PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD WHO KNOW MORE THEN THE LIBERAL DUMMIES WHO BREAST FEED LOW LIFE ASSHOLES LIKE YOURSELF I'M SURE, AND SURRENDER INTEGRITY TO WELFARE DICKS..

SO LIKE I SAY TO MOST WHO ARE LIKE U, IF YOU DON'T LIKE AMERICA, THEN GET THE FUCK OUT.

[Unregistered]

At the risk (certainty) of getting my head chopped off here, I'm going to post against the popular redneck opinion. I'm a univerity student in Canada and as such have access to some of the more educated opinions available. First, no one can dispute that there is money involved here in the form of oil. Even if the US is willing to "give the oil to the Iraquis," this still helps the US as it keeps them from having to deplete their own oil supply until the rest of the world is out and they can charge whatever they would like for it. Next, while Sadam is a violent dictator (comparing him to Hitler was ignorant, incedentally. The majority of Germans LOVED Hitler and he was a great leader who brough Germany out of recession, he just was scitzophrenic and had a number of very misguided ideas,) wouldn't it be easier to simply assassinate Sadam? This would not be the first time the US assassinated another world leader (although the other leader they admit to assassinating slips my mind at the moment) and that would probably destabalize the political system enough for the UN to make sure neither of his sons got into power. I'm not even going to get into the business of Bush finishing Daddy's business, or of the US trying to pump up its own economy by producing more bombs (a truly civilized society would never make a profit from other's pain.)

The American's always need something to blame for all their problems. Looking at the history, we see that it has bounced between witches, Africans, communists, and now terrorists is the form of Muslims. Perhaps its time for a "great" nation to look within and start trying to solve its own problems before trying to solve the world's. There are more gun murders in the US than in any other country by a factor of at least 10. There is an apathy towards poverty and homelessness not seen anywhere else. The US may be a superpower today, but tomorrow someone else may be writing the history books (poly sci claims the likely candidates right now are Japan or China) and one must wonder how we will remember the United States during her gory days (no, that is not a misspelling) As a great nation, or as a people who don't trust their neighbors, who wouldn't agree to abolish land mines, who believed in capitol punishment despite evidence that it is a very expensive non-deterrant, who were so dependant on their own beliefs and systems that they felt a need to force them upon other nations, who tried to stop others from creating weapons of mass destruction despite the fact that they had more of them than everyone else put together, and generally as a bunch of arrogant bastards. Which way will they be represented? I don't know, but I can say this: I am an American citizen and ashamed of it right now.

I wish more Americans would turn on international (you know, those non-american places) news and see what the rest of world thinks in a way which is not flooded with pro-war propaganda. I am going to end with a few quotes from a very famous man, I'm not going to name him because anyone who doesn't know this quote probably won't understand it anyway.

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."

"You cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time. "

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

Happy flaming, and may whatever God you believe in bless you.

[Tristar]

I'll admit, you have put some thought into your writing, but it stands flawed.

Germany's people loved Hitler upto a certain point. Yes, they loved him for building up the country and making it wonderful. But once they, and the rest of the world, realized that he only built the great infrastructure for the sake of efficient war, indicated by the initial invasion by Germany to its neighboring countries, everything went downhill from there. Although the comparison to Hitler can sometimes be a bit too extensive, I can say with a straight face that the two did have many similarities. We have two very ruthless dictators who are more than willing to use chemical weapons on their own people, and who wish to dominate their neighbors. And it just so happens that the United States' involvement prevented Nazi and tyrannical rule in Europe and the Middle East, respectively.

As for your simple argument on why we cannot assassinate Saddam, U.S. policies implies that "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination," as stated by President Ford. Since then, the policy has been held firmly. <http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/>

Now, if you're the conspiracy theorist type and say, "The government won't let the public know of the assassination," then let me mention that right now, Saddamn Hussein is a very high profile case. To assassinate him any time soon would arouse major suspicion into the U.S. government. These are not the movies, after all. Furthermore, we are bound by the Geneva Convention. The U.S. troops have been doing a wonderful job in keeping in pace with it, providing food and water for the Iraqi soldiers who decide to surrender, helping those in need as they pass by, and so on. On the other hand, the bastard Iraqi soldiers who pretend to give up and fire on U.S. troops, and the public images of the P.O.W.s are far from obeying the Convention. So while we are following the rules set by the world, Iraq is not.

We have never blamed something for our problems. Maybe what you are trying to say is we have always placed ourselves in places that we shouldn't have been, butted ourselves into other people's businesses. Yes, that has been quite true in the past. But as mentioned in other threads, it has been mostly for good. WWI and WWII, we have saved entire nations. Other countries as well, but my history here is a bit rusty, so I won't mention any more so I won't sound like a fancy idiot who pretends to know what he's talking about.

As for our gun problems, we wouldn't have any if everyone owned guns. There was a town in Texas recently that made everyone own guns, and the crime rate dropped dramaticaly. You claim that the US has the worst gun crime rate. Did you know you are 6 times more likely to be mugged in London than you are in New York City? The UK has a far greater rate of crime, murders included, than the U.S., because no one has guns to defend themselves. And who are the ones who don't want to provide guns to the general public, that all these dumb laws are passed for gun control in the United States? The same ones who are against this war.

Please show me evidence that capital punishment is not an effective deterrant against crime, for I can show you otherwise. In Saudi Arabia, theft for example, is at a very low level, because if you're caught stealing, they cut off your hand. If you kill someone, you are executed, and hence, murder rates are low too, for fear of your own life.

I do have to slightly agree with you on the point of sometimes forcing our views on different nations. Sometimes, the US fails to understand that democracy is not the best system for, say, certain Middle Eastern countries. They are used to a monarchy or some such and being told what to do. However, we do not intend to take over Iraq, merely to liberate them from this terrible regime.

Yes, we have all these weapons of mass destruction while we try to disarm other countries' weapons, which can be seen as a bit hypocritical. But I have one thing to ask you: Would you rather have the United States as a superpower, with their moral values and obligations and who know how to use this power only when needed, or would you rather have China or Russia as superpowers? I think we all know the answer to that one. I for one would be very, very afraid if one of those countries amassed major weapons and brought the U.S. down to their knees. No, not because I live in this country and fear for myself, but because of the repercussions that could happen all over the world. We only need to look at history to know what I mean, but I won't get into this that much.

Let me explain something to you. I am currently residing in the United States, but have mainly lived my life outside of it, mainly in the Middle East. You say that Americans should view different news channels. Now I'm not talking about BBC or anything, I'm talking about Middle Eastern news channels, and they are far more biased in their news against the U.S., filled with U.S. propaganda and lies. The beauty of US news is that you have ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, and a myriad of other news reporters that complement each other well, so that if one reports something, the other has to make sure it's the truth. Many of the news reports in the Middle East do not have the convenience of more than one news channel. And when they do, since they are not running under a democracy, the news is biased to a point of lying sometimes. I know this first hand.

I haven't even gotten into the atrocities that Saddamn Hussein commits on his own people, and how it is so wonderful that we can finally boot him out, but that would be another couple of pages altogether. I am not American, yet I know more about this situation, about this country, more than you do. I have already obtained my Green Card, and am proudly waiting to obtain my Citizenship whenever I can. Why, you ask? Because this is the greatest country in the world, hands-down, and it would make me proud to work and contribute to this country's wealth of ideas and business. Never forget the freedoms that this country sits on, the freedoms to speak your mind and run your own business, the freedom to report the news freely, and of course, the freedom to protest, among many others. Never forget that.

[Unregistered]

i fully support bush.. i can see what he's doing. do we need another 9/11 event to convince us that we have to take action before action is taken against us? i see he is trying to prevent another one, and for that i support him, no matter what else he does. his heart is in the right place. what about these protests? i never heard of anybody protesting when saddam let off WMD on 100,000 kurds.. everybody turned a blind eye to it. now that Bush isn't.. he get's the stick for it. it's bullshit.. soon we will be one less insane leader, and one step closer to helping the world.

Jon
London, England

[AcdnluvsUSA]

once again may i point out that canadian schools are flooded by liberal professors so you are really getting the minimal education taught to u by a biast proff.
i wouldn't go around bragging that u are a canadian "university" student. however, you are learning my little canadian buddy but your argument is still flawed, so instead of quoting people and getting spoon fed what you regergitate back into society try doing some homework before you turn into a flaming liberal idiot.

enjoy your studies...

and another thing,

if you are aware that the majority of the media here is biast what makes you think it's not going to be anywhere else.
your teacher should be teaching you the answers lie in history,
to do your research on both sides calculate it up and
then go ahead and spew it out into society.
but i'm sure your professor has put some of his opinions into your mind and brainwashed you as well are your biast books you read and quote from.

i know this because my politics professor claims to be "a political"
but he throws liberal propaganda in his classes and the students suck off of it.

[Unregistered]

To the "Canadian University" student. I am an "American University" student who is very well educated as well I found your comments hilarious in there ignorance. You are being informed by liberals and as stated in previous posts and simply proved that you are unable to decipher the true problem at hand here. That being a Genocidal and extremely dangerous leadership(Saddam Hussein) who has killed thousands of his OWN people for as little as being different than him as well as disagreeing with him. Not to mention the terrorism that he has endorsed for many many years. Don't ever insult the intelligence of others, you only proved your own ineptitude. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Unregistered]

ouch! That last one got a little personal there, note that I didn't say what my education was in. While I may be taking and am interested in political science, I am a math/computer science major in the university with the largest math faculty in the world, so don't go berating the level of my education. I need to clear up what I meant by some of the things I stated, when I said look outside the US for news sources, I did not mean look to another news source which is involved heavily in the war. Of course, any country which is either totally for or totally against the war, the US included, will have coverage which is totally biased to make their country's stand look good. Due to a sadly limited number of sources in the dorm, we generally flip between CNN and CBC, and the differeces between them is staggering. The American station is almost totally pro-war, while the Canadian station pulls from sources which are any of pro-war, anti-war and undecided.

You hinted that a liberal education is a bad thing, but I went and looked up the definition of liberal:
"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry." and "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded." Aren't these the very ideals that the United States claims to stand for?

Tristar: You have brought up a number of very good points, many of which I have no answer for since you have the expeience of being there, which I don't. However I would like to take a swat at your position on guns. Let me tell a short story.
A man moves to a new neighborhood where everyone is required to own and be able to fire a gun with some degree of accuracy. He goes to bed his first night in a new home a little nervous since he doesn't know his neighbors yet and is in a new place. Sometime in the night, he hears a noise downstairs. He grabbs his gun since he realizes that whoever is in his house must have one since they are required to. He moves into his kitchen and sees the intruder turn to face him. He fires. Three days later, he buries his only daughter, who had been looking for a midnight snack.
Has this happened? I don't know for sure but I would say that if it has not yet, then it will. There are 1,400 annual accidental gun deaths in the US. Knowing that everyone has a gun promotes fear, not safety. To pre-emptively answer what people are going to say about this, Canadian gun laws are actaully pretty relaxed. Just over half of the population here owns some type of gun, mostly hunting rifles and shotguns. We are not afraid of guns because we expect that the person walking beside us is not carrying one. When I am in the US I am afraid of guns because I expect that the person walking beside me is carrying one. A criminal who believes himself in control of a situation is much less likely to fire than a criminal who believes that everyone is packing heat and just waiting for him to turn his back.

One final note, there was a post a few back from someone who believed that because Bush has money he must be smart, but Osama is a billionaire, and I'll bet that Sadam has a fair number of digits in his net worth, does that make those men as smart as your president? (in my opinion they are all of roughly equal intelligence, but thats just me) And for those of you who are calling us people who want the world to be at peace "hippies", I suggest you try the title "war monger" on for size.

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." (Albert Einstein)

[shade]

Einstien was a physicist. He was also a Jew. One of the wars objectives was to kill all the Jews.... so.............. no shit he was against it you fucknut.

Our war is not to eliminate anyone other than the opressive regime in Iraq. Completely uncomparable.

[w_dragon]

Originally posted by shade
Einstien was a physicist. He was also a Jew. One of the wars objectives was to kill all the Jews.... so.............. no shit he was against it you fucknut.

Our war is not to eliminate anyone other than the opressive regime in Iraq. Completely uncomparable.

In that case, shouldn't Einstein have been happy that much of the world was marching in to stop Hitler? The point of this statement is that ALL WAR IS WRONG, PERIOD! Also, insulting people does not drive your point home, it merely serves to highlight your inability to properly debate a topic.

[zingos]

Just ignore smarterthanyou, he's porbably some zit faced overly hormonal preteen that desperatly needs attention.

[AcdnluvsUSA]

YOU STATE:

You hinted that a liberal education is a bad thing, but I went and looked up the definition of liberal:
"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry." and "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded." Aren't these the very ideals that the United States claims to stand for?[B]You hinted that a liberal education is a bad thing, but I went and looked up the definition of liberal:

THAT IS CORRECT, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT LIBERALS DO _____EVERYTHING THEY DO______
IF FULL OF HYPOCRISY... THEY CLAIM THEY ARE ALL ABOUT THAT, BUT IF YOU WERE SMART
AGAIN... U WOULD DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND SEE ALL THE BS THEY TRY AND MAKE DUMMIES LIKE YOU BELEIVE.

GOD BLESS YOU ... I WOULD REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL SCIENCE IF I WERE YOU BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT.
WEAK MINDS LIKE THE ONE YOU HAVE WOULD NOT BENEFIT THE CANADA THAT WE HAVE NOW, LOOK AT J.C AND HIS LIBERAL MORONS, LOOK AT HOW THEY MAKE US LOOK TERRIBLE, AMERICA IS OUR FRIEND AND IF YOUR FRIENDS U STAND WITH THEM WHEN NEEDED MOST.
PEOPLE LIKE YOU WOULD JUST MAKE OUR COUTNRY CRUMBLE EVEN MORE,

AS FOR CNN AND CBC --- IF YOU LOOK, THEY WERE BOTH LIBERAL STATIONS BEFORE THE WAR, BUT NOW THAT THEY HAVE REPORTERS ON THE FRONT LINES THEY CAN'T SPEW OUT DISINFORMATION BECAUSE THEY ARE RIGHT THERE. AND ANOTHER THING, THEY WILL THROW IN "SOME" VIEWPOINTS FROM THE OTHER SIDE BUT THEN GET RIGHT BACK ON TRACK TO SAY FOR EXAMPLE ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS, THEY KEEP SHOWING THEM OVER AND OVER, AND MAYBE HAVE ACOUPLE PRO-WAR PICS FOR YOU TO VIEW, THEY AER STILL LIBERAL.

IT'S THE REPORTERS WHO HAVE THEIR OWN QUESTIONS AND THEN PUT THEIR OWN SPIN ON THINGS, LIKE ANOTHER "GENIUS" MICHEAL MOORE.

[Tristar]

To the unregistered person who makes decent arguments ( and to everyone else in the later paragraphs):

Alright, I know this is getting off the way point, but about that gun issue again. Your scenario for the father accidentally killing his daughter is a perfectly valid one. But realistically, to own a gun legally, you would have to go through some form of training, both physical and psychological. Now, I don't know about other men, but I don't intend to shoot someone I see unless it is absolutely, positively necessary that I do. So if I see some figure that I can't really tell who it is, I make sure first. But of course, your point is completely valid, as I'm sure such a thing has happened at one point or another. Lastly, the robber at the end of your story, I personally would think that if he knew that a place was filled with people with guns, he wouldn't even try to step in there, for fear that he'll be shot himself. Most robbers want to live to enjoy their wealth, and knowing that, say, a bank is filled with customers with guns will totally repel them from entering. But I'm talking to extremes here. The gun issue is a touchy subject, and both sides have valid points. All I can say though is that it is the right of Americans to own guns. And I think that if more Americans exercised that right, more _good_and_innocent_ Americans, then the country would be safer. Murderers and robbers KNOW that other people don't own guns, and hence they're fearless. And if you ban guns, then the bad guys will just get them illegally, off the back of vans or whatnot. So even if the subject is touchy, the States is one of those few countries where it's actually legal to own a gun, and it has been proven that the gun is far better for self-defense than any other weapon, such as a knife or pepper spray. Experts say, for example, that when you, let's say a woman, wants to shoot someone who is attacking you in the middle of the street at night. They say you should just reach into your pocket and shoot the assailant from there, no need to pull out the gun at all. But aaaanyways, I'm getting way too off-topic. Guns are a whole different story :)

Anyways, it was nice debating with you. I'll probably check here time and again to place my input, but frankly, I'm kinda tired of debating with people who don't know their facts at all (not saying you, although everyone could use a little research)


Random babbles about the war:

-Get the damn children out of the protesting. Who the hell do they think they are?? I mean, that's just the worst. You see these kids, they resent the war, and you ask them to give you their reasons, and they come up with the STUPIDEST things, and with not even the slightest effort, you manage to destroy their reasoning, and they stand their dazed, and continue to say, "but still...". Ahhhh shaddup!

-Here's an interesting question for everyone, and think about this for a bit: You are a pro-war person and you know a guy who is an anti-war protestor. Will you be, or remain, friends? Do you hate the other person? My point is, lately there's been major aggression between the two sides. Relax a bit, then debate and give your reasons. The honest truth is that no one is really going to change the war around now. I especially hate it when the anti-war protestors set up stands and stuff in my univ., and get all up in your face when you pass by, trying to tell you why you should be anti-war. Get off my back and make your point peacefully. I can't believe the stupid things they do, they send themselves off to Iraq to act as human shields. Bastards.

-Lastly, an event that happened in my univ, which is actually what started me writing in these forums. Some people were handing out American flags to support our troops. When one kid was offered a flag, he quickly averted his eyes and said, "I'm anti-war," and walked quickly off. Now, I don't care if you support the way or not, but to not support the troops? Not support your country? I wish those people would just go to hell. Supporting your troops/country and supporting the way are not the same thing, remember that dammit.

Interesting fact: As I mentioned, recently there have been quite a few Americans going to Iraq to act as "human shields." Funny thing is, the places where they stay, they have huge signs above their places that say "human shield" so that they don't get bombed, what a bunch of wussies. But that's beside the point. My point is, one of these people were talking to the locals there, and one of them described the story of how Saddam Hussein would take a person who has "betrayed" the country (maybe as little as talking kinda badly about the man) and placing him feet first into an industrial meat grinder, so that he can see himself get chopped up and hear himself scream. The human shield came back to the U.S. and began supporting the war after hearing that. Just remember that: "Human meat grinder," one of the many atrocities that Saddam Hussein has conceived, among MANY others I can list for you if I wanted to. It'll make you despise Iraq and, maybe, support the war too.

[Unregistered]

Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

[Unregistered]

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

[Nocturnal]

the paralell between pre WWII germany and Iraq is totally nonsensical.

If you all were so interested in history you could see the descisions that we have made have caused alot of our current problems.

And fine, Air Force guy. You signed up to the Armed forces you should be ready to fight. But what about if this gets out of hand and the Draft starts up? What about those people? I personaly would defend this country to the death if it were threatned. but Iraq is not a threat to us. We are the most powerfull country that has ever existed. And have numerous allies that would defend us as well.

Al Queada (spelling?) is a threat, but by alienating the other countries in the world it makes it harder for us to catch these guys. Think we would have ever caught the #2 guy without pakistans willing help?

[acdmyb]

noctural ur an idiot

yes we are the most powerful country in the world but iraq is a threat. WE KNOW they have weapons of mass desrtuction and the first place they are going to be fired is at us or our troops. they could kill miillions of our people with those weapons. We have plenty of troops and we dont need a draft. but overall i think we should do something like the isralies were every1 has to participate in the military for a year. that way people would at least appreciate thier country and quit bitchin like u.

o AND IF WE GET CAUGHT OFFGAURD HERE IT DOESNT MATETER HOW POWERFUL WE ARE, HOW MANY ALLIES WE HAVE, ALL THATS GONNA MATTER IS THAT WE GOT WEAPONS OF MAS DESTRUCTION COMIN AT US AND WE CANT STOP THEM.

[Dozzi]

okay acdmyb we're not going to have weapons of mass destruction coming at us because Iraq has now ay of getting them here. They do not have ICBMs, which are basically the only missles which can be fired over the ocean from us to Iraq or vice-versa. They don't have planes to come drop bombs on us either. The only people they're capable of bombing are one of our two solid allies, the Israelis. The United States is hated by every country on the planet but those two. That's the way it is, has been, and will be. Iraq is only a threat to our troops, and they signed up for it. God bless 'em all.

[acdmyb]

Dozzi u dont know they dont have a way...... and if they didnt have a way to get weapons of mass desrtuction and biolgical wepons here then why bother with homeland security? why bother with heightened terror alerts? and why is our government fitting there workers with gas-masks? its cause they do have a way and our government knows it. and if u have common sense its easy to see

[Unregistered]

Hey, I like that piece drawing the parallel between Pre-WWII Germany and present day United States. Is there a link to the original some where?

Here's an excerpt from the Nuremburg Diary, G.M. Gilbert

Herman Goering:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to rish his life in a war when the best that he can hope to get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Gilbert points out that in the United States the people elect their representative and only Congress can declare war in the United States...

Goering responds:
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Sounds familiar to me...

[Unregistered]

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/index.php

God bless the U.S.A...

[ToteHPT]

Originally posted by Unregistered

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." (Albert Einstein)



Did someone forget to tell this kid Albert Einstein invented the nuclear bomb for the United States after he had left Germany. Had Einstein not left Germany for his belief that the U.S. was right for the standard of living, we would all be speaking German right now.

(Infact, Hitler very well may have been able to dominate the U.S. at the time, his only fuck up was attacking our boys (*England*) at the same time, then he recieved a U.S./English, ass whipping)

We are unfucking touchable, and that is how it will always be, I dont care what anyone says as far as, "FUCK THE U.S. and FUCK ENGLAND, they cant fucking touch us man... If anything, they are next on the hit list lol.....

Little story for you folks....

I used to work with a man named Clevon, (black guy, bout 6'3", 265 lbs.....ex-special forces). He was telling me about different roles America play in different countries. They would drop him off in the middle of the woods in search of teenage rebels, fighting against their government, that had weapons, just didn't really have a militant strategy, they would just shoot when they saw an enemy. So, his job was to train them, how to hide, how to shoot, and he would sit back in the distance after he had trained them and he would watch them fight, and he said, "If you guys start to lose, I will preform a miracle"...(a.k.a. RPG.) Anyway, once their government would realize..."Hey...the U.S. must be involved in this we are being over-thrown".....they would make an agreement with America stating...."If you pull your men out of this, we will sign a peace-treaty." So, they would agree, and send Clevon back. Clevon trained them how to hide so he knew where they were, and he would kill them, ending the battle and getting peace in return. Kinda funny how things work like that on a political basis. Too many kids are touching on things they know nothing about.

[acdmyb]

tote hpt i agree with u but the thing is we arent untouchable. Isnt that what the british thought during the time of the revolution? they were the #1 army in the world and they got wupped. we arent untouchable but we can hold our spot in the most powerful gov't

[Unregistered]

ToteHPT should be reminded that Albert Einstein was a Jew and like any other Jewish Intellectual living in Nazi Germany he would have been reserved a place in one of the several camps designed specifically for the Jews....

[ToteHPT]

Originally posted by Unregistered
ToteHPT should be reminded that Albert Einstein was a Jew and like any other Jewish Intellectual living in Nazi Germany he would have been reserved a place in one of the several camps designed specifically for the Jews....


not real sure where you were going with that one bud, but, ok, thanks for reminding me something I already knew..............*looks for someone else to talk to*

[ToteHPT]

Originally posted by acdmyb
tote hpt i agree with u but the thing is we arent untouchable. Isnt that what the british thought during the time of the revolution? they were the #1 army in the world and they got wupped. we arent untouchable but we can hold our spot in the most powerful gov't

Well.........what I meant was, the U.S.A. and England will never be defeated.....I didn't mean we were literally "untouchable". Plus, things are alot different now-a-days you see. Confidence is what attracted England to join us, not just friendship.

[acdmyb]

we will be defeated if we have the liberals screw our gov't and choke the country to pusses and then we will be defeated. and tote history reapeats itself. just like rome fell the Us will eventually fall wether we like it or not

[acdmyb]

o and dont get me wrong the iraq situation aint gonna do shit to us and our army cause we will have minimal causualties and they are goin to get there asses kicked but they do have weapons of massd destruction and we need to get those b4 its too late for our allies or us

[ToteHPT]

See, we have already beaten the odds though acdmyb, a typical democracy usually lasts about 200 years....we are past that, because once again, we are the shiggity shiznit....

[acdmyb]

tote im not argueing with u i just have to say that eventually the US is gonna fall. i cringe at that thought and i wish it wouldnt happen. but we need to except its gonna. cause it might fall in 1000 years from now or 100 years we dont know

[ToteHPT]

Well, I will agree with you on that, it will fall ONE DAY, but with the rate of expanding technology, (except medical), I think it will be WAYYYYYYYYYYYY after our kids, kids, are dead.

[acdmyb]

thats treu but if the democrats take over an ruin our country like bill clinton us or our children may shee the fall of the US thank god the country is in the hands of the republicans right now

[ToteHPT]

here, here...

[Unregistered]

Well, sorry to sound depressive, but countries nowadays rise and fall with their economies (look at Russia), and the people who know their shit about such stuff have predicted that this century is quite likely to see a major rise in the importance of the "tiger economies", i.e. the asian economies, especially China, and, to a lesser extent, Korea and Taiwan.

[Bob40]

"people who know their shit"
I have one thing to say, if the USA falls the whole world will be going too.
It is really a global economy now, people "who know their shit"
don't know crap about the future, because technology will play a huge HUGE impact, more so than any goverment.

Another thing, after having exchange students from:Germany(2)
Sweden, Brazil, Slovakia(hot), Norway,Thailand,Great Britain,France,Portugal,and Switzerland.
I have been told that most people like the USA. While they don't always agree with our goverment, they all think of the USA as a great country. They love coming to America, and love it when Americans visit their countries.
I believe most people who "hate America" are just jealous, and or hate Israel.
Bob