hmm...

[reem]

don't you think that it's a bit presumptuous to go around yelling "if anyone dares to bother us we'll nuke the (unprintable) out of them!"??
world politics is a very delicate and complex system...even 'I' know that!! and THAT's saying something!
but if it makes every one feel better getting shots and stuff, then by all means go and do it.
the sep. 11th incident has really jogged everyones' nerves...but don't over do it. it doesn't pay to become paranoid:p
i mean, things have reached a really annoying point when you can't even 'breath' without people looking at you funny!
for example, look at those people who're petitioning against 'The Two Towers' because of the name...even though it was created over 50 years ago!!....actually, i think i'm straying from the main subject here, but never mind. i tend to do that most of the times.
i think i'll go bother someone else now:)
bye:)
reem

[FREEDOM!]

hmm..... thats very interesting.....

[HLGStrider]

Well, it is of course extreme...

People went through a lot and have a right to be mad, a right to be sad, a right to be scared, a right to be concerned...

In fact it is only natural.

Some people are bound to react badly to such emotions or react extremely...

I don't think it would be possible to forget Sept. 11th anytime soon.
I know the law makers are paranoid that it will happen again and they will be at fault for not doing enough... though I believe in most cases they are over correcting...

We are acting very human. Some things we might regret later, but I'm not sure how to control these obvious results...

as to the Two Towers, some people probably weren't aware that the book was originally named that and assumed that Jackson was doing it to make a few extra bucks... which of course would be totally in bad taste and wrong. To those touched closest by the events it would seem a painful reminder.. people who haven't read the books have assumed that it was a Twin Towers documentary (check the thread in Bag End entitled Stupidest Things Non-LotR's fans have said...). However, I think that that would be over correcting again...

Eventually things will cool down, but a year is an incredibly short time... especially to anyone who has lost a loved one.

[Asha'man]

It's called mutually assured destruction. "If you attack us, we will nuke you. If you nuke us, we will still nuke you. If you posture and pose and appear to be a genuine threat to us, we will get ready to nuke you with enough provocation."

Would you rather we put our hands in the air, backed off and said, "Please don't attack us, nice Mr. Hussein, harmless Mr. bin Laden, friendly Mr. whoeverisinchargeinNorthKorea!" Hardly. :rolleyes: If they attack us, they will be destroyed. If you attack me, I will stab or shoot you. Moral of the story: don't attack us.

Mutally assured destruction.

Ash

[reem]

that's all well and good when you're the one with who's nuking!! but what about those who get nuked for no reason in the end?? like me!! for example!!
i can tell you one thing, if you're ****ed off at sadam, then fine, send a bullet through his brains (if he has any), because no one really cares!! he's a real tyrant and (as far as everyone i know and who counts thinks) he deserves it! my best friend is iraqy and she hates his gutts...why? because he's a monster.
you're ****ed at bin laden, then get rid of him! no need to ruin everyone else's life for one man's (and a few notable others's) actions!
your logic is flawed, my friends.
thankfully i am living in a peaceful state where i don't have to trouble my 'little' brain with world hunger and suffering, but when i DO start to think about it, it sucks.
and i really don't think that the US would have any trouble getting what it wants, whether by using open or hidden means.
the problem almost ALWAYS rests with world leaders, not the people themselves...show some compassion here for goodness sake!....but that is easier said than done, i must admit.
reem

[HLGStrider]

I don't think world hunger has any place in this arguement so I don't see why you brought it up... there are probably hunger problems in every country, only they are incredibly isolated in others and prevalent in others.... anyway that would be a rabbit trail and if you want to discuss world hunger it would be better to get a new thread.

Nuking isn't a good idea. For one thing, they aren't precision bombs, you can't pick your target. However, I think the threat of them might keep some people quieter than others... (the Nixon policy of trying to appear mad during Viatnam, for instance...). However, it may just make some mad. That is a risk the politicians will have to weigh.

Discerning from the language that quote wasn't from a politician unless it was James Trafficant...

It will be hard to get to Saddam Hussiane without bombing cities, and that's one of the problems with war in general.

The issue isn't what sort of bombs to use at the moment. I think it is how to get in there at all.

Laden is another issue, because nobody knows where the guy is... If you do I'm sure Powell would appriciate a call... he's probably started his own New Age Book store somewhere in L.A. and hides in his meditation chamber whenever the feds walk by.

[FREEDOM!]

Well first we have to find Bin Ladin, but once then prep the snipers. And now Snipers ready take out Saddam!

[HLGStrider]

I think we have signed some treaty or other which forbids us to sponsor assassinations... but I'm not sure... maybe its just tacitly taboo...

[reem]

err..ok, world hunger doesn't really have anything to do with it, but i kind of got carried away! sorry about that!
but i just didn't like the attitude of "if you breath we nuke you".
anyway, that's all i have say (or overreact) onthe subject!
happy new year every one:)
reem

[HLGStrider]

Two questions:

Are you Muslim?
(question based on you talking about the Koran (Quoran? sorry, I can't remember how to spell that) in the Religion thread.)
Are you Arabic or in the Arabic area?
(question because of your Iraqi friends and a few other things...).

These questions have nothing whatsoever to do with the arguement, just curious.

We've had several polls on what religion people are and we've never had a response from a believer in Islam... One or two Jews, a lot of atheists, more Christians, several pagans, but never a Muslim. Don't know why.

[reem]

wow!! is it that obvious??:p hope it wasn't my attitude or anything:) hehe!
though i doubt i'm the only muslim on the sight...i'm just the only one who stood out i guess!;)
anyway, happy new year everyone:)
i need to go study for my midterms:(:(:(:mad:
reem

[HLGStrider]

Maybe Muslims just avoid the religion threads... I don't know.

Well, when one seems to know as much about the Koran as your post on the Religion thread seemed to one is either
A. Muslim
B. Studies religions in general
C. Something else....

[FREEDOM!]

WOW! i never expected that!! but i don't think we do, or maybe we do...

[HLGStrider]

We do what?

Huh?

What happened?

[reem]

expect what? i didn't get it either:p
reem

[Ciryaher]

It's nice to know that we have a great deal of religous and national diversity :)

I think that the military use of nuclear weapons is an insane idea. If we were nuked (we being the world, nuked being a terrorist detonation) I would still be against any nuclear usage on our part. We shouldn't turn the other cheek, either. What we do is hunt them down with our superious military, make their backers betray them, and eliminate every resource (i.e. money income) they have. Chain them up at the real Ground Zero and let them die from radiation and/or fire. If America ever uses a nuclear device against human beings, I will renounce my citizenship and move to a nation that has actual concerns over the welfare of other people.

[Rogue666666]

If America ever used Nuclear weapons it would only be becuase we were in such a desparate position that we had no choice but to use them or be detroyed.

[HLGStrider]

And where would you move?

I'd be against it too... I'm not sure how tactically useful the things are and it would cause a lot of hurt. The problem with this sort of fighting is that our enemies aren't a country and so they don't fear nukes as much. If you have a country you know where you will be hit and you probably have familes there you don't want hurt... or at least financial investments.

If you don't have a home base and are just the friendly neighborhood bomb squad you care a lot less...

or if you are a total maniac like Hussaine. With Hussaine the biggest thing is making him believe we'll hit him so he doesn't dare hit us.

[Ciryaher]

Rogue, America will never be destroyed from the outside. It will be hit many times, but we'll destroy ourselves one way or another. If we use a nuke, I'll move to either Canada or Israel. Canada if I wanted to be safe from any further reciprocation (for the most part) and Israel if I wanted to fight for something far more important than oil.

[HLGStrider]

Though I'm not supportive of the war idea, I don't believe it is about oil.
If anything it is about pride.
Hussiane has lied to us. Hussaine has sheltered our enemies... If we wanted oil there are better places to go to than Iraq (Alaska for instance. Bush would do that willingly if allowed to) and we are actually endangering our supplies... If we wanted oil I think we'd shut up and try to suck up to Saudi Arabia.
Whether or not we have the right to hit Hussaine is the big question, and I need to think about it more.
Undoubtable Hussaine is a bad man.
Undoubtalby he'd like to see us dead (the question is does he have the power to)

We need to seriously assess how much of a threat this guy is to us. Bush believes he is a top threat. He believed that when he got into office and Sept 11th probably just confirmed what he thought. Hussaine may or may not have been behind it, but Bush sees him as the instigator or most of the Middle East problem.

The question is whether he is or not...

[Ciryaher]

Hussein didn't instigate squat. America has instigated it's own durn problems, not starting with, but having an important point in Iran-Contra. Let's sell weapons to both sides, yes, and then expect them not to hate our guts. Let's give them weapons to fight the commies...oh, the commies left, hope you liked your guns, because we don't feel like helping you rebuild or anything!

Here's a thought, why don't we get rid of Hussein with a global coalition and just arrest him. Let him sit in a prison for the rest of his life. Don't make him a martyr for anyone. Go into Iraq and let them set up their own damn government and give the poor people some food, clothing, shelter, and a freaking chance in life. This talk of invasion and bombing is pure insanity, when there is a peaceful solution in hand, where we FOR ONCE, WOULDN'T be hated by the Arab world! Isn't that a quaint idea? Helping the people rather than a select few usurpers...I definitely like the sound of that.

[HLGStrider]

why don't we get rid of Hussein with a global coalition and just arrest him

You think we can just walk into Bagdad with a warrent?

He pays suicide bombers. Iran does as well, but we know Iran is no big friend of ours. That's what I meant by instigating. I don't know if he had anything to do with Sept. 11th.

The Arab states hate us because we have always been virulent supporters of Isreal for one. For another we have stuff they don't. For another we do mess with their business too much. I'm an isolationist myself, and would prefer it if we just locked down and defended our borders. However, we have made too much of a precedent.
We are continually buying guns for people or giving them aid that turns into guns somewhere along the way...

We tried to let Afganistan take care of its own problems, that was what the guns were for. The Russians weren't their to play roulette. It was a bad investment in unstable territory. Iran was also a bad idea. Another bad investment.

into Iraq and let them set up their own damn government

You're a mod for gosh sakes. Don't swear... Darn works well enough.

What's your peaceful solution? I really don't see how we could arrest him considering he has an army and owns that country.

It is, however, a country of fairly educated people. If you're thinking of trying to have him be over thrown by his own people, I'm all for that. I'm not sure how to accomplish it, though.

[Rogue666666]

It isnt possible to accomplish that. Suddam eliminaets anyone who threatens his power. (I'm reffering of course, to people he CAN elminate)

And how, if we eliminate Hussein, do you think that the next guy will be any better. For all we know the next guy could set up his own dictatorship.

Ciryaher, you said its about oil. Do you have ANY idea how expensive it is to operate a war thousands of miles from your homeland? Billions, if not more. It would be a lot easier for Bush to haggle with all the people who don't want a pipeline to Alaska, then to send our boys into Iraq.


So,we create our own problems do we? Well, I do admit that we have made mistakes, but are you saying that 9-11 was our fualt? The idiots who orcastrated the whole thing were extremists. Nothing short of having the United States and all its people convert to Islam would have prevented those guys from attemping there attack.

O, and you don't think Suddam is involved? Of course not. He just likes to sit back in his palaces and take care of the people, and help the weapon inspectors. DUHHHH! I for one am completely 100% sure that he is ivolved in nearly EVERY major terrorist operation against the U.S. Either direcetly or inderectly you can bet he had something to do with it.

And finally, do you really think that the Arab nations will ever love us? Their very own religion dictates that they should destroy us unless we convert. The only thing that keeps them from screaming their hatred openly at us is becease a good chunk of their income is from us, AND becuase of our superior military power.

[TheFool]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
Ciryaher, you said its about oil. Do you have ANY idea how expensive it is to operate a war thousands of miles from your homeland? Billions, if not more.
hmmm..... this would suit the US defence industry just fine :rolleyes: :rolleyes: . But wait, "war is not inevitable" said Mr Rumsfeld.... oh well then, now that N Korea has 'threatened' nuclear strikes, the US can now proceed with building the Missile Defence 'Shield' (then proceed with spending more billions trying to get it to work :eek: ).

[Rogue666666]

That has nothing to do with the fact that it would be cheaper to build a pipeline to Alaska then to go to war. Ya, and its so horrible that were going to spend billions trying to defend ourselves. God forbid. We probably should save the money, so that when half our cities are radioactive sludge we have some cash left over to rebuild. :rolleyes:

[TheFool]

hmm which is bigger - the US oil industry or the US defence industry?

Why not spend billions on helping to create a separate Palestinian State, rather than on a useless Missile Defence Shield?

I am curious - is it a major opinion in America that the USA needs some sort of 'military revenge' for Sept. 11th?

[Ciryaher]

Yes, I am blaming 9-11 on the United States, and I apologize for the use of "da**"...it should have been "damned."

Yes, Hussien is a very horrible man...so why didn't we get him in the Persian Gulf War? Simple...it's because we were more concerned with securing our oil supplies than in removing a tyrant. Sounds like yet another reason for the Middle-East to hate the US: we're greedy and egocentric.

No, it's not impossible to incite a rebellion in Iraq. Hussein can't kill 95% of his population before they get their hands on him and tear him apart. Also, I think that as long as we don't support a dictator, another dictator won't arise (if I remember correctly, we have a habit of supporting dictators in the beginning). Give the people a chance and a means; they'll achieve their ends.

No nation in the world *loves* the United States. Some are friendly to us, some bear with us, some coldly accept us, and a great many despise us. If we'd stop screwing up, we'd at least have less people hating us. And for the record, I'm quite sure that I've heard countless voices screaming their hatred for us. Even European countries are saying the same thing, but they put diplomatic sugar on it so it's not as obvious.

[Rogue666666]

Ya right, create a seperate Palastinian state, made out of land that belongs to Israel. No way. I would rather see ALL our money go to almost anything besides helping the Palastinians.

Ok, Ciryaher, you think that we should some how get the people throw out Saddam, who amazingly they haven't done anything about for years, and then sit back and pray that some other dictator doesnt take over. You see, whoever it is, he might even look harmless at first, even look like he's trying to help everyone. But it would be VERY easy for someone to step up and take over the goverment. That would put us all right back were we started if not worse.

We beat Iraq in a war years ago, Saddam should be happy we didn't kick him out then, (which we should have). But no, he defies the international community, kicked out weapon inspectors, ( tell me, why would you kick out weapon inspectors if you had nothing to hide?) and our planes get shot at almost every day! And even though he's cooperating with them now, he has HUNDREDS of palaces, and even a thousand weapon inspectors could never make a complete inspection.

Finally, who cares about oil, when theirs a possibility that he's got nuclear weapons? That alone should be enough reason for us to move in their. The rest of the world, mainly the Europeans, are far to cowardly to do it themselves. Have you seen The Sum of All Fears? Though the situation is different, the consequences of waitng to long to act are terrible.

Thankfully England and France have begun to realize what a disaster it would be if one of their cities was obliderated in nuclear fire. So there going to 'help out'. Well, isnt that nice of them.

May I remind you, that England also is despised by MANY, and loved probably by no one. France is also despised, and Germany, and Italy, and China, and Poland, and Denmark, And Russia, and Mexico, and Canada. Every nation will always be despised by someone, no matter what we do. It is impossible to please everyone, and our President has to find a balance between making people happy, and doing whats best for his country. Thankfully, our president is making a stand and saying that He doesnt give a (insert recently used word here) what other people think, he's going to stop this Madman before somebody, or A LOT of somebodies get hurt.

[Athelas]

I wonder if these Saudi terrorists would be so eager to carry out their attacks if they thought that Mecca would be nuked into oblivion as a result? Just a thought.

[HLGStrider]

Nobody likes America because we do too much over seas which as I said, I am against. I want us out of the UN. I don't want another cent of foriegn aid to leave the country. I want us to find a way (if there is one) to pay off debt.

Thing is we have made a precedent.
We are in the UN.
We attacked Hussaine once and made him make promises. He broke the promises, and what are we going to do about it?

RD once posted why we didn't get Hussaine the first time. Said it wasn't our tactical goal... I don't remember where he did that. I wasn't in the thread and just took a passing glance.

911 is based on extremists. I don't know if it is in their religion or not. I have heard both sides stated, that is is not with more frequency. I know that not a single Muslim cleric has yet to denounce it, but I think that is for political reasons more than spiritual.

I think the reason why is that they are oppressed and we aren't. I got this map of the world that rated countries by color as to how much freedom they had, and every state which had terrorists or ended up on the list of bad guys was rated the worst color possilbe (with maybe one exception). We can't really help this because it would be impossible to go around sponsoring new governments.

[Rogue666666]

I agree with you HLGStrider, I don't like our involvement in the U.N or oversees either. And I think that the president has realized that we just can't go around disarming anybody with nukes who might try to blow us to kingdom come. Thats why he's granted a bunch of money to this new Nuclear Defense Shield program.

[Rogue666666]

O, but wait, I almost forgot. You see, a lot of the international community doesn't mind our involvment, as long as we get involved the way THEY think we should get involved. And I say, forget this whole thing about listening to what they think we should do. We already spend billions on aid to other countries, but thats not enough, and we can never make everyone happy, so whats the point in even trying?

[HLGStrider]

I think it sounds good in campaign speeches.

For one thing Truman made a pledge a while ago to "make the world safe for democracy."
We'd just won a world war and started a UN. He probably thought we could do anything.
We made many precedents trying to keep that... and battling the Russians who were a threat, but we probably over reacted a bit... all in all we compromised our freedoms to defend other peoples...

You keep on saying "our."
I thought you were from Taiwan... or do you mean your country has similar problems?

[reem]

i've been away for sometime doing my exams, so i'm a bit behind schedual and i haven't read all the entries but this one i reached and i just had to answer!!

O, and you don't think Suddam is involved? Of course not. He just likes to sit back in his palaces and take care of the people, and help the weapon inspectors. DUHHHH! I for one am completely 100% sure that he is ivolved in nearly EVERY major terrorist operation against the U.S. Either direcetly or inderectly you can bet he had something to do with it.

as much as it is tempting to agree with you on this point, you have to agree that this statement is highly illiogical. i don't think that we should give saddam that much credit, even though he is a big you-know-what.

And finally, do you really think that the Arab nations will ever love us? Their very own religion dictates that they should destroy us unless we convert. The only thing that keeps them from screaming their hatred openly at us is becease a good chunk of their income is from us, AND becuase of our superior military power.

excuse moi?!!! what unprintable **** is this??? please don't go around yelling to everyone that islam orders muslims to go around bl0wing up people who're non-muslims!!! i know my own religion better than you and this is the BIGGEST lie you people have been circulating about us!!!! please know what you're talking about before you go around convincing people:mad:
and if arab countries hate you it's basically because of the way you treat them!!! take the palistiniansituation for example:
palistine, a nice little country with its own people, simple, minding their own business, and then the british invades and colonises it, then after the world war the UN doesn't know what to do with all the jews and decides to give them palistine!!! and then the israelis start picking the best places to live and give the arabs (including christians, normal arab jews, and mulims) and rubbish, and they kick them out of their homes, take their stuff, and expect them to stay quiet???!! and when people seem to be a threat they take away their weapons. but that doesn't stop them and they get desprate and find other ways to fight back!!
what happens then?? they're clled monstrous braindead terrorists!!!
what is WRONG with this picture?? ok, perhaps blowing up normal people in restaraunts isn't such a good idea. but how would you react? would you really care anymore if people u know and love andbeing killed, raped, tortured and many more things that i can't think of at the moment???
u don't know everything, ok? and neither do i for that matter, but at least i don't give a 1000000% sure answer about them!!!
...that's all....
reem

[TheFool]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
Ya right, create a seperate Palastinian state, made out of land that belongs to Israel. No way. I would rather see ALL our money go to almost anything besides helping the Palastinians.
OK it's a huge can of worms there, but do you not think the problem should be sorted out? Or at least even try to solve it?

Maybe reem will agree with me on this, perhaps the 'money' could be better spent on educating Americans about the history of their own foreign policy, and trying to understand why terrorist attacks have happened? For example, when I was at school (UK) I don't remember a single lesson which dealt with why the IRA was carrying out a 'terrorist bombing campaign', or why Northern Ireland is the way it is.

Originally posted by Rogue666666
Have you seen The Sum of All Fears? Though the situation is different, the consequences of waitng to long to act are terrible.
A Phil Alden Robinson film, directed by Phil Alden Robinson? No, but I've seen 'Hot Shots: Part Deux', does that count?

Originally posted by Rogue666666
Thankfully, our president is making a stand and saying that He
I hope this is a typo :D ;)

[Rogue666666]

LOL, yes thats a typo.

So anyway, Reem, I'm to tired to even try to respond to your incredebly biased attack on Israel.

But I MYSELF HAVE READ in the Koran that all are to convert to Islam or be destroyed. How are you supposed to translate that into a peacefull message?

Hey, heres an idea. Lets let Israel and the palestinians sort this thing out for themselves! Why do we erally need to get involved?

You probably think that it's Americas fualt all the Palestinians are treated so horribly. Right, I think so too. Becuase without international involvement Israel could have used its incredebly superior military force and simply CRUSHED the palastinians. This would be fine with me, but NO! We all have to get involved. Now an Israeli soldier can't shoot his gun without fearing that their will be an international blow up.



Maybe reem will agree with me on this, perhaps the 'money' could be better spent on educating Americans about the history of their own foreign policy, and trying to understand why terrorist attacks have happened? For example, when I was at school (UK) I

Don't you get it? NO matter WHAT are foreign policy is, or no matter WHAT we do, we will NEVER be free from attack, becuase it is a fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to please everyone. Making one person happy will make another person mad. There isn't even a point in trying to make everyone happy. AND CHANGING YOUR FOREIGN POLICY TO APPEASE TERRORISTS IS WRONG. We have to stand up to them,.

[Rogue666666]

One more thing, HLGStrider, I'm LIVING in Taiwan currenty, but I've only been here a few months, I'm an American citizen, so that why I say WE. No, Taiwan has an entirely different set of problems, mainly one BIG problem, China. :D

[Athelas]

what the Palestinian cowards did at the Munich Olympics to the Israeli atheletes.

[Gloer]

if we just forgot about that thing in Munich.

The Germans were just way too loose on security.
They wanted to have the anti-nazi Games I guess.

[TheFool]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
Hey, heres an idea. Lets let Israel and the palestinians sort this thing out for themselves! Why do we erally need to get involved?
Rogue I don't know what you mean, 'get involved'? USA (and UK) have been involved from day 1!! Who gave the Israelis nuclear weapons? Who sells them F16s and battle tanks? And am I right in thinking that the Jewish population in America is larger than that of Israel - you don't think they have any influence in the situation?

[Rogue666666]

OK, FINE, then lets get uninvolved, let the entire international community completely mind its own business and let Israel and Palastine work it out between themselves with ZERO involvement from us.

YOu believe thats its Americas fualt the palastinians are "suffering'?

Don't you see that your contradicting yourself? The only thing holding Israel away from smashing all palastinians into oblivion is the american the the rest of the worlds media. An Israeli soldier can't shoot a palestinian terrorist anymore without SOMOEONE screaming that its murder.

So if we all just got uninvolved, the situation would resolve itself VERY quickly.

Ohh, and even if we did every thing the palastinians ask, they have VERY clearly and simply stated that they will not stop until the nation of Israel is driven into the sea.

THERE IS AND NEVER WILL BE A COMPROMISE IN THIS SITUATION.

[Gloer]

After the last post I started wondering.

If the situation cant be resolved then maybe it was a huge mistake from the british to let jews move back to Palestine.

Let's face it a religion that has nationalistic agenda is too exclusive for globalized world.

Why can't those jews just give up and convert to islam?

[TheFool]

OK Rogue, so you've made it clear that you're against helping ANYONE, we should just go to War! instead. What a great attitude to have.

Israel is behaving the way it is because it knows it is SUPPORTED by the USA, perhaps?

And please read the last line of your last post again. (if it was a trivial subject, normally I wouldn't care).

[Athelas]

Nobody hates one oppressed people like another oppressed people, which is how the rich and powerful stay that way.

[Ciryaher]

OK Rogue, so you've made it clear that you're against helping ANYONE, we should just go to War! instead. What a great attitude to have.

You said it before I could ;) I totally agree with that. I can't believe people think that we should go and kill people instead of being diplomatic. Which makes people angrier? Bombing their homes and families or arbitrating negotiations and sending food? Hmm...tough one.

[HLGStrider]

You guys are throwing a lot of terms around like Diplomatic and peaceful solution...

You still haven't told me HOW we are going to arrest Sadam, Cir.

Isreal has some deep roots in that area, but I don't think we wanted to get rid of 'our Jews.' They are not exactly unproductive citizens. Definately letting them take the area has caused problems, but I think it is a bit late to undo it. It was the entire UN and not just the US. Obviously we have supported them. We've also given money to the Palastinians.

The IRA doesn't really belong in this converastion.. I must've missed that point. Was it that countries don't teach about their own wrongs?

Whether or not Isreal belongs in the area is awhole other debate. However, it is obviously one of the reasons the US is disliked. We probably could back out of the situation, and the Isrealis may or may not finish the Palestinians off...

I believe Bush's plan calls for a Palestinian state, but I don't know much about that. I have not done much research into Palestine vs Isreal. The conflict is obviously a bloody one. Both sides have killed innocents. Both sides have developed a hatred for the other. Neither is a perfect system...

Gloer I don't get the last half of your statement. Was it meaning to be sarcastic?

Generally the message has been that Islam is a peaceful religion extremists have preverted. I haven't read the Koran. That's up to people who have to debate. It could be an entire new thread or Koran debating... wouldnt' suggest it, but its possible.

Of course the Jews in America have influence... so does everyone who can vote... that's the point to this system... There are a heck of a lot more Christians than Jews in congress however.

[Ciryaher]

Watch the movie Air Force One with Harrison Ford. That is how we should arrest him.

[HLGStrider]

You've been watching too many action movies... You want us to steal his plane?

Or you must've been referring to the mission at the beginning. I doubt that is in reality possible. First, we'd have to get into the country which has Anti aircraft guns around it. Then we'd have to get into the palace that has guns. Then we'd have to get him and get out and all pretty fast...

Maybe it could be done, but it would be hard... I'm sure the White House has considered it, just as they have obviously considered starting a rebellion from within... etc.

[Rogue666666]

YOu guys dont get it. I was ONLY reffering to The Palastine/Israeli situation in my last post, what I said had NOTHING to do with Iraq. There is no compromise between Palestine and Israel. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Try reading the post again realizing that I'm ONLY reffering to the Israel/Palastine situation.


NOW, I'm giong to shift my focus back on Iraq.

I believe that we could easily abduct or assasinate saddam, we have the rescources. Our elite commando units could probably do it. THeres only ONE problem. Saddam is currently in the world spotlight. If he suddenly vanished, or even if we told everyone what we were doing, then who knows what the 'International community' would have to say about it. And of course, we coudn't go around asking everyone for permission, because then the Iraqi government would find out.

SO that IS why I believe that we can't abduct him at the current time.

[HLGStrider]

I still think we are forbidden by international treaty to engage in assassinations. It was in an explanation on why we didn't just kill our good friend in the Gulf War. They said something about that we weren't allowed to (but it might've been just a social taboo instead of a law... Iforget) and that it probably wouldn't work.

Also, remember when we backed the assassination of the president of S. Viatnam (sort of). They didn't get anybody better and we got a bad name... it would be chaos in Iraq if Hussaine just disappeared. His commanders would scramble for control, and a lot of innocent people would be hurt... perhaps as many as in a war and with probably lousy results. We have no garantee that they have somebody better to replace him. There are plenty of peaceful Iraqis, but most of the people who would be able to gain control are not them.

[reem]

Originally posted by Rogue666666

YOu believe thats its Americas fualt the palastinians are "suffering'?

Don't you see that your contradicting yourself? The only thing holding Israel away from smashing all palastinians into oblivion is the american the the rest of the worlds media. An Israeli soldier can't shoot a palestinian terrorist anymore without SOMOEONE screaming that its murder.

So if we all just got uninvolved, the situation would resolve itself VERY quickly.

Ohh, and even if we did every thing the palastinians ask, they have VERY clearly and simply stated that they will not stop until the nation of Israel is driven into the sea.

THERE IS AND NEVER WILL BE A COMPROMISE IN THIS SITUATION. [/B]

well aren't you a nice bundle of sunshine?! ok, i'm not going to insult anyone, but here is my two bits on the subject, and i will do you all a favour (and my self especially) by making this my last entry on this subject.
i really don't know what kind of news coverage you guys get, but israeli soldiers aren't little poor rightous inocents. every single day we hear of this kid getting his gutts blown out, or this girl being beat up into a coma or this no. of people seriously wounded or blah blah blah blah...etc
it NEVER ends!! we hear about it ALL the time it's become a monotonous everyday news item. not ONE day passes without someone getting their brains splattered all over the side walk...poor soldiers...yah i can see how afraid they are....mean old terrorit palistinians crawling all over the place like cocroaches, sickening isn't it??
let's just crush them all and rid ourselves of the annoyance!! let's call them rubish and peices of filth that belong in dumpsters on CNN (like one israeli official happened to say a few months ago when things reached a reall zenith).
and let's ruin the palistinian reputation even more than it already is!
do u have any idea what they aired on CNN on the sep 11th incident?? they showed a group of palitinian women singing and giving out sweets and celebrating and people in the streets having the time of thier lives, and they sid that these were ongoing celebrations becuase of what happened to the Americans....and then guess what! "oops, sorry, that turned out to be an old tape showing a local holiday. we really don't know how that got there! shucks!" but i bet only 0.009 % of the people who watch CNN saw that extremely brief apology...how convinient, right??
oh well, but who cares, palitians are really a big pain in the butt. i mean, so what if everyone treats them like ****...they have no reason to et angry! they were born to be treated like ****! hell, they ARE ****!
oh well, i really do wonder why alot of people (not only muslim and arabs, but, believe it or not,italians, french and many more...don't for get vietnamese, i'm sure) can't stand americans! or atleast the stuck up individuals who are part of the American community.
i personally have no problem with any of the Americans, British, Indians, Koreans, MExicans, French, German, and other individuals from these nationalities that i have persoanlly met. the only couple of people that i can come close to hating is this really annoying girl in my school and the vice principle who's a real stuckup twerp...and my previous Maths teacher who was not a very pleasant character, i can tell you.
the only thing that got me upset was the tone some of you took. you really talk about other human beings like thier sh*t. what is wrong with you people?? who gave you the right to make such judgements?? i would never treat a jew in a mean or impolite manner just because of his/her religion. ok, so i might not warm up to them and show extra friendliness but i would never be downright rude. my parents taught me better than that. and i'm not one of a kind either!! alot of people share my views!
so before you go and bad mouth arabs please know whop you're talking about. don't always believe what you read or what you hear. the media is not always a faithful friend. there is no such thing a free press, even in precious ol' America, believe it or not1!!
and you say you read the quran?? well then you should know that it also says no one, even the prophet himself (and he would never have thought of such a thing) is allowed to make someone enter Islam against their will. it's true that in islam we believe that only islam is the true religion because we believe that the other two have been greatly tampered with. but we believe in the freedom to choose which life you want to lead. if you don't then it's your problem.
in islam it also says that you should ALWAYS treat EVERYONE (even pagans) with great civility and treat them honestly, but if they treat you badly then you have the right to treat them exactly how they treated you. and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth...though i do agree with you that it's more like a tooth for an eye and an eye for a tooth these days.
the only problem is that only the extremists catch the atention of the world, and their not-so-humane acts and beliefs are passed onto every other muslim. this is extremely unjust and irrational.
i think that's it...anymore and you'll shoot me yourselves!!:p
reem
ps
i'm really really sorry just one ore thing!
it doesn't matter what any of us think or say here, because in the end we're all just little insignificant words on each other's screens and we don't really exist in each other's worlds. so no need to get too worked up no matter how frustrating someone's views are. so bye everone and i really hope you all have peacefull lives...yes, even the more annoying persons:p;)

[Athelas]

Israel isn't turning its children into suicide bombers. We need to assasinate the Islamlic leaders who are doing that.

[Gloer]

Israel isn't turning it's own children into suicide bombers???

That is a load of ****.


As far as I know these suicide bombers are all from areas governed by Israel. If this is not what Israel wants then they have failed haven't they.

But then... one needs to be a jew to have egalitarian rights or have I misintrepreted something?

[HLGStrider]

You're wrong about the free press, Reem.

There are both sides in America. We have protestors when Netenyahu... Netenya... you know who I'm talking about... went through Portland. They were on NPR talking about how they wanted a Palestinian state.
I've heard it from a few other places, but normally I listen to conservative news stations and they are less likely to be behind Palestine than Isreal. (Actually I only hear news in sixty second clips because I listen to a listener supported Christian station and they only go into foreign events if they are HUGE and unusual... I listen to other things occasionally, but I like the music on my station too much to switch for the news).
I know that bad things are going on on both sides. That's one of the things that happens when you have a war where people live. I tend to believe you are wrong and that the Palestinian side is worse. I am sure both sides have propaganda. I am sure there are plenty of moderate Muslims.
But we aren't discussing Palestine/Isreal here...

Or do you think that this is relevent enough to deserve the side track?

By the way, I'd like to hear from Cir who was planning to move to Isreal... I'd like his opinion on this because he is on one side on half the arguement and on the other on the other half... apparently.

[Ciryaher]

Firstly, I said I would leave the country if we (the US) were ever so stupid and ungodly as to use nuclear weapons. I don't care what the reason, but to use nuclear weapons against human beings is wrong in every sense of the word. Japan being an exception in 1945.

Second, I think that it is perfectly possible to extract Hussein, as long as we put a lot of effort into it. The hardest part is finding out where the heck he is, but once you've got that, I'm quite confident that our elite forces (our being the Allies) could nab him quite easily.

[HLGStrider]

Yes, but I wanted your take on the Isreal thing. According to Reem and maybe a few others America will always be hateworthy and so attacked by extremists if we continue support of Isreal. You earlier stated you'd like to move to Isreal, so I think you support it (unless you were moving to Isreal to fight with the Palastinians and I think you'd state that), so I wanted your take on the matter...

Unless you think it is too much of a sidetrack, which is someways it is, but it has come up, and it is slightly relevent...

Your take?

[Rogue666666]

OK, IN my last post on the Palastinian situation, I wasn't JUDGING anyone, Reem. I was simply stating what the palestinians have already said themselves. "They will not stop until all Israel has been driven into the sea". I don't see how THAT statement leaves much room for compromise. But that doesn't mean I'm saying their bad. For all you know I may believe that the Palestinian cause is just. What I was saying is, if everyone let Israel and the palestinians do whatever they wanted, then the palestinians would most likely fight to the death and the Israeli goverment could use its military force to push them wherever Israel wanted.

Besides, have you ever wondered? There's all that open land in the Middle-East with NO one living on it, but the palestinians don't care about that. They want a tiny little strip of land, that has been inhabited by a people who have been oppressed for THOUSANDS of years and just recently came back to THEIR original homeland. The palastinians aren't even from that area, their descendants of arabs. Yes the palestinians have been treated wrongly. But is strapping a bomb on your child and throwing his life away for such a small piece of land really worth it when their is SO much more lying around?

Look, trying to please everybody will NOT work. I've said it over and over and over again. The stupidest thing in the world to do if we get attacked is to try to appease our attackers. If for any reason we change our foreign policy with Israel, it SHOULD NOT BE BECAUSE PEOPLE DISLIKE US. No matter what we do, that will always be the same.

[Gloer]

Oh?

Why do these slave escapees from Egypt want to get to the Palestine if they could go to any where in the empty land?

American mythology has one distortion: the idea that there is an unoccupied and empty land. There never is.

All inhabitable land is in use. It is another matter weather the culture using it is efficient. Indians had the whole continent in total use. Europeans came and didn't see it. They only saw that there is plenty of resources free in their terms.

This is an important distortion: the resources where not free for use automatically when they were not in use. Example: there is a 100 m long shooting range. The land is not in use but no one suggest building a football field between the target and the gunman. Then think that the shooter is a hunter and the football field is a farm. Farmer wants to control the field. Hunter doesn't want to control the land but only his weapon. But now suddenly he also needs to control the land because of the farmer!

[Rogue666666]

Your wrong. The Middl-East is huge. Even if there was no land available, which is ridiculuos, why do they have to go for the one TINY piece of land the Israeli's own, hmm?

[Ciryaher]

Oh, well, I think that there is a solution that could ameliorate the conflict between Palestinians and the Israeli state. I would fight for Israel, but I think that things could be made better with some honesty, compromise, and tact. Palestinians have as much right to be in their homelands as the Jews and Christians deserve to. It'd be great to come to a compromise where the Palestinians could get their fair share and the Israelis would accept it and enjoy the more peaceful outcome.

Also, rogue, "all that Middle-Eastern land" isn't arable for one thing, and for another, they would much rather be close to their holy sites and homeland than out in the sand.

[Rogue666666]

OK, thier ARE other sites in the Middle-East that would easily support the palastinians. Besides, the Israeli's owned that land several THOUSAND years before the palastinians got there. But I'm not in a position to judge WHO should own the land.

The point is, Israel has been trying to compromise for the last half-century. But the Palestinians on the other hand have said over and over again that they want the TOTAL destruction of Israel. Israel has slowly over the past 50 years given up piece by piece by piece of its land, but NEVER have the Palastinians conceded anything to the Israeli's except under force.

How can their be compromise if one of the nations isn't willing to give ANYTHING?

[HLGStrider]

Obviously Jerusalem is the Meca of the Jews... though I think Muslims have to go to Meca if they are serious about their religion, correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't think there is any such law in Judaism.

[Rogue666666]

If were going to get started about who owns the land, then let me point this out.

Mecca, or Jerusalem was a holy site for the Israeli people a thousand years before the word 'muslim' was invented. SO lets not even get started on that.

[reem]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
OK, IN my last post on the Palastinian situation, I wasn't JUDGING anyone, Reem. I was simply stating what the palestinians have already said themselves. "They will not stop until all Israel has been driven into the sea". I don't see how THAT statement leaves much room for compromise. But that doesn't mean I'm saying their bad. For all you know I may believe that the Palestinian cause is just. What I was saying is, if everyone let Israel and the palestinians do whatever they wanted, then the palestinians would most likely fight to the death and the Israeli goverment could use its military force to push them wherever Israel wanted.

Besides, have you ever wondered? There's all that open land in the Middle-East with NO one living on it, but the palestinians don't care about that. They want a tiny little strip of land, that has been inhabited by a people who have been oppressed for THOUSANDS of years and just recently came back to THEIR original homeland. The palastinians aren't even from that area, their descendants of arabs. Yes the palestinians have been treated wrongly. But is strapping a bomb on your child and throwing his life away for such a small piece of land really worth it when their is SO much more lying around?

Look, trying to please everybody will NOT work. I've said it over and over and over again. The stupidest thing in the world to do if we get attacked is to try to appease our attackers. If for any reason we change our foreign policy with Israel, it SHOULD NOT BE BECAUSE PEOPLE DISLIKE US. No matter what we do, that will always be the same.

:) you know what, you're not such a bad person after all:) sorry i got carried away over there, but you have to admit that your tone wasn't really friendly and it was really provoking:p
anyway, i know i said that that was the last entry for me, but i find that i can't pull myself away from the discussion at the moment.
first of all, who do youmean by israelis? jews? there are alot of palistian jews too, and christian also. palistians aren't really arabs either. that area along with syria and that surrounding area is basically made of a mixed culture and blood of Turks, Romans, and many more. remember the Crusades? well believe or ot alot of Europeans settled there and mixed with the local population. the real Arabs are those who live in the Gulf areas and are bedoins (a kind of nomadic people from which Arabs are decendant). even 'I' can't say that i'm a pure arab because i'm most likely not! maybe one or two of my ancestors are actual arabs, but the rest are a really misture. for what i kow right now, i'm a mixture of Turkinsh, Libanese, syrian, Morrocan and God knows what else! these are only the ones i know about!!
just beccause i speak the language and live in the defined area which is know to be currently arabic doesn't mean anything.
i have no problem with those who have been kicked out of their countries to return to their origional homes. but what's happening here isn't this. israel has put out a sign to the world that says "all jewish people around the world, this is you home!!"
now please tell me what a jewish Jamican has anything to do with palistine?? you can't say that that's where he belongs!! Palistine is a land for all, it is the Holy Land, as i believe the christains call it. doesn't it suck when such a holy place is litterally being ruined?
and i want to make one more point clear. we arabs (muslim or otherwise) never say 'jewish' when we talk about the israelis. we say 'sahyooniyeen', which means something like envader or something,not sure what. but we're not prosecuting the jews.
if there is any bad blood between the muslims and jews it because of the bad history we've had with them over the years. the jews have tried to get rid of our prophet over and over again, even when they made trieties with him and his people, they always broke their promise. that's the reason behind any dislike.
another thing, i think that enough palistians have left their home to make room for the israeli people. more than sixty percent of Jordans population (a country right on the borders of palistine) are origionally palistian. my father is origionally palistinian and none of us have ever seen it nor will ever see it, most probably.
why should the origional dwellers squat over for the new commers? and how much should we allow them to take?
i'm against the suicidal bombings, because i don't that the people going out to wacth a movie have anything to do with what the government is doing. but wheni see the misery the palistian people are living in, a deep sense of injustice and rage takes hold of me and i don't balme them...i really don't. well...untill i see some poor israeli woman crying over her husband or something. but the same is happening on both sides, but i assure you it's more on the palistinian side.
my! how lengthy my mails are!!
i think i'll shut up now and go bother someone else:p
anyway, rogue, let's not get too pissed off at each other! it's interesting to have an opposite side to argue with from time to time as long as it doesn't get persoanl or anything.
reem
reem

[Rogue666666]

Yes, i agree Reem. This is only a friendly discussion.

I guess when I say Israeli I mean the people if live in the land of Israel and call themselves Israeli's.

Now, the reason I think that Jews the world round have a clame to that place is because it was their homeland before the palstinians called themselves palestinians, or before the word Muslim or Islam was invented. The Jews fought for and won that land many thousands of years ago, and were driven out. Yes, they should have respect for the people who moved in over the LONG period that they were gone. But it's dificult to respect them if they won't respect YOU at all. The Israeli goverment has been trying to compromise for YEARS. Still, it seems like the Palestinians don't even want to think about it. They just want Israel out for good, and they will do anything to achieve that goal.

So, even if they both have equal right to the land, they still have to compromise. But compromise involves BOTH nations giving something, not one of them. :D

[Gloer]

When Joshua led the jews from the desert to the Promised land it was all ready inhabited and jews had to conquer the land from the locals.

Later the jews were subdued by philisteans that lived on Gaza strip. Philisteans came across the sea from greek archipelago.
But they gave the area the name Palestine.

Jews have no claim to the area of Plaestine because the other people were there first. The other people that mixed their culture and blood over the years have a continued claim and presence in the area.

[HLGStrider]

Actually the claim Rogue was referring to would go back before the Exodus to Abraham's time... but I think that would be impossible to substantiate...
The thing is it is done, and it would be awfully hard to undo it.

[Gloer]

Abraham had Ismael as the first born before Sara had Isaac.

Isamel was banished to desert and arabs say that they are descendandts of Ismael. This is just a story of course but also the fact that nation of israel was formed when one part of these semitic tribes decided to go to Egypt and then get back.

Jakob is the only single forefather that is not a forefather to other than Jews. Isaac had also Eesau.

Abraham is not a relevant claim, not even in theory. Jakob and Joshua's conquest must be the basis of jewish claim to the land if it is even needed or relevant.

[reem]

Originally posted by Rogue666666


Now, the reason I think that Jews the world round have a clame to that place is because it was their homeland before the palstinians called themselves palestinians, or before the word Muslim or Islam was invented. The Jews fought for and won that land many thousands of years ago, and were driven out. Yes, they should have respect for the people who moved in over the LONG period that they were gone. But it's dificult to respect them if they won't respect YOU at all. The Israeli goverment has been trying to compromise for YEARS. Still, it seems like the Palestinians don't even want to think about it. They just want Israel out for good, and they will do anything to achieve that goal.

So, even if they both have equal right to the land, they still have to compromise. But compromise involves BOTH nations giving something, not one of them. :D

well if you're going to talk about how the jews were there first, then the jews probably half of the earth! since they WERE the first religion, weren't they? then came christianity then islam. so in that case mulism really get nothing, do they? because then they would be just tresspassiong on christian and jewsich territory...but then again, jewdism and christianity are considered new commers when compared to pagan religions. isn't that also true? so in reality (if based on your previous statement) all countries and any strip of land that has ever been inhabited belongs to pagans!!
my whole point is that palistine and its inhabitants shouldn't be looked at as groups and sect of religions. they are people who've lived there long enough to call it home, whether they are muslims, jews, christians, budists, ....etc.
religion is not the issue here. but what's happening now is that the israelis (who are the new commers, if you will) want to 'claim back' palistine. ofcourse, they say that they just want part of it now...but after some time their territory will slowly increase as they 'just' take this piece, then that, a little here, some there...in the end there will be nothing left!! and it's already happened. they are taking more and more as the years pass. "well" you say, "they have a growing population, they have their needs too, don't they?!"
if they really are decendants of the origional jews who were driven out so long ago, then welcome back home, i suppose. but how can people all the way in the northpole belong origionally to palistine???
it's just not logical.
compromise should only be made if there is benefit for both sides, not one.
isreal with its infinite power and support doesn't need to make excuses, it's true. but it's better this way, let's make the palistinian (who've been living in that country for hundreds (if not thousands) of years look like monsters and we'll be the patient mistreated saints.
well, they won't have to wait for long till they get eerything. palistinains are sure to be extinct in a few years.
don't you just 'love' people? they're all so nice a caring.
reem

[Gloer]

Now i get really angry.


Religion has nothing...nothing...NOTHING to do with the question of who has the right to occupy certain area.

It is the jewish people as a nation that can have a claim, but not jews as members of a religious group.

Religion is an idea, thought, word. It is not people.

No religion has any connection with flesh and blood.

[Rogue666666]

OK, now words are getting twisted around. I never said their religion had ANYTHING to do with who should own the land. I simply pointed out that both the Israeli and the Palestinian people have holy places in that land.




ofcourse, they say that they just want part of it now...but after some time their territory will slowly increase as they 'just' take this piece, then that, a little here, some there...in the end there will be nothing left!! and it's already happened. the

Now Reem, here is were you got your facts REALLY messed up. This is exactly what Palestine is doing, not the Israeli people.

If you look at a map of what Israel claimed when it first got to the Middle-East and what it has now, is is VERY obvius that they have given up almost HALF of what they originally conquered.

Slowly Israel has given the Palestinians back peice after piece of land hoping that the Palestinians will be satisfied. Hoping that the palestinians will agree to stopping their attacks, hoping that they will agree to peace.

But no, the Palestinians aren't content with what they got. They want more. In fact, they have said that they want it all, and they won't stop attacking until ALL the Israeli people either leave, or die.

Thats why I keep saying, and the Israeli people are starting to realize it, that their is no compromise. The israeli goverment needs to make a hard stand against terrorist strikes, it needs to STOP giving up pieces of land, and it needs to persue a hardline policy until the palestinians realize that the Israeli people are NOT going to pack up and leave. Even if that takes a thousand years.

[HLGStrider]

Aren't we majorly off topic?
I suppose this is related... or was when we were discussing US support of Isreal as a cause, but now we are just discussing Isreal... Which isn't at all what we started talking about... or did I miss something?

[Rogue666666]

Someone wants said that some side paths are to important to avoid.

Or something like that. :D

[HLGStrider]

I wonder who said that... :rolleyes:

[reem]

well obviously if the palistinians were living there and then the israelis came and took everything then started giving back the people what was already theirs (as the case is, according to you) then there's not much to say about their kindness is there!!
but you are right, we really are off topic, and the first question (which i happened to have posted myself) was whether or not everyone thought it was a bit presumptious to go around yelling "we'll nuke you if you breathe!" to the rest of the world...this is said by the USA, i mean.
so any more comments on the israeli thing should be avoided and let's get back to the main idea of this thread.
reem
ps
i say this because we will keep going on and on and on and on till someone get's so fed up with us and decides to block us off the site or something!

[HLGStrider]

this is said by the USA

Countries can't speak. They are landmasses or governments... so you have to either be stating that this is the general consensus or the political temperment... or whatever... but I think we already discussed that, didn't we? What else is there left to cover on it?

[reem]

...:rolleyes: ok ok, so countries can't speak if you're talking about the georaphical landmass, obviously. but the people make the country, including the government. so when i say the US said something i mean the majority of the people plus the government.
and it's true, there is only so much that you can say about one subject, but i'm not the one who's been telling everyone to back to the origional subject. i'm just supporting the person who did.
i also did that because i think that this discussion about israel and palistine is getting a bit stale, even though there are many (and believe me when i say 'many') things that i would like to say concerning it. but i really do think that we all made our ideas clear to each other. there are those who support either side for their own reasons (and most of the reasons are probably good, as much as i don't like admitting it) but what more can we say?
we can argue and agrue (or discuss, if you preffer the word) but it all falls under the catergory of aproving or disaproving.
so i think we should just start a new non-israeli/palistian related topic and get on with our lives.
is this a satisfactory answer?
reem

[HLGStrider]

No problem...

but I don't think you can clump America or even the government together like that.

Bush has stated that if nuked we will not be afraid to nuke back. You can read this statement as a threat, a warning, or bluster, whatever you want. You could also read it as a bluff.

There are a few people who are in favor of extreme actions.

There are a few people who are in favor of no action.

There are a few in favor of mild action.

And if you look in the government, you will find it divided as well, sometimes along party lines, sometimes other wise.

We have two parties, if you remember. The democrats don't want into this right now and some republicans are skeptical. That's the party line division. If you go senator by senator or representitive by representive, you will find hawks and doves or whatever you want to call them on both sides.

And the court basically doesn't have an opinion on this subject as a body because war is not in the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch.

So there you have the three branches. I wouldn't say you could say the whole of America is planning to nuke.

[reem]

yes indeed, and to nuke when nuked is a very fair deal if you ask me...if anyone was left to nuke back. but how do you explain the iraqi problem then? do they really have weapons of mass distruction? ithink that if they do have anything it's either too old to work or too small to make any real damage. so why put the innocent iraqi people as well as all the neighbouring counrties and those that are economically linked with the iraqi economy in such a miserable state?
my own country is extremely dependant on the iraqi oil, and if this war takes place, i can tell you that a lot of people won't be able to feed themselves, let alone their children. the who economy will fall to peices just from one basic factor, and that's oil.
so why ruin everyone else's life (as well as the american soldiers being sent to fight the war) if there is no evidence of real threat or danger?
i'd be more concerned with N.Korea. they have the real stuff...but it would be suicidal for them to use it.
and one more thing. why is it alright for the US to own weapons of mass distruction while the rest of the world goes without??
surely if America expect countries to disarm, or to be more precise, not to 'arm' in the first place, then isn't it only fair that it should do the same?
or is being 'the only' super power it's only interest the the hell with the rest of the world?
reem

[HLGStrider]

Last I looked America wasn't the only country with nukes, and we haven't been lecturing France into getting rid of its bomb or missiles... I know France has them, but off the top of my head I don't want to start naming countries that do, because I would probably add some that don't... I saw a list once, but I can't remember the names on it, besides France for some reason.

The issue is the treaty that Hussaine signed to get rid of them when the Gulf War ended. Traditionally when you lose a war you sign a bunch of treaties and disarm. Japan did at the end of WWII, and maybe Germany. Then after you've kept the agreement for a certain amount of years the treaty normally lets you back in.

Also Hussaine has a reputation for using such things, mostly on his own people (Chemical, not nuclear)...

The question of whether he has them or not is the big matter. Bush sincerely beleives he does. We know he had them at one point, and he has not offered proof that he got rid of them....

[Ciryaher]

Notes on the World's Nuclear Arsenal (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6610)

Refer to that to see who has nukes and so on.

[HLGStrider]

Thanks... though I don't think it is really important.... not in this conversation... just a side point.

[reem]

well, the question is, will the US go to war even if thereis no evidence of wepons of mass distruction?
that is the question. or is it? suddenly i forgot what this whole thread is about... oh never mind.
reem

[HLGStrider]

It wasn't the exact question, but it might be a relevetn side track
though we could truly only speculate.

[reem]

well no need for speculation now is there. war is inevitable. ho hum, thus life goes i suppose.
i think i'll go make a sandwich now.
reem

[HLGStrider]

Chicken or tunafish?

I hope that isn't spam...

[reem]

chicken with mustartd. toat bread without the sides.
but you ain't getting any if you don't agree with me!
:p
reem

[HLGStrider]

don't like mustard...
and don't like sandwitches that have to be airmailed before I can get ahold of them.

[Rangerdave]

Hello all, I just wanted to poin a few things out while I'm here.

Originally posted by TheFool
hmm which is bigger - the US oil industry or the US defence industry?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but they are one and the same. Hence the term Military-Industrial Complex.
----------------
Originally posted by Ciryaher
Yes, Hussien is a very horrible man...so why didn't we get him in the Persian Gulf War? Simple...it's because we were more concerned with securing our oil supplies than in removing a tyrant.
Acctually thats not the reason. The reason that we did not "go all the way" and replace Hussein is that the Operation was fought according to a mutually agreed upon UN mandate that had the following aims Secure the borders of Kuwait and return political control to the recognized lawful government Secure the borders of Saudi Arabia Defend the economic interests of foriegn industry (That includes BP and other Non US companies)

The reason that we did not replace Hussein is that we were not sent there to do that in the first place.
----------------

Originally posted by HLGStrider
I still think we are forbidden by international treaty to engage in assassinations. It was in an explanation on why we didn't just kill our good friend in the Gulf War. They said something about that we weren't allowed to (but it might've been just a social taboo instead of a law...

In 1976, President Ford enacted Executive Order 11905 provided, in part, that "no employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

Later President Regan issued Executive Order that statesProhibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
Indirect Participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.

President Bush has not yet retracted either Executive Order, but he may.

---------------

Thanks for letting me vent
RD

[Rogue666666]

HEY. I've been out of town so I wasn't able to follow the discussion.


Ok, so were trying to get back on topic are we?


Well, Reem, you seem to believe that the majority of americans run around saying,

we'll nuke you if you breathe!"

Uh huh. Exactly how you know that the majority of Americans go around saying that, I'm not sure. But the point is, your wrong.

You see, over the past 50 years many European nations have developed the idea that America is full of war mongers out to conquer the world.

This " Idea" was caused becuase the United States had chosen a much stronger policy against things such as "terrorism" and ditators than Europe has. Even before world war 2 most of europe simply refused to believe that Hitler would invade Poland.

WRONG. That is a perfect of example of waiting WAY to long to act. Days before the war Nevil Chamberlain had signed a treaty with Germany.

I believe in caution, but their is such a thing as bieng TOO cuatious.

We know that Saddam is very close to building nuclear weapons, if he already hasn't done so. In fact, American intelligence is sure that he would already have them if it wasn't for an Israeli strike cuasing MAJOR damage to one of his nuclear facilities.

The question now is, how long do we wait? Do we wait for Saddam to strike? Do we wait for the inspectors to find someting concrete?

You see, no one ever had PROOF that Hitler was going to invade Poland, but many believed that he was going too anyway. The worlds leaders of the time chose to ignore it, and suffered drastic consequences becuase of this.

So, maybe Europe hasn't learned from its mistakes. But I believe taht it is always better too strike to early, then too late.

[HLGStrider]

Thanks for verifying that for me, RD. I was afraid I'd just made it up out of my little head...

[Gloer]

Without him the britons would hae made the peace Hitler was offering.

In Munich Chaberlaine had offered Hitler a chance to get a victory and prehaps justified retribution for versailles and maintain peace.

The Britain had the moral upper hand. They certainly had done everything to avoid war. And the betrayal the humiliation and injustice that Hitler dared to inflict finally destroyed his chances of winning.

For there he cleared the path for his strongest avenger. For Winston Churchill there was a unified audience that wanted to fight. There was no question about wheater the choice was justified. Merely weather it was wise or not.

Understand this: Chamberlaine was the Christ figure that made Hitler the evil man of the story. If he had threathened with war and aggression, then who would have been the "evil man"?

[HLGStrider]

I personally think it would take more than not starting the war to make Hitler the good guy. What he was doing in his own country was awful. That was, of course, not why Britian was fighting him, but it would be hard to use the phrase good guy with him on anything...

sheesh, he couldn't even draw... :rolleyes:

[reem]

ha!! welcome back Rogue!! i was wondering why things were getting really quiet around here!
well, i suppose i'm making the same mistake everyone else keeps making...which is judging by what they hear and see or read.
and i do agree that saddam must be stopped before he DOES have nucliar weapns...but the cost, in my point of view, is just too high. and i really doebt that the UN report on iraq really has any importance to the US. if it came out positive then it would be a good excuse to start war.
then thing that i keep wondering about is the US's intentions. is it really just for safety measure??
reem

[HLGStrider]

If you want to analyze what else we have to gain, go ahead. I'm not sure what we would gain. I can see very much what we could lose. If we "take over" Iraq we will probably be spending billions of dollars there. Even if we pull out soon afterwards we are going to give them a lot of aid (I have heard it spoken of, but I can't say for sure how much). That's going to cost us. I doubt it will get us much more oil (which seems to be a big deal with a lot of people). As you have mentioned it will seriously disrupt trade with Iraq for everybody, which is probably going to increase the cost of foreign oil in this country.
I think Bush believes that Hussien is the ultimate bag guy. I know he mentioned him as a threat during his campaigns.

[Rogue666666]

Yes. Maybe now your coming around to the point. A war to take over Iraq would not only be so ridiculuosly expensive, but possibly costly in lives. We WOULD lose billions rebuilding Iraq, that alone should point out to everyone that we aren't in it for the money. Building ten pipe lines to Alaska would be cheaper.

WE ARE DOING IT TO SAVE LIVES. Americans have this strange concept that human life is more valuable then cash. :rolleyes:

Yes, it would be expensive to wage war on Iraq, but don't you think thats better than having one or more of our cities, including MILLIONS of people bieng blown into radioactive dust? The losses from ONE such attack would exceed all the casualties from the Gulf war and possibly a war to come.

America has and always will value human life as the single most important rescource. Not Oil.

[reem]

is it though? it seems to me (and many others besides) that the US specialises in using other people to do their dorty handi-work for them then they get all the goodies. so i think that the human life that the US really cares about is their own...say it's not so!! with proof please!!
reem

[Rogue666666]

NO! FIRST, YOU PROVE TO ME THAT YOUR STATEMENTS ABOUT THE US ARE TRUE, AND THEN I WILL THINK ABOUT RESPONDING TO YOUR RIDICULUOS QUOTE, it seems to me (and many others besides) that the US specialises in using other people to do their dorty handi-work for them then they get all the goodies.


GOD! Stop accusing the U.S of **** that YOU can't even point out, and that you have been told by others who ALSO have no proof.

Then maybe when you realize that the United States saves more lives than most other nations combined you'll get the idea that we all aren't just a bunch of dirty scum bags out to conquer the world. WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Deal with it. :mad:

I've tried formulating arguments to convince you of our motives. But every time I win a point you just revert back to were you started. " The U.S is evil and wants to rule the world!!!!"

Blah blah blah. Try something more convincing next time.

[reem]

alrighty then. remember Cuba? remember Castro? remember the group of anit-castro's the US supplied with weapons to get rid of him (though they failed to do that)? remember the weapons they gave to Afghanistan against the Russians? those are juat a couple.
i think that the US discouvered how much easier and cost-effective it would be to send others to their handi-work after the Vietnam incident where they got their butt kicked.
reem

[HLGStrider]

The Bay of Pigs was of course a fiasco which we shouldn't have gotten into in the first place...
Though Kenedy isn't my favorite president...

I think you should give us the name of your country as well and we should start to list bad things your country has done... or any other country. Every country makes mistakes. Every country has had bad leaders.

[Rogue666666]

Reem is from Holland, I believe.

If you would look at the Tony Blair thread ( I think) you will see a long list that I dragged out against Holland. Of course other dutch people have made excuses.

[Rogue666666]

Sorry, I cut off in my last post. I was disconnected without warning.

Strider pointed out something that I have been screaming ( at least in other threads); that EVERY country has its mistakes. France HELPED Saddam build his nuclear facilities, now that he turned them to building weapons, they don't have the guts to move in and do something about it.

It seems that the international community, including many on this forum have taken it into their skulls that its THEIR responsibility to point out the horrible evils of America and the fact that we plan on taking over the world.

Tell me, if we were planning to take over the world do you really think that after WW2 we would have rebuilt most of Europe and japan, and then restore them to freedom at our own expense? Why shoudn't we just have taken over as the Soviets did?

America has saved more lives than any one is willing to admit. In countless countries we have removed dictatorships that tortured and killed innocent families. Why do we do this? Because no one else will.

Besides, if we wanted to take over the world, who would stop us? France and germany won't even involve themselves in this. Do you think they would declare war if say, we decided to invade Brazil? NO. Once we finish this Star Wars program, and if all goes according to plan, we could concievebly declare nuclear war on the world and be impervoius to retaliation. And of course, France or germany would never have the guts, nor the stupidity to invade our country.

The fact is, this planet depends heavily on our economy, if it fails, then many others will along with us. No one likes the fact that we are so powerfull. Were no omnipotent, but we are unchallenged.
There is only one piece of advice I an give you.

Get over it.

[Lantalasse]

ok you can get down from your little god-blessed american cloud and stop being so arrogant you bring shame to other americans

powerful. you use that word as if you know what it means. as if you think that money and "influence" is everything.
that just proves how low your views are.
i have absolutely nothing against americans. most of them are nice people. they just don't realise how corrupt their governments are and how your country is ruled by companies and ultimately, money...

but hey you're entitled to your views. just don't try and portray us as having an inferiority complex.
we don't.

[Rogue666666]

I knew it.

Most people, bieng the idiots that they are will just complain about how arrogant and wrong my comments are.


HEY, WHY DONT YOU TRY PROVING I'M WRONG WITH FACTS. INSTEAD OF JUST COMPLAINING, WHICH IS ALL YOUVE DONE AND IS WHAT I EXPECTED.




p.s. Who are you reffering to as we?

[Lantalasse]

first of all don't call me an idiot.
secondly i was only responding to the "get over it" piece of "advise" you gave.
i'm not complaining. i don't need to use facts. why you are arrogant is self-explanatory in your posts.
i have some questions:
CAN YOU SEE BEYOND YOUR OWN COUNRTY?
CAN YOU REALISE THAT NATIONALITY IS A STUPID IDEA?
CAN YOU OVERCOME YOUR DIFFERENSES WITH OTHER PEOPLE WITHOUT THE USE OF WAR?


the "we" is everyone you refer to as having to "get over" the fact that you are oh so powerful.


"i am a citizen of the world"- Socrates

[Lantalasse]

oh and something else

you did not rebuild Europe after WWII
and you have not always tried to "free" people from regimes
the truth is you actually imposed and supported regimes in some countries(e.g. Greece 1968)

[HLGStrider]

Um, Lant, you're historically wrong. We shiped much aide to Germany after WWII. In fact, our pilots were heros for awhile. It was all quickly forgotten...

However, it wasn't it Japan.

I know a woman from college who speaks Japanese and has frequently traveled to Japan. She expected us to be hated over there due to how we ended that war with a terrible, and maybe unneccessary, explosion. It wasn't so.

Mostly the Japanese she spoke to on the subject told of how good Americans were to them after the war, how they'd expected awful treatment and instead received good treatment.

You're not historically correct though most history tends to look at the bad rather than the good. You will have a hard time finding one hero of yesteryear, from Abraham Lincoln to any religious figure, who has not had books defaming him/her written about him/her. It's sad really.

I tend to look on the bright side.

I normally tend to see people apart from countries, though I believe America is based on things that few countries are. I see America more as those set of ideals which is why I am proud to be an American. I believe my government has in many ways strayed from those ideals, and I will use my vote to get it back to them. I believe that there are a lot of people who hate us, and I don't really care why. Hate hurts the hater, so it is their problem.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
We shiped much aide to Germany after WWII. In fact, our pilots were heros for awhile. It was all quickly forgotten...


It is true, that the Marshall-plan helped Europe (not West-Germany only) after WWII and the Germans don´t forget the Berlin-Lift.

But is there a connection between these humanic actions of the USA and the Iraq politis of the current US-administration?

Interdict the Marshall-plan and the Berlin-Lift different opinions in military actions?

Like I said in another thread, I don´t agree with Schröder´s Iraq-politics, but these questions are universal.

[Lantalasse]

You're not historically correct though most history tends to look at the bad rather than the good. You will have a hard time finding one hero of yesteryear, from Abraham Lincoln to any religious figure, who has not had books defaming him/her written about him/her. It's sad really.

I tend to look on the bright side.

I normally tend to see people apart from countries, though I believe America is based on things that few countries are. I see America more as those set of ideals which is why I am proud to be an American. I believe my government has in many ways strayed from those ideals, and I will use my vote to get it back to them. I believe that there are a lot of people who hate us, and I don't really care why. Hate hurts the hater, so it is their problem. [/B][/QUOTE]


yeah sorry i got a bit carried away.
the thing is that i tend to see people apart from countries too. and i do believe that America was based on a set of ideals that is extraodinary. i just don't think that they exist like that anymore.
and i was just annoyed at Rogue's posts. i have been following them in various threads and he talks a lot of american humanism and how america saves lives and how other people have to get over the fact that America is so powerful etc etc...
and i couldn't agree with you more when you say history tends to look on the dark side of things. but it is also true that history sometimes is written by the "winners" and that inluences things a lot.
you must understand that i am not trying to slander american people. my views are quite idealistic, much like the ones america was based on in a way, and i just feel that america should be a symbol of how we can all co-exist wherever we come from, but, can you actually see that in today's america?

[Rogue666666]

Your new here.

If you had followed my posts PAST those of recent history then you will notice that I normally don't go and blow up. Becuase I know that all it will do is tick people off. But I've said over and over how tired I am of everyone accusing the US of bieng Satan.

SO, Lantalasse, you have only so far disagreed with TWO of the things I've said. I'll assume that the rest of my points are valid and you agree with them. :rolleyes:

First, You said something about why can't we find a different solution to war. I don't know how old you are, but for the last 12 years we have been working on a solution for war. The thing is, Saddam doesnt care, and were not going to wait for him to strike.

I pointed all this out in my arrogant post.

The second was we have supported regimes.

Would you please name ANY nation besides switzerland that HASN'T supported some regime? Then I will happily research a regime that has been supported by the country you name.

Prove my 'arrogant' comments wrong, if you can't,

To bad. :D

[Rogue666666]

O, one more thing.

YES, there is a connections between our humane treatment of germany and Japan. For all those out there who have accused the United States of America of wanteng to take over the world.


If our goverment ever had designs on global domination, then restoring Germany and Japan to freedom would NOT have been on our agenda. And if you think the American people would elect someone who has plans for global rule, ( i.e. Bush ).

Well, you're wrong.
:eek:

[HLGStrider]

I personally see Bush's intentions as what he states them to be. He truly believes that Hussien is a threat to our nation in the world. He believes that Hussien will try to blow us up, blow up Isreal, and take over anything he can.

The question in war is whether or not he can do this or not... or if he will...

There is also a question on whether attacking someone to stop them from attacking first is ethical. Some people say no. Some say yes. Some are in between. I'm personally riding the fence on the issue.

Yes, I believe Hussien is a threat.
Yes, I believe Bush means well.
Yes, I'm afraid of what might result from a war.
Yes, I'm on the fence.

So I think if the army believes he is a threat, the probably know more than I do.

I also believe that America is a lot less far gone than the rest of the world from the ideals stated, and I bet if we discussed where it has gone wrong we would differ incredibly.

We still have basic free speech.
We still have basic economic freedoms (though we are getting more restrictive, this is one place we've gone astray a lot.)

For instance, I believe that America being in the UN is unconstitutional.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
O, one more thing.

YES, there is a connections between our humane treatment of germany and Japan. For all those out there who have accused the United States of America of wanteng to take over the world.


If our goverment ever had designs on global domination, then restoring Germany and Japan to freedom would NOT have been on our agenda. And if you think the American people would elect someone who has plans for global rule, ( i.e. Bush ).

Well, you're wrong.
:eek:

I agree with you that the USA doesn´t want to take over the whole world.

HLGStrider draw a different connection, which I can´t agree, because it is not "right", that Europe and especially Germany has to "agree" with the politics of the US-administration in every way.

If the Europeans agree with the politics of the US-adminstration, it should be because they are persuaded and not because of thankfulness.

AGAIN I DON`T AGREE WITH THE APPROACH OF SCHRÖDER´S ADMINSTRATION!

[Eriol]

I've always been reluctant to post here since it has become a touchy subject... but I will offer you a view from a peripheral country who is not directly related to the coming conflict. (Aren't we all indirectly related to it?).

First of all, I love the ideas behind America. It was a fantastic experiment in human history, made possible by a series of unforeseen circumstances. And it was quite successful too, especially in the 19th century America was one of the most fast-growing (and I am not talking solely about economy, I'm talking about culture and influence as well) countries in the world, if not THE most fast-growing. Freedom and democracy (they are not the same) joined to greate a beacon for mankind. And America was a beacon until the Cold War, when she achieved dominance. If you see 'Lawrence of Arabia' (or if you read about the period), you'll see that the Arab peoples -- they had no countries then -- looked up to America as an ideal. They had no illusions about American governments, but the admired the ideals and the American people. Americans were (and I believe they still are, but on this point I am not sure) the greatest contributors of private charity -- not official foreign aid -- in the world. America took mankind several steps forward, and we must be grateful for it (I am reminded of Treebeard talking about the Elves, how Ents and Elves followed different paths but they would always be grateful for the gift of speech). But then one question arises: Who should we thank? Who was responsible for America's success? The Founding Fathers, probably, and the "series of unforeseen circumstances" such as the distance from Europe, the fierce free spirit of the Americans, and such. We should definitely NOT include american governments, since they (at best) were neutral in the success, and at worst they actively harmed it.

Unfortunately for America and for the world, the Freedom Ideal was hijacked by people who could only be described as imperialistic. It started at the very beginning, Hamilton displayed this tendency quite clearly in the Federalist Papers. Of course he thought American Empire would be the greatest and best Empire in history, and most American imperialists truly believe that they can help other people by extending (forcibly as opposed to voluntarily) America's influence. But then again this thought was behind any Empire, from Rome to Britain. The 'civilization' ideal, the idea that it is a duty to rule the less enlightened peoples for their own good. Nowadays the image of America in the world is mixed, some people remember the ideals and the merit in America, but many are annoyed by American meddling in other people's affairs.

I deliberately left out the economic argument as well as the 'greed' argument (such as "Bush only wants oil, he's from the oil industry") for two reasons: (1) I'm not sure about their truth and (2) they would be quite irrelevant beside the larger parallel trends of defending Freedom and expanding Empire that characterize American history. One individual may be greedy, or America may need oil, but even in the absence of these complicating notions the opposition between Freedom and Empire that is found in American political thought would still exist.

P.S. I am opposed to the war, but then I am opposed to any war for ethical/religious reasons. And even if the U.S. would think to invade Brazil, as Rogue suggested :) , I would still be opposed to war -- even defensive war.

[Rogue666666]

Well, I wish to thank Eriol, as he is one of a rare breed who can state his views clearly without just lashing the opposition.

Though that doesn't mean I exactly agree with him.

Who was responsible for America's success? The Founding Fathers, probably, and the "series of unforeseen circumstances" such as the distance from Europe, the fierce free spirit of the Americans, and such. We should definitely NOT include american governments, since they (at best) were neutral in the success, and at worst they actively harmed it.

Unfortunately, you fail to see that without Goverment, is anarchy.

Of course, our goverment may not be perfect, but it has led us to become a superpower in a world were there are few superpowers. Yes, we may have had to sacrifice some of our freedoms to attain such a government, but it is no less then what any other nation would have done. Without our current system of goverment we wouldn't be anywhere. It is one of the most adaptable systems of goverment in the world, and has lasted through trials that have crushed other nations. I don't agree with everything it decides to do, but I understand that I enjoy more freedom here then I could anywhere else on the planet.

Also, do you believe that the Federalist papers still dictate our foreign policy? No, they don't. We woudn't have given up the Panama canal, Puerto Rico, or the Phillipines, or Japan, or Germany. If we wished to follow an aggresive imperialistic policy, then why waste time debating and arguing? We could luanch a full scale invasion of South America if we really wanted to, and the European powers I gurantee would do nothing, except complain, to stop us. We don't for the same reason we lost Vietnam. BECUASE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA WERE AGAINST IT. You see, the people and the goverment are one. Our goverment is US. Thats why in Vietnam we had such a hard time. Becuase for the first time in war the people, which are the goverment, were devided. If you believe that the Goverment is imperialistic, then so are the people.

In the end, if I were to concede the point ( WHICH I DO NOT ), then what could anyone do about it? How would you stop us?

This is what I pointed out in my former post ( the long nationalistic one ). There would be only one thing you could do. Get over it.



:p ;)

[Eriol]

Well, I wish to thank Eriol, as he is one of a rare breed who can state his views clearly without just lashing the opposition.

You're welcome :)

There would be only one thing you could do. Get over it.


But I was never under it :D . I see the subject of this thread as being America's role in the world. I think about it from a non-nationalistic point of view... I think about America the culture, America the people, and much less about America the government. And to say they are one and the same is... well, short-sighted. At least, Rogue, when you mention Vietnam you agree that they are not necessarily the same, that they can be in practice (and therefore in theory) different. When we compare America the government with other countries, I agree with you, most if not all other governments would behave exactly like (if not worse than) the American government. Too bad. When I mentioned the Federalist Papers and imperialism I was just pointing out that this is not a recent trend in American thought, in American culture. And of course this means that some well intentioned Americans (you seem to be one of them), being raised in American culture (which is hardly surprising), think that the world is a better place with American dominance, and even with American rule. They think that Empire is better than Freedom, or a condition for Freedom (but then where was the Empire when America was just another country?). Well, this world may be a better place than a world with Iraqi dominance (certainly) or even Brazilian dominance :D (not so certainly, hehe), but I think it is not a better place than a world without any dominance. And if you think that's impossible, that's the way the world is, you are possibly right...

But it does not mean that the world is better for being this way.

[HLGStrider]

Personally I would see America an economic super power, because I believe that a healthy economic system is a good thing, but I don't want more land. I think that is in general a bad idea. My brother totally disagrees with me. He thinks we should've kept Japan and half of Europe for ourselves...

However, I do see this somewhat as self-defense. I will accept it, almost, as self-defense.

[Rogue666666]

Well, I guess we can end this discussion. I have way to many threads to follow anyways. Unless someone whants to add something?

[Rogue666666]

P.S. I was hardly raised in an american culture. I have lived MOST of my life in Europe, and am currently living in Taiwan. Do not mistake me for some American teenager raised in suburbian America with more knowledge about the local mall then about world affairs.

[Eriol]

P.S. I was hardly raised in an american culture. I have lived MOST of my life in Europe, and am currently living in Taiwan. Do not mistake me for some American teenager raised in suburbian America with more knowledge about the local mall then about world affairs.

I never did ;) . Actually I believe that the people you mentioned ("American teenagers raised in suburban America...") are less resolute in defense of American foreign policy, since they are mostly ignorant of it, than more well informed people (such as you). Sure, they ("teenagers") defend it, since they are raised in a patriotic country and watch the news. But they rarely have well reasoned arguments, it is an emotional defense.

Good for you that you have lived in these places. :)

[HLGStrider]

You know, until you mentioned your grade in the homeschool thread I'd assumed you were at least thirty, Rogue. So don't give up.

GUESS MY AGE!!!

It isn't really a secret.

[Rogue666666]

I have no idea. 25? 30?

Lol, after all the posts you've made, I still can't guess your age. :)

[HLGStrider]

Off by seven years on one and 12 in the other.

he he

I'm 18. I thought everyone knew that! Where have you been? ;)