yeah, holy crap... da fux... one statement at a time, and wait for a chance to reveal your next one? EDIT: it's like bush's presidency: mostly red, with tiny hints of white and blue...

yeah, holy crap... da fux... one statement at a time, and wait for a chance to reveal your next one?

EDIT: it's like bush's presidency: mostly red, with tiny hints of white and blue...

HTML tags are ignored. Write you BBCode and close it properly.

HTML tags are ignored.

Write you BBCode and close it properly.

Rofl uhhh what that would've been fun to read if it was understandble :(.

Rofl uhhh what that would've been fun to read if it was understandble .

[B][COLOR=#81A7EF]Thats a response to all three pages of posts both Republican and Democratically biased. I'll fix the tags if you want.[/COLOR][/B]

[B][COLOR=#81A7EF][QUOTE]yeah, holy crap... da fux... one statement at a time, and wait for a chance to reveal your next one? EDIT: it's like bush's presidency: mostly red, with tiny hints of white and blue... [/QUOTE] Hah that made me laugh. Well I explained the role of the CinC on page 3.[/COLOR][/B]

[quote=GuN_Solar90]I don't care how much the dollar is worth so I'm gonna skip that.[/quote]You're right, the fact that the US dollar is worth significantly less in comparison to foreign countries than in previous years holds absolutely no relevance for the prospective future of your country. :/ [quote=GuN_Solar90]Why did you mention that it was a desert country? Does that affect anything? This paragraph is laughable. Exact vengeance? You took that right out of Seinfeld. The other Terror Cells are weak and unorganized. They don't present much of a threat, yet.[/quote]You assume that my use of two words in a common phrase was taken from an American TV program? I don't watch American television so I cannot pretend to know what you're talking about. However, I fail to see how m choosing the words "exact vengeance" as opposed to "inspired to attack" has any significance in regards to this argument anyways. You are attacking the writing style of the post, not the arguments presented. In fact, you decided to dismiss a crucial element of your countrymens' distaste for the current president which happens to have a profound impact on how your country will be able to operate as an independent nation in contrast to other growing nations. What you may potentially know and base your beliefs off of in regard to the subject has not been shown in the quoted statement or your entire post. You say my post is laughable and use that as an excuse to avoid debating what I presented. I could just say "lol u like bush ur an idiot anything you say is worthless," but that would be illogically arrogant and biased. It would be better for your point of view in this debate if you actually brought up valid discussion points and contested those you disagree with with some sort of evidential support. [quote=GuN_Solar90]I agree with your second paragraph. We should be laying siege to Iran by now. North Korea shouldn't be playing fucking games either but they still persist to build WMDs and get attention.[/quote]:( Why should you invade a country which is developing its own weapons programs forty years behind those of your country? As far as nations are concerned, North Korea presents the biggest threat as it actually the potential to develop nuclear weapons and launch them overseas. Obviously, North Korea wouldn't launch an attack because it would be obliterated. The biggest problem is the possibility for nuclear weapons to be sold to independent groups but there has thus far been o evidence of such possible transactions yielding anything; any exchange of the sort would lead right back to the nation which produced the weapon and would result in the US obliterating it under the guise of American nationalism and routing out terrorism. You can't realistically justify saying "OMFG that country may have nuclear weapons programs we should blow it up." It's the independent organizations trying to get the weapons that these countries may potentially be struggling to develop. Al Qaida does not and never did represent Afghanistan as a country. The Taliban never represented Afghanistan as a country. The Taliban had control over the country but you can't use that as a global excuse to wipe out a nation just as you can't say that because Bush is in power as the president all Americans must be Republicans supporting the destruction of any developing country working toward creating nuclear or biological weaponry. Now, do you realistically see Iran or North Korea sending a missile across the Pacific without it being shot down and instigating a crusade of nations against the country which attempted an attack? Why do you think Al Qaida hijacked planes instead of using WMDs? There's no bloody way they could have pulled off an attack with such weaponry even if they were available to them, I don't see this as cause to brand certain countries as evil and mark them for obliteration. ~Ayra

Quote from GuN_Solar90

I don't care how much the dollar is worth so I'm gonna skip that.

You're right, the fact that the US dollar is worth significantly less in comparison to foreign countries than in previous years holds absolutely no relevance for the prospective future of your country. :/

Quote from GuN_Solar90

Why did you mention that it was a desert country? Does that affect anything? This paragraph is laughable. Exact vengeance? You took that right out of Seinfeld. The other Terror Cells are weak and unorganized. They don't present much of a threat, yet.

You assume that my use of two words in a common phrase was taken from an American TV program? I don't watch American television so I cannot pretend to know what you're talking about. However, I fail to see how m choosing the words "exact vengeance" as opposed to "inspired to attack" has any significance in regards to this argument anyways. You are attacking the writing style of the post, not the arguments presented. In fact, you decided to dismiss a crucial element of your countrymens' distaste for the current president which happens to have a profound impact on how your country will be able to operate as an independent nation in contrast to other growing nations. What you may potentially know and base your beliefs off of in regard to the subject has not been shown in the quoted statement or your entire post. You say my post is laughable and use that as an excuse to avoid debating what I presented. I could just say "lol u like bush ur an idiot anything you say is worthless," but that would be illogically arrogant and biased. It would be better for your point of view in this debate if you actually brought up valid discussion points and contested those you disagree with with some sort of evidential support.

Quote from GuN_Solar90

I agree with your second paragraph. We should be laying siege to Iran by now. North Korea shouldn't be playing fucking games either but they still persist to build WMDs and get attention.

Why should you invade a country which is developing its own weapons programs forty years behind those of your country? As far as nations are concerned, North Korea presents the biggest threat as it actually the potential to develop nuclear weapons and launch them overseas. Obviously, North Korea wouldn't launch an attack because it would be obliterated. The biggest problem is the possibility for nuclear weapons to be sold to independent groups but there has thus far been o evidence of such possible transactions yielding anything; any exchange of the sort would lead right back to the nation which produced the weapon and would result in the US obliterating it under the guise of American nationalism and routing out terrorism. You can't realistically justify saying "OMFG that country may have nuclear weapons programs we should blow it up." It's the independent organizations trying to get the weapons that these countries may potentially be struggling to develop. Al Qaida does not and never did represent Afghanistan as a country. The Taliban never represented Afghanistan as a country. The Taliban had control over the country but you can't use that as a global excuse to wipe out a nation just as you can't say that because Bush is in power as the president all Americans must be Republicans supporting the destruction of any developing country working toward creating nuclear or biological weaponry. Now, do you realistically see Iran or North Korea sending a missile across the Pacific without it being shot down and instigating a crusade of nations against the country which attempted an attack? Why do you think Al Qaida hijacked planes instead of using WMDs? There's no bloody way they could have pulled off an attack with such weaponry even if they were available to them, I don't see this as cause to brand certain countries as evil and mark them for obliteration.

~Ayra

Well, I think we can conclude that the OP is as about as dogmatic and nationalist as they come. When I'm less tired I might argue my case further but it's already clear that I would be wasting my time.

Well, I think we can conclude that the OP is as about as dogmatic and nationalist as they come.

When I'm less tired I might argue my case further but it's already clear that I would be wasting my time.

north korea agreed to display and dismantle ALL nuclear projects, try and be relevant kthx.

north korea agreed to display and dismantle ALL nuclear projects, try and be relevant kthx.

Bush is one of the greatest? Some people are just trying too hard to get a middle ground.

Bush is one of the greatest? Some people are just trying too hard to get a middle ground.

[B][quote=CaptainWill]Well, I think we can conclude that the OP is as about as dogmatic and nationalist as they come. When I'm less tired I might argue my case further but it's already clear that I would be wasting my time.[/quote] [COLOR=#81A7EF]Dogmatic and nationalist nothing. This country is tearing itself apart because of false liberal ideals and hesitation in operations. I often wish to pursue my dream of creating the Independent States of America. But I digress. I am not a raving conservative, in fact I'm in between Republican and neutralist. [/COLOR] [COLOR=#CE091D]Ayra I will comment tomorrow. Thanks![/COLOR][/B]

[QUOTE=OMGunzS0l4r] What are you talking about of course its him. 1. I addressed the WMD issue above. 2. A democratic will work when they learn to stop bitching and make peace. If this is not possible then those extremists will be terminated immidiately. Democracy will work. I can you're just a regular Bush-hater because you address him as Bush & Co. 3. Saddam didn't quietly oppress his country. He executed them at will. He used gas to obliterate some cities. The United States considers chemical weaponry as a WMD. Launching WMDs at your own country for no good reason is not 'quiet.' He needed to be shut down.[/QUOTE] I don't know what you mean by your first sentence, so I'll wait for you to clarify that. 1. From what I gather, you admitted that there were no WMDs and that we failed to find any. He had SCUDs in the first Gulf War, but they were all gone by 2003. The WMD argument is still invalid and the government either trusted bad intelligence or tried to mislead the republic and the people to go to war. 2. I don't even know where to begin with answering this statement. You have no understanding of the situation, the history of Iraq, or the history of Islam. You can't just tell people from rival religious factions to 'stop bitching and make peace.' The hatred between Sunni and Shia goes back over a thousand years. This wouldn't be so bad for Iraq if it was culturally homogeneous, but it isn't. There is a majority Shia population, with a large Sunni minority and a smaller Kurdish minority. Saddam managed to keep these factions from shooting and bombing the crap out of each other by ruling in an authoritarian way. Democracy cannot simply be imposed on a country with inadequate and compromised security forces, and one cannot expect the government of Iraq to be neutral in the Sunni/Shia violence, given that the Shia majority will mean that a Shia party will get elected. Very few people in Iraq even see the democracy as legitimate - surely it is undemocratic to force a democracy on a people without a vote? 3. When I said 'quietly,' I meant he did it without harming anyone other than his own people. I don't see how it was the business of the US to overthrow Saddam's government when he posed no threat to US interests. The US certainly doesn't make a habit of bringing 'freedom' to authoritarian countries. Why haven't they done anything about North Korea then? Or indeed any of the other similar countries? You're speaking like an authoritarian nutcase yourself.

Quote from OMGunzS0l4r

What are you talking about of course its him.

1. I addressed the WMD issue above.
2. A democratic will work when they learn to stop bitching and make peace. If this is not possible then those extremists will be terminated immidiately. Democracy will work. I can you're just a regular Bush-hater because you address him as Bush & Co.
3. Saddam didn't quietly oppress his country. He executed them at will. He used gas to obliterate some cities. The United States considers chemical weaponry as a WMD. Launching WMDs at your own country for no good reason is not 'quiet.' He needed to be shut down.

I don't know what you mean by your first sentence, so I'll wait for you to clarify that.

1. From what I gather, you admitted that there were no WMDs and that we failed to find any. He had SCUDs in the first Gulf War, but they were all gone by 2003. The WMD argument is still invalid and the government either trusted bad intelligence or tried to mislead the republic and the people to go to war.

2. I don't even know where to begin with answering this statement. You have no understanding of the situation, the history of Iraq, or the history of Islam. You can't just tell people from rival religious factions to 'stop bitching and make peace.' The hatred between Sunni and Shia goes back over a thousand years. This wouldn't be so bad for Iraq if it was culturally homogeneous, but it isn't. There is a majority Shia population, with a large Sunni minority and a smaller Kurdish minority. Saddam managed to keep these factions from shooting and bombing the crap out of each other by ruling in an authoritarian way. Democracy cannot simply be imposed on a country with inadequate and compromised security forces, and one cannot expect the government of Iraq to be neutral in the Sunni/Shia violence, given that the Shia majority will mean that a Shia party will get elected. Very few people in Iraq even see the democracy as legitimate - surely it is undemocratic to force a democracy on a people without a vote?

3. When I said 'quietly,' I meant he did it without harming anyone other than his own people. I don't see how it was the business of the US to overthrow Saddam's government when he posed no threat to US interests. The US certainly doesn't make a habit of bringing 'freedom' to authoritarian countries. Why haven't they done anything about North Korea then? Or indeed any of the other similar countries? You're speaking like an authoritarian nutcase yourself.

Heh, you can't totally blame all of that on Bush. While the president can deploy the military for a limited period of time, approval from Congress is required for any extended time period, which means that Congress approved as well.

Heh, you can't totally blame all of that on Bush. While the president can deploy the military for a limited period of time, approval from Congress is required for any extended time period, which means that Congress approved as well.

Only the executive branch of the US government can propose a federal policy, such as a declaration of war. It is one of the weaknesses of the US government system, and is open to corruption. But it's besides the point - Congress (and most people in the US and UK) thought that the war was justified at the time because of poor intelligence which was made to look a lot more veritable than it actually was. Whether the executive had a hand in this 'sexing up' of the intelligence is a key issue.

Only the executive branch of the US government can propose a federal policy, such as a declaration of war. It is one of the weaknesses of the US government system, and is open to corruption. But it's besides the point - Congress (and most people in the US and UK) thought that the war was justified at the time because of poor intelligence which was made to look a lot more veritable than it actually was. Whether the executive had a hand in this 'sexing up' of the intelligence is a key issue.

CaptainWill wins... the topic initially got a lot smarter when Falkoner left it with his baseless statements (which he always gives), but then gunsolar got back into the picture and made the most unreadable post of all time, along with several ridiculous comments afterwards. There were some other people with good arguements, but as of these last pages, Will is the one making the most sense... I won't even argue my own points because arguing with you guys is too often an utter waste of time.

CaptainWill wins... the topic initially got a lot smarter when Falkoner left it with his baseless statements (which he always gives), but then gunsolar got back into the picture and made the most unreadable post of all time, along with several ridiculous comments afterwards. There were some other people with good arguements, but as of these last pages, Will is the one making the most sense... I won't even argue my own points because arguing with you guys is too often an utter waste of time.

Thanks. I particularly took offence to GunSolar's 'Fuck you. Racism is history.' comment, but I haven't decided to address it until now. Basically, if he thinks racism is 'history' then he is quite frankly a fool. Racism exists everywhere in the world. In the US it still exists in a [I]de facto[/I] way if not in law.

Thanks. I particularly took offence to GunSolar's 'Fuck you. Racism is history.' comment, but I haven't decided to address it until now.

Basically, if he thinks racism is 'history' then he is quite frankly a fool. Racism exists everywhere in the world. In the US it still exists in a de facto way if not in law.

[QUOTE]CaptainWill wins... the topic initially got a lot smarter when Falkoner left it with his baseless statements (which he always gives), but then gunsolar got back into the picture and made the most unreadable post of all time, along with several ridiculous comments afterwards. There were some other people with good arguements, but as of these last pages, Will is the one making the most sense... I won't even argue my own points because arguing with you guys is too often an utter waste of time.[/QUOTE] You're flaming everyone. If you have something to attack their argument, then say it. On no terms should you call anyone stupid or ridiculous.

Quote

CaptainWill wins... the topic initially got a lot smarter when Falkoner left it with his baseless statements (which he always gives), but then gunsolar got back into the picture and made the most unreadable post of all time, along with several ridiculous comments afterwards. There were some other people with good arguements, but as of these last pages, Will is the one making the most sense... I won't even argue my own points because arguing with you guys is too often an utter waste of time.

You're flaming everyone. If you have something to attack their argument, then say it. On no terms should you call anyone stupid or ridiculous.

[QUOTE]in fact I'm in between Republican and neutralist. [/QUOTE] And Pat Robertson's a Democrat! How many politicians do you think simply agreed to support the conflict in Iraq to keep their polls up at the time? Bush told us we should be bloodthirsty, and at that time people believed most of what he said (unfortunately). The politicians should be kicked out (or simply not re-elected) for their weak wills and unwillingness to stand up for the ideals that this country was founded on. Instead of batting one way or another because of their beliefs, I think at least a good portion of them just wanted to stay in office.

Quote

in fact I'm in between Republican and neutralist.

And Pat Robertson's a Democrat!

How many politicians do you think simply agreed to support the conflict in Iraq to keep their polls up at the time? Bush told us we should be bloodthirsty, and at that time people believed most of what he said (unfortunately). The politicians should be kicked out (or simply not re-elected) for their weak wills and unwillingness to stand up for the ideals that this country was founded on. Instead of batting one way or another because of their beliefs, I think at least a good portion of them just wanted to stay in office.

How many politicians do you think changed there minds about the war to keep their polls up?

How many politicians do you think changed there minds about the war to keep their polls up?

Probably most of those that changed their stance.

Probably most of those that changed their stance.

Surely that would show that they (in addition to lacking integrity) were simply following public opinion?

Surely that would show that they (in addition to lacking integrity) were simply following public opinion?