149 replies to this topic

[Pook]

I don't care if anyone hates me for saying this...

but, if you americans yet again get attacked by terrorists who try and give you a freaking message about your leader (WHO YOU AGAIN ELECTED), don't bitch and complain. YOu brought this on yourself. Death to me.

[joeymartin64]

Um. The "message" had nothing to do with the leader. There was terrorism before Bush.

[Koroks Rock]

(responding to DO0's comment)

money can take people far from where raw talent can.
and i disagree on a more direct level too, i have an uncle who's a yale grad and he's dumb as a rock. good at engineering but i wouldn't put him in charge of a toddler for ten seconds, much less a nation for four years.

[Oberon Storm]

So in this case MBA does NOT translate to ability to lead a nation.

[davogones]

At least political satirists will have some good material for the next four years.

*cries*

[Alastair]

It is easy to think that before Bush was elected the rest of the world loved America and now hates it, but also completely wrong. There has been mistrust of America for the past fifty years because of the repeated atempts to impose American beliefs on other nations. The difference under Bush is that even nations that largely share America's ideals, like Britain and other European nations, are terrified of what he might do next.

Bush seems entirely content to ignore the opinions of every other nation on the planet if they are in conflict with what he believes is best for America. This should not be an issue except that his policies are increasing the risk to all western nations.

[Hero of Winds]

Omitting September 11th's direct effect on America, compare the nation before Bush and now.

I used to be proud to be an American. But now, not only is our country led by a cowboy who can't pronounce nuclear, is trying to turn USA into some sort of Christian nation, took us senselessly into a war with "terrorism" and in Iraq, but 90% of the world now HATES OUR GUTS. We used to be the nation that everybody said "hey, America's cool. I wish we could be like them." Now, we're "those damn americans again. who do they think they are?"

The only thing I can think of Bush accomplishing is the capture of Saddam. And I don't even know if that was worth it.

America will only get worse the longer Bush is in office.

Wow, Flint. I never realized that your opinion was the end all, be all solution to this thing.

By omitting 9/11's effect on America, you're pulling a Moore because 9/11 is the major reason for the economic trouble and the War on Terrorism (regardless of how you feel about the war).

Second paragraph: He can pronounce nuclear; he isn't turning America into a Christian nation, just upholding morality in the moral issues (God forbid); the War on Terrorism isn't a senseless thing, unless you would prefer somebody running a plane into your hourse; the world already hated American prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. 9/11 was a special case -- the world isn't just going to spit on us after we got attacked. Common sense.

Pook: 9/11 and terrorist attacks against America have nothing to do with Bush or whoever the president is. Honestly...

[DarkJuno]

HE'S FROM TEXAS. NO ONE TALKS RIGHT DOWN HERE o_o

-smacks upside the head-

I resent that remark! This state's accents are different, but they vary very much like any other state - from crazed drunken hick deep in the east to clear, plain tone elsewhere. Sure, we all, myself included, stick a "ya'll" in every so often, but dammit, I'm sick of these damn generalizations.

Besides, Bush was born in New England - New Hampshire, I think. Though yeah, he may as well have been from here.

Anyway...back to your arguing people.

-slips out of Contro-

[Oberon Storm]

Wow, Flint. I never realized that your opinion was the end all, be all solution to this thing.

By omitting 9/11's effect on America, you're pulling a Moore because 9/11 is the major reason for the economic trouble and the War on Terrorism (regardless of how you feel about the war).

Second paragraph: He can pronounce nuclear; he isn't turning America into a Christian nation, just upholding morality in the moral issues (God forbid); the War on Terrorism isn't a senseless thing, unless you would prefer somebody running a plane into your hourse; the world already hated American prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. 9/11 was a special case -- the world isn't just going to spit on us after we got attacked. Common sense.

The effects of 9-11 were made worse by too large tax cuts.

He is trying to legislate religion when he supports a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in order to protect a non-existing sanctity. Just another way of turning America into something it isn't.

For a long time Bush told the merican people that a war on terror could be won. He came back almost 3 years later and finally says it can't be. Fighting a war that cannot be won is never wise.

Yes they (the world) hated us before 9-11, but immediatly afterwards they were behind us.

[Alakhriveion]

OK, I have to side with the Bushophiles on this one, it's not all his fault, his administrations fault, or our fault. It's fate. We haven't gone more than 19 years without a World War since 1900. Did you think the 90's were different? We lit the fuse with Iraq, and soon, it'll reach the bomb (Europe). If we hadn't done this, we'd just have invaded China or something instead. Nothing can change the fact the international politics has been... touchy since Alexander. "We must decide what to do with the time we are given."

[Hero of Winds]

The effects of 9-11 were made worse by too large tax cuts.

He is trying to legislate religion when he supports a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in order to protect a non-existing sanctity. Just another way of turning America into something it isn't.

For a long time Bush told the merican people that a war on terror could be won. He came back almost 3 years later and finally says it can't be. Fighting a war that cannot be won is never wise.

Yes they (the world) hated us before 9-11, but immediatly afterwards they were behind us.

1) God forbid the man try to help out the American citizen, and relieve him/her of monetary stress.

2) Banning gay marriage isn't just a religious thing, it's also a cultural thing. Protecting the sanctity of marriage isn't just something he does because of his religion, but because that's the way things are done. Conservatives conserve. Plus, if gay marriage is legal, where do you draw the line? Because then it's equally justified for people to marry animals, or objects.

3) A War on Terrorism can't be completely won, because you can never wipe out the idea. The point of the war is to dismantle terrorist networks, capture/kill those who are terrorists or support them, and to reduce the number of people who want to revert to terrorism. You can't kill an idea, but you can make it less and less popular, so people won't use it. At least not as many people.

4) It's not like the whole world's against us, you know. Britain is a major ally in the war. Something interesting I found out was that this coalition has twice as many allies as we did in the Korean War. And Bush just said today, we have over 90 nations giving aid to us.

[Alakhriveion]

Plus, if gay marriage is legal, where do you draw the line? Because then it's equally justified for people to marry animals, or objects.

Can you justefy this? Are you saying that the breakdown of Christain principles is the breakdown of logic, or that homosexuals are inhuman? There's really no connection there.

3) A War on Terrorism can't be completely won, because you can never wipe out the idea. The point of the war is to dismantle terrorist networks, capture/kill those who are terrorists or support them, and to reduce the number of people who want to revert to terrorism. You can't kill an idea, but you can make it less and less popular, so people won't use it. At least not as many people.

This has never worked, and even if it did, what the hell are we doing in Iraq?

4) It's not like the whole world's against us, you know. Britain is a major ally in the war. Something interesting I found out was that this coalition has twice as many allies as we did in the Korean War. And Bush just said today, we have over 90 nations giving aid to us.

Military, industrial allies. We have what, three?

1) God forbid the man try to help out the American citizen, and relieve him/her of monetary stress.

Equitable redistribution of wealth?

[Selena]

1) God forbid the man try to help out the American citizen, and relieve him/her of monetary stress.

I won't touch this one, because I know virtually nothing about economics.

2) Banning gay marriage isn't just a religious thing, it's also a cultural thing. Protecting the sanctity of marriage isn't just something he does because of his religion, but because that's the way things are done. Conservatives conserve. Plus, if gay marriage is legal, where do you draw the line? Because then it's equally justified for people to marry animals, or objects.

Heh, almost everyone who's against gay marriage seems to make that argument. I'd have to say it should be a marriage between two concenting adults. 'Marriage' being in these terms, civil unions, since that's what really matters in terms of the government recognizing a marriage. The religious ceremonies can continue as they are, as I see no reason to force churches to conduct gay marriage (that, in itself, would be wrong if the religion is against it). Kitty or your favorite blow up doll can't exactly say "I do" or sign the papers.... as horrible a thought as that may seem.

But as cultural thing, as you so say, the idea of homosexuality is gradually becoming more and more accepted by society. So I would think it may be inevitable in the future for gay marriage to happen as it becomes a part of our culture.

3) A War on Terrorism can't be completely won, because you can never wipe out the idea. The point of the war is to dismantle terrorist networks, capture/kill those who are terrorists or support them, and to reduce the number of people who want to revert to terrorism. You can't kill an idea, but you can make it less and less popular, so people won't use it. At least not as many people.

With something like being conducted as it is... well, I can understand the hope to destroy the terrorist networks across the globe... but I can't help but think from a tactical view that it's only going to make things worse, or not change them at all. If you picture an invading force moving into America, regardless of their goals, you're probably going to be prone to fight back. Now, yes, I'm sure many Iraqis accepted this as liberation... but I'm certain it pissed off quite a few more. If a country starts going around as America has been, I could understand that from the point of view of a citizen of the Middle East you may want to fight back to get them to leave you be and stop flaunting power. There's plenty of anti-American sentiment in the world, and all it takes is some trigger to turn that sentiment to violence.

No to mention that if it keeps going on for too long even after Iraq is dealt with and we move onto something like North Korea or another country in the Middle East, we'll run out of manpower and money.

4) It's not like the whole world's against us, you know. Britain is a major ally in the war. Something interesting I found out was that this coalition has twice as many allies as we did in the Korean War. And Bush just said today, we have over 90 nations giving aid to us.

Foreign relations... hm. From what I've come to understand, the coalition is mainly composed of smaller nations and Britain. The fact that we have Britain on our side shouldn't be too much of a shock. In terms of aid.... what kind of aid? I'm not seeing anyone outside of Britain sending in any kind of manpower, which is what we really need the most. Although donations of money and supplies are nice... America can afford them. But human lives can't be randomly generated and sent off to fight.

True, the whole world isn't against us... but it'd be wise to try and patch up relations with those countries that aren't seeing eye to eye. While I highly doubt all of those nations who are against us are going to come to arms and smack us around for a while due to the fact that we're... a nice trading partner to have, you never know who's going to act out on their own.









Well... blarg. x.o

[Khallos]

4) It's not like the whole world's against us, you know. Britain is a major ally in the war. Something interesting I found out was that this coalition has twice as many allies as we did in the Korean War. And Bush just said today, we have over 90 nations giving aid to us.

Got to admit, Britain isn't exactly in support of America. Or should I say: The British people in general don't like George Bush that much. I'm sure if many British soldiers had the option to disobey orders, and still get paid, many wouldn't have gone to the Middle East. In my opinion, however much our smiling Prime Minister Blair, helps and sucks up to America, the British public aren't going to support Bush fully for some time.

At least political satirists will have some good material for the next four years.

*cries*.

This is the only thing about this I am looking foward to about the re-election.

[Kwicky Koala]

More people in Britain wanted Nader as president than Bush.

[thabto81]

1) God forbid the man try to help out the American citizen, and relieve him/her of monetary stress.

Let's just take a step back and think about this. Bush has said he wants to relieve us of taxes as much as possible. But what is it that taxes pay for exactly? Well, they pay for our roads. They pay for public education. Police and Firefighters. They pay to keep public parks clean and in order. The tax relief Bush wants to give us is nice, but it takes money out of these programs that keep our towns and cities safe. Unless, that is, you have some plan to pay for it yourself.

2) Banning gay marriage isn't just a religious thing, it's also a cultural thing. Protecting the sanctity of marriage isn't just something he does because of his religion, but because that's the way things are done. Conservatives conserve. Plus, if gay marriage is legal, where do you draw the line? Because then it's equally justified for people to marry animals, or objects.

Are you serious? First, according to your argument, defining marriage as being between a man and woman would then allow and protect brothers and sisters in getting married. Afterall, they are "man" and "woman" right? Second, I am highly offended by your reference to people marrying dogs and cats. Are you suggesting that two homsexuals getting married is nothing more than the act of animals? I should hope not.

Coming back down to earth for a moment, the whole idea that protecting the sanctity of marriage by keeping it between a man and a woman is totally absurd. Marriage has never been about protecting relationships between men and women, but in protecting the sanctity of love. That's what marriage is, a loving bond. If you don't believe me think of the vows one takes when getting married. "I _____, take you ______, to be my lawfully wedded wife/husband. To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish 'till death do us part." Now before you make the silly and childish remark that it says in there wife/husband think of this: wife and husband are titles. Nothing more. What matters is the relationship between the two people. So really when you say you want to protect the sanctity of marriage you should be more interested in outlawing divorces seeing as the US has one of the highest divorce rates in the world. I mean, what could more worse than destroying a bond made of love?

I guess it all comes down to is a simple question: Would you want the government telling you who you can and can't marry? Because by restricting marriage to "man" and "woman" you lay the ground work that would allow the government to restrict it even more, say between African Americans and Caucasians or Christians and Jews. And, despite what you might think HoW, gay marriage is not a cultural thing. Only religion, in particular Christianity, is specifically against homosexuality.

3) A War on Terrorism can't be completely won, because you can never wipe out the idea. The point of the war is to dismantle terrorist networks, capture/kill those who are terrorists or support them, and to reduce the number of people who want to revert to terrorism. You can't kill an idea, but you can make it less and less popular, so people won't use it. At least not as many people.

Finally, something that we can agree on. To end terrorism we must not only kill the terrorists who plan to attack us, but remove all reasons to cause terror in the first place. True, we will never eliminate terrorism entirely (if I recall Kerry said the same thing not long after the debates); but if we can remove all financial support of terrorist networks as well as providing humanitarian aid to countries that tend to be a hot bed for terrorists we'd plan to stand a pretty good shot. Unfortunately, this administration has only been willing to focus on the first part, killing the terrorists. I hate to say it, but we elected a president who's more interested in immediate results rather than the long term effects.

4) It's not like the whole world's against us, you know. Britain is a major ally in the war. Something interesting I found out was that this coalition has twice as many allies as we did in the Korean War. And Bush just said today, we have over 90 nations giving aid to us.

Correction: Britain's government is with us. The people are a different story. It might also interest you to know that both Poland and Hungary have plans to leave the war after the elections in January.

[NightStar]

But as cultural thing, as you so say, the idea of homosexuality is gradually becoming more and more accepted by society. So I would think it may be inevitable in the future for gay marriage to happen as it becomes a part of our culture.

Actually a recent poll that was conducted on this particular issue shows that over 60 percent of Americans are against the concept of gay marriage at this time. It might be unavoidable in the end, but I do not see it being ok'd any time soon.

Unfortunately our culture is becoming very accepting. There are things that should remain the way they are. Marriage is a sacred thing. I don't think it's right to compare homosexuals to animals or innanimate objects, by the way. They are people too with feelings, but why not settle for a civil union? In my personal opinion, I think it's the benifits that come with marriage and that little piece of paper that is making this such a big deal...

And with that said, I will take my leave from this topic...I find no point in staying, and really just hate going into debates with people.

[Flint]

You cannot wage war on terrorism because it is an idea and it will never be gone. He thinks he can go in, capture some criminals, and rid the world of terrorism. This is IMPOSSIBLE because terrorism will always exist, and NOT JUST in the middle east, but I think somebody already covered this.

Bush wants to ban gay marriage in order to "protect the sancity of marriage." That doesn't make any sense. If two same-sex people get married, that isn't going to mean a SINGLE thing to straight weddings. Hell, its just like the drive-thru weddings in Vegas. You are allowed to get married in a DRIVE-THRU. Isn't that just as "bad" as letting a gay couple marry?

We shouldn't even be in Iraq. This is how things should have went:

1. September 11th attacks
2. America attacks Afghanistan and hunts down and captures or kills Osama Bin Laden.
3. America comes back home, puts away the weapons, and minds its own damn business until something else happens.

[GraniteJJ]

Are you serious? First, according to your argument, defining marriage as being between a man and woman would then allow and protect brothers and sisters in getting married. Afterall, they are "man" and "woman" right? Second, I am highly offended by your reference to people marrying dogs and cats. Are you suggesting that two homsexuals getting married is nothing more than the act of animals? I should hope not.

Coming back down to earth for a moment, the whole idea that protecting the sanctity of marriage by keeping it between a man and a woman is totally absurd. Marriage has never been about protecting relationships between men and women, but in protecting the sanctity of love. That's what marriage is, a loving bond. If you don't believe me think of the vows one takes when getting married. "I _____, take you ______, to be my lawfully wedded wife/husband. To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish 'till death do us part." Now before you make the silly and childish remark that it says in there wife/husband think of this: wife and husband are titles. Nothing more. What matters is the relationship between the two people. So really when you say you want to protect the sanctity of marriage you should be more interested in outlawing divorces seeing as the US has one of the highest divorce rates in the world. I mean, what could more worse than destroying a bond made of love?

I guess it all comes down to is a simple question: Would you want the government telling you who you can and can't marry? Because by restricting marriage to "man" and "woman" you lay the ground work that would allow the government to restrict it even more, say between African Americans and Caucasians or Christians and Jews. And, despite what you might think HoW, gay marriage is not a cultural thing. Only religion, in particular Christianity, is specifically against homosexuality.

Thank you thabto. Excellent point. I think you deserve a cash prize for that.

[Flint]

I second that.

[SteveT]

A response to a few of thabto's points:

Let's just take a step back and think about this. Bush has said he wants to relieve us of taxes as much as possible. But what is it that taxes pay for exactly? Well, they pay for our roads. They pay for public education. Police and Firefighters. They pay to keep public parks clean and in order. The tax relief Bush wants to give us is nice, but it takes money out of these programs that keep our towns and cities safe. Unless, that is, you have some plan to pay for it yourself.

Taxes pay for things you want and more. Privatizing things mean you only pay for things you want. The quality of roads would be proportional to the number of people who want to drive. Certain things are responsibilities of the government. These include police, firefighters, public education, and a few others. There is nothing wrong with wanting taxes to support these. Fiscal conservatives prefer to leave it at that. Obviously a state with no taxation at all will have some problems.

For services you actually want, you'd pay just as much. You just lose the convenience of thinking things like roads and parks are free.

I hate to say it, but we elected a president who's more interested in immediate results rather than the long term effects.

You just described every serious politician ever. Politicians in the country only have any foresight up to 4 or 6 years, depending on the office. This is why environmental issues are constantly ignored and we aren't doing anything about the depletion of oil. If they can't see effects before the election, career politicians see no point in starting policies.

Correction: Britain's government is with us. The people are a different story. It might also interest you to know that both Poland and Hungary have plans to leave the war after the elections in January.

Ok, so...over 88 countries supporting us.

A question for both thabto and Hero? How is it the government's duty to protect the sanctity of marraige? Marraige is a moral issue. It's political equivalent is the civil union. I propose make civil unions fully legal, and marriage fully moral. This ways gays and atheists can have civil unions and get their tax breaks and visitation rights. Religious people get the civil union plus the sanctity of marraige and spiritual union.

P.S. I liked how Thabto countered the slipper slope fallacy with the slippery slope fallacy and you all want to pay him for it.

[GraniteJJ]

How was his arguement a "slippery slope fallacy"?

[SteveT]

This part:

I guess it all comes down to is a simple question: Would you want the government telling you who you can and can't marry? Because by restricting marriage to "man" and "woman" you lay the ground work that would allow the government to restrict it even more, say between African Americans and Caucasians or Christians and Jews. And, despite what you might think HoW, gay marriage is not a cultural thing. Only religion, in particular Christianity, is specifically against homosexuality.

The slippery slope fallacy, of course is: If you let A happen, the B and C, which are arguably worse that A will happen too.

[Hero of Winds]

Jeezum. Oh well, so much to reply to. I think I'll just post rebuttals to Selena and thabto. And maybe Granite's smartass comment about a cash prize.

Heh, almost everyone who's against gay marriage seems to make that argument. I'd have to say it should be a marriage between two concenting adults. 'Marriage' being in these terms, civil unions, since that's what really matters in terms of the government recognizing a marriage. The religious ceremonies can continue as they are, as I see no reason to force churches to conduct gay marriage (that, in itself, would be wrong if the religion is against it). Kitty or your favorite blow up doll can't exactly say "I do" or sign the papers.... as horrible a thought as that may seem.

But as cultural thing, as you so say, the idea of homosexuality is gradually becoming more and more accepted by society. So I would think it may be inevitable in the future for gay marriage to happen as it becomes a part of our culture.  

I'm not going to pretend that my religion doesn't affect my opposition to gay marriage, because it does. So, I'll say it before and I'll say it again: I am in favor of gay civil unions, just not gay marriage.

No to mention that if it keeps going on for too long even after Iraq is dealt with and we move onto something like North Korea or another country in the Middle East, we'll run out of manpower and money.  

Which is what all our allies in this war are for. If America does this alone, not only will we have a hard enough time getting into countries and doing what we need to do, but we'll be exhausting an economy that really can't take an exhaustion.

Foreign relations... hm. From what I've come to understand, the coalition is mainly composed of smaller nations and Britain. The fact that we have Britain on our side shouldn't be too much of a shock. In terms of aid.... what kind of aid? I'm not seeing anyone outside of Britain sending in any kind of manpower, which is what we really need the most. Although donations of money and supplies are nice... America can afford them. But human lives can't be randomly generated and sent off to fight

Mostly monetary aid, like you said. But America can't afford it, considering your above comment (and my reply) that America doesn't have the money to do this alone.

Well... blarg. x.o

Blarg indeed.

Are you serious? First, according to your argument, defining marriage as being between a man and woman would then allow and protect brothers and sisters in getting married. Afterall, they are "man" and "woman" right? Second, I am highly offended by your reference to people marrying dogs and cats. Are you suggesting that two homsexuals getting married is nothing more than the act of animals? I should hope not.

I am most certainly not calling homosexuals animals. I'm just saying where do you draw the line? How do you do it?

Coming back down to earth for a moment, the whole idea that protecting the sanctity of marriage by keeping it between a man and a woman is totally absurd. Marriage has never been about protecting relationships between men and women, but in protecting the sanctity of love. That's what marriage is, a loving bond. If you don't believe me think of the vows one takes when getting married. "I _____, take you ______, to be my lawfully wedded wife/husband. To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish 'till death do us part." Now before you make the silly and childish remark that it says in there wife/husband think of this: wife and husband are titles. Nothing more. What matters is the relationship between the two people. So really when you say you want to protect the sanctity of marriage you should be more interested in outlawing divorces seeing as the US has one of the highest divorce rates in the world. I mean, what could more worse than destroying a bond made of love?

To respond to your last sentence, I'll tell you why divorce isn't entirely bad. Divorced people break up because they realize they don't love each other, at least not as much as they used to. If two people don't love each other, why should they retain a bond of love? To save face? Then it's a sham, and you continue to pervert the sanctity of marriage (five bucks says at least someone interprets this as me calling gay marriage perverted).

I have no problem with gay people getting civil unions (i.e. government marriages), but I hold firm my belief that gay marriage should be illegal, to protect the sanctity of marriage (like in a church).

Finally, something that we can agree on. To end terrorism we must not only kill the terrorists who plan to attack us, but remove all reasons to cause terror in the first place. True, we will never eliminate terrorism entirely (if I recall Kerry said the same thing not long after the debates); but if we can remove all financial support of terrorist networks as well as providing humanitarian aid to countries that tend to be a hot bed for terrorists we'd plan to stand a pretty good shot. Unfortunately, this administration has only been willing to focus on the first part, killing the terrorists. I hate to say it, but we elected a president who's more interested in immediate results rather than the long term effects.

The whole point about the war in Iraq has been about long term effects. If Bush was so interested in immediate results, Iraq wouldn't be a warzone right now. But as you stated, we agree on the terrorism thing. Except for one part: the Bush administration has focused on more than just killing terrorists -- we've been preventing attacks (supposedly) and freezing terrorist funds, to cut off their monetary supply.

Correction: Britain's government is with us. The people are a different story. It might also interest you to know that both Poland and Hungary have plans to leave the war after the elections in January.

But as Dryth has used against me so many times, peoples and nations are represnted, naturally, by their governments.

[Flint]

I am most certainly not calling homosexuals animals. I'm just saying where do you draw the line? How do you do it?

Common sense dictates that humans and animals can't hold a civil union.
Also, animals can't say "I do."

[Ditto McCloaker]

Oh, where to begin. Incidentally, congratulations on making most conservatives want to leave this forum shortly after arriving. I thought I'd beaten this barrier, but still have I more work to do. Blasted confrontation-hating conservatives.

The effects of 9-11 were made worse by too large tax cuts.

Aaand we start off wrong. Of course, we're debating 'what WOULD have worked' and thus hypotheticals, but one reasonably argues that tax cuts stimulated the economy (which it did) by encouraging investment (which it did), putting more money into the system and letting people have more of their own tax money (which it did). You can debate whether or not we'd have slipped further into recession without them (I aruge that we would have), but historically, these have been the cures for recessions, like it or not.

There is this perception that economies are fixed via very esoteric, complicated pushings and pullings of political levers; a hat trick requiring a great Machiavellian political mastermind who understands the fineries of These Kinds of Things. Hundreds of carefully calculated, hair-thin movements that the adroit use to put things Back On Track. In reality, it's really just common sensical allowing of business to take it's course.

I'm not going to get into the gay marriage debate. I, personally, have nothing against it, but I don't think low of Bush for trying it, considering how many Americans feel the same way. In fact, compared to the activist judges who try to force agendas from the bench, Bush is actually more defensible. Do you realize what a Constitutional Amendment reaquires? It's got to pass Congress, it's got to pass the Supreme Court, and it would be a major issue among the electorate. An Amendment must pass the ultimate test of Republican Democracy. Certain People automatically assume that by dint of their Enlightment, that anything they are Justified in being the Arbiters of Morality. In reality, they're only be Justified in being Boiled In Oil.

This has never worked,

On the contrary, it's how it's done. Remember Nazism?

what the hell are we doing in Iraq?

Capturing/killing terrorists. Dismantling a system that aided and produced terrorists and installing a system based on opportunity and freedom. You'll argue we're not, but I'm going to ignore that, because I'm being nice to you in light of your ideology being proven to be so far out of the American mainstream that you are practically alone.

Equitable redistribution of wealth?

Really helped the Soviets, the Cubans, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Africans, the Serbians, the South Americans, not that you're going to listen the umpteenth time, because that's not how Things Are Supposed To Be.

I won't touch this one, because I know virtually nothing about economics.

(is polite) You are wise to admit this.

With something like being conducted as it is... well, I can understand the hope to destroy the terrorist networks across the globe... but I can't help but think from a tactical view that it's only going to make things worse, or not change them at all. If you picture an invading force moving into America, regardless of their goals, you're probably going to be prone to fight back. Now, yes, I'm sure many Iraqis accepted this as liberation... but I'm certain it pissed off quite a few more. If a country starts going around as America has been, I could understand that from the point of view of a citizen of the Middle East you may want to fight back to get them to leave you be and stop flaunting power. There's plenty of anti-American sentiment in the world, and all it takes is some trigger to turn that sentiment to violence.

Taking that to it's logical conclusion, terrorism is a hydra that can never be confronted. In fact, most violence, therefore, is. Any movements made against it always strengthen it. There's no upper limit to it's boundaries or it's numbers, and it never becomes less appealing as more and more die. In essense, you've created a phenomenon that is absolutely invincible, and against which no force on Earth, no matter how large, can ever hope to stand. Not only is that unfathomable, history does not bear it out, as I explain below:

Not to mention that if it keeps going on for too long even after Iraq is dealt with and we move onto something like North Korea or another country in the Middle East, we'll run out of manpower and money.

I don't recall this being a concern with the Nazis, the Japanese, or the Italians. But I forget, they're the Last Evil People To Ever Require Fighting.

There's this new ideology that's come out, again branded as "Compassionate" that essentially runs that all war is futile and does far more harm than good, and it's taken on the mantle of being the Righteous Conviction of Enlightened Intellectuals. Perhaps in Europe, which is sad, but not, I'm glad to say, in America.

I'm sorry, but it's not born out by history. Imperialistic wars, whose on purpose is to take something that is somebody else's, or out of sheer cruelty, are stupid. But a war to stop said people is not. In fact, it's exactly the proper course, and while many claim to believe this, they really require something terribly extreme to warrant it. The popular thought (among liberals, really, when you get right down to it), is that war is the worst thing in the world. Most of us, however, disagree. The worst thing in the world is the apathy that no amount of human degredation or brutality is worth fighting against.

Finally, something that we can agree on. To end terrorism we must not only kill the terrorists who plan to attack us, but remove all reasons to cause terror in the first place. True, we will never eliminate terrorism entirely (if I recall Kerry said the same thing not long after the debates); but if we can remove all financial support of terrorist networks as well as providing humanitarian aid to countries that tend to be a hot bed for terrorists we'd plan to stand a pretty good shot. Unfortunately, this administration has only been willing to focus on the first part, killing the terrorists. I hate to say it, but we elected a president who's more interested in immediate results rather than the long term effects.

And you're wrong again. You'll disagree with me, of course, and you're not going to listen to me, but it bears saying: You are correct that fighting terrorism requires not only that you capture and kill those who are already out to do harm, but to reduce the number of others who will get sucked into such a bad ideology. I think you simply disagree with me that fanaticism is the inevitable by-product of hopelessness and oppression (of course, people like Aluk and I have differeing definitions of oppression. Mine typically involves death camps, torture, and limited economic and personal opportunity. Theirs has little to do with anybody actually being hurt or oppressed, and actually INCLUDES things like freedom and self-determination). Under my view, it makes perfect sense that terrorism, fanaticism, and prejudice rise up in the armpits of the world, such as the Middle East, but is also to be found in the Balkans, South America, Africa, and all Communist nations. The solution, therefore, is to plant freedom, self-determination, and security in these areas.

What people for some reason find objectionable is the notion that this requires the use of unbending force against those who do not want these things.

Again, nobody will listen to me when I say that change through 'peaceful humanitarian aid' accomplishes nothing, as has been demonstrated over the last half-century, because it does nothing about the purely criminal thugs who prevent people for getting these things for themselves, and even steal the aid when it comes. You cannot improve people's whole life by giving them your money (or, in the case of the government and most charities, other people's money). Charity is short term. Independence, law (good law), and security, are long term.

Foreign relations... hm. From what I've come to understand, the coalition is mainly composed of smaller nations and Britain. The fact that we have Britain on our side shouldn't be too much of a shock. In terms of aid.... what kind of aid? I'm not seeing anyone outside of Britain sending in any kind of manpower, which is what we really need the most. Although donations of money and supplies are nice... America can afford them. But human lives can't be randomly generated and sent off to fight.

The problem with America's relations with other nations is indeed arrogance, elitism, illogical ideology, and self-righteousness... and I don't mean on our part. We know the lessons of history. It is other nations that have rejected them.

But this nonsense about us being alone has got to be refuted, though I doubt my efforts will come to much. We recieved support from the following nations:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, and Uzbekistan.

Of these, the following countries had an active or participant role, by providing either significant troops or political support: Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Source: http://www.fact-inde...ar_on_iraq.html

That the war was illegal is not exactly universally accepted: http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/3661736.stm

The popular, but again wrong, argument, is that they're leaving faster than they are joining. This is incorrect. I think maybe three or four have, over the course of a year. If you consider the period of time of the entire war, including when all of them joined, as well as all of them leaving, then on average, they join MUCH faster than they leave.

On the subject of arrogance, I'd like to ask France, Germany, Belgium, and Russia why they think their opinions outweight those of the smaller nations, hmm?

On the subject of popular support, I've never heard reliable statistics showing just how it lays out. What I do know is that the anti-war crowd (which is notoriously full of left-wingers and pacifists) are, as usual, more effective at getting heard (i.e. 'shrill') than the traditionally more civil (and less prone to protest marches) war supporters. I won't speak of the media, except to say that I've never heard the number of terrorists killed reported, nor of letters coming from soldiers in Iraq saying things are not being reported properly (except from one source, which I won't mention). I think our latest election has demonstrated the truth of this in America.

So, no, Flint. That's not how things should have happened. What should have happened is that the world wakes up to the realization that all nations are NOT morally equivalent, and that our policies of conciliation, ambivalence, and utter unwillingness to take a hard stance against thug regimes has been a total failure, and we now take an active role in fixing this. Frankly, I think we've not done enough.

MAN.

[Alakhriveion]

I am most certainly not calling homosexuals animals. I'm just saying where do you draw the line? How do you do it?

You don't. It's not your decision.

On the contrary, it's how it's done. Remember Nazism?

Irrelevant. The was an ideaology we defeated, not a tactic. By that logic, we shouldn't have had armed conflict since 1918. You're treating it like a war on Islam, which, honestly, it pretty much is. That's a war I sure as hell I don't want to win.

Capturing/killing terrorists. Dismantling a system that aided and produced terrorists and installing a system based on opportunity and freedom. You'll argue we're not, but I'm going to ignore that, because I'm being nice to you in light of your ideology being proven to be so far out of the American mainstream that you are practically alone.

First: Hussien was at WAR with al Queda. The war was a lost battle in the other bullshit war. Second: What does being mainstream have to do with being right?

Really helped the Soviets, the Cubans, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Africans, the Serbians, the South Americans, not that you're going to listen the umpteenth time, because that's not how Things Are Supposed To Be.

It certainly did help the Soviets, and Cubans. It wasn't ever carried out in China, North Korea is a corrupt Communist regime (Like Hitler for capitalists, so don't jump on it without clean hands), and I don't know where you're coming from with Africa and South America, niether has ever been home to a communist state.

people like Aluk and I have differeing definitions of oppression. Mine typically involves death camps, torture, and limited economic and personal opportunity. Theirs has little to do with anybody actually being hurt or oppressed, and actually INCLUDES things like freedom and self-determination)

Can you please be serious about this? Ridiculous labeling doesn't get us anywhere- AND it's enough reason for me to getting you banned from Contro. I've already given you more chances than promised in the Contro, or Legends Alliance Rules. Don't make me regret it.

The problem with America's relations with other nations is indeed arrogance, elitism, illogical ideology, and self-righteousness... and I don't mean on our part. We know the lessons of history. It is other nations that have rejected them.

We're the only nation on Earth still engaging in imperial activities. We let World War One happen (if you don't know what I'm talking about, I'll be glad to explain). We are the biggest problem there IS.

The popular, but again wrong, argument, is that they're leaving faster than they are joining. This is incorrect. I think maybe three or four have, over the course of a year. If you consider the period of time of the entire war, including when all of them joined, as well as all of them leaving, then on average, they join MUCH faster than they leave.

On the subject of arrogance, I'd like to ask France, Germany, Belgium, and Russia why they think their opinions outweight those of the smaller nations, hmm?

On the subject of popular support, I've never heard reliable statistics showing just how it lays out. What I do know is that the anti-war crowd (which is notoriously full of left-wingers and pacifists) are, as usual, more effective at getting heard (i.e. 'shrill') than the traditionally more civil (and less prone to protest marches) war supporters. I won't speak of the media, except to say that I've never heard the number of terrorists killed reported, nor of letters coming from soldiers in Iraq saying things are not being reported properly (except from one source, which I won't mention). I think our latest election has demonstrated the truth of this in America.

Urgh... screw this. There's no point in trying.

[Hero of Winds]

Oh, no you don't.

You don't. It's not your decision.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that the gay marriage issue rested entirely in my hands.

It was a bit of a rhetorical question. I wasn't saying you as in "you thabto" or "you Alak", as "you the people who get to make the decision."

Irrelevant. The was an ideaology we defeated, not a tactic. By that logic, we shouldn't have had armed conflict since 1918. You're treating it like a war on Islam, which, honestly, it pretty much is. That's a war I sure as hell I don't want to win.

Quite relevant, considering I can point out a few parallels between the War on Terrorism and WWII. Nazism hasn't been destroyed. It's lost all government and military influence/power, and has lost nearly all of it's supporters, but the idea still exists. This is the same way the War on Terrorism should be, and is, going about.

Can you please be serious about this? Ridiculous labeling doesn't get us anywhere- AND it's enough reason for me to getting you banned from Contro. I've already given you more chances than promised in the Contro, or Legends Alliance Rules. Don't make me regret it.

Why don't YOU get serious? You can only hide behind your notions of big business conspiracies for so long.

We're the only nation on Earth still engaging in imperial activities. We let World War One happen (if you don't know what I'm talking about, I'll be glad to explain). We are the biggest problem there IS.

We didn't let anything happen. We left Europe to their own business, and things exploded in Serbia. Make up your mind Alak, should America be involved with other nations' business or not?

Urgh... screw this. There's no point in trying.

Ditto. There's only so many times I can tolerate this anti-capitalist ideology of yours, Alak.