346 replies to this topic

[SOAP]

Are you joking or are you really that dumb?

[Archaic Sage]

Ok, so you are saying that we should go after afganistan merely because of terrorists? Well in that case, i agree with you 100%. But iraq was more of a problem then every1 thought. They had weapons of mass destruction, but they either destroyed them, or gave them to syria. That is why i want syria gone! because if they arent gone, they will bomb us with nuclear warfare. You also said i was biased? HAHA! if you think im biased, turn on the news. It doesnt matter which one, any of the channels. then you will say who is biased. im just sticking to what i believe. i don't go around saying only bad stuff when there is more good then bad. And last but not least, i do care about the environment, but isnt abolishign terrorism a more serious issue then those darn tree huggers wanting a clean evvironment. We already dropped a nuke on japan, and nothing happened. (if you want to call it a-bomb, its still the same thing. its just our bombs today are more powerful)

You've completely misunderstood me.

First of all, we have valid grounds to attack Afghanistan. We had NO grounds to attack Iraq. During the time before the Iraq war there were UN Inspectors in Iraq, looking for WoMD. They even stated that they thought there were no WoMD in Iraq. So we ignored them and did it anyway. I'm saying that WE ARE THE TERRORISTS. Is that clearer now? We went into someone else's country and destroyed it. In some Iraqi's eyes, we can be seen as no more than terrorists.

Further, what evidence that Iraq gave their nuclear weaponry to Syria. And we knew that they were destroying them anyway. That was what they were told to do in Resolution 1441.

I live in the UK, each news channel discusses issues that matter. Iraq is rarely on the screen, because there is no news, no one cares about deaths anymore. We invaded and dealt with it.

Abolishing terrorism? Terrorism starts at home. Abolish the supporters of the IRA in your country. Abolish the members of the KKK or the Neo-Nazi's that frequently kill people. Abolish the Christian extremists who burn literature because it's anti god and attack neo-pagans. Terrorism? It's in every country in the world. The freer your country, the more terrorism.

The environment is more important. What does it matter if a few thousand people die a year in comparison to the Earth dying. Without it, we're screwed. Greenhouse gasses are affecting us every day. The polar ice caps are melting. If they melt too fast, then that's a large part of the world gone.

Yes, we have seen the affects of Nukes on Japan. http://www.gensuikin...lish/photo.html that is a link of some less graphic photographs of what happened there. It effected the water, for many years you were unable to drink water from the surroundings. For many years no plants could grow. It also, apparently, increased the detrimental effects of the O-Zone.

[Alakhriveion]

Abolish the supporters of the IRA in your country.

This creates whole entire new issues. You can't define terrorism, if terrorism must be evil. The only remedy is...

DEMOCRACY, BABY! That's right. ONLY in a democratic state will terrorism ever cease to exist.
"But Alak!" you're thinking, "We're a democracy, and the Ku Klux Klan continues to function!"

This is not a democracy. THAT'S why we have problems.

[Selena]

Iraq having weapons of mass destruction is nothing more than a rumor or a conjecture. I hardly think invading a country and killing thousands of people based on a conjecture is worth it. Our goal should have remained Afghanistan and Bin Laden's network, not dividing up our forces and stretching our troops out based on guesses. It was a tactical error to do that. We shouldn't be fighting on more than one front. We gave up on one bad guy, and moved onto another in Bin Laden's absence.

Weapons of mass destruction? Plenty of other less-than-friendly nations ADMITTED to having them, but we don't do a thing about those. Pakistan is ruled by a dictator, but we actually are selling weapons to them. Screwed up policies? I'd certainly say so. So it's okay for us to having giant bombs of destruction, but no one else? Scared someone's gonna kill you? Or just wanna be in absolute control of the world?


Nothing happened when we dropped the bombs on Japan? Heh. Birth defects and radiation poisoning are nothing then, huh? Not counting the thousands of civilians that died in the blast. The nuclear bomb was the worst thing anyone could ever invent. A dangerous weapon not meant for human hands, because we'll probably end up killing ourselves with it. To use one in battle is not only foolish, but it states that you really don't give a damn about the well being of others. And to claim that it's okay because 'the terrorists don't care about others either' just lowers you down to their level.

[Archaic Sage]

This creates whole entire new issues. You can't define terrorism, if terrorism must be evil. The only remedy is...

DEMOCRACY, BABY! That's right. ONLY in a democratic state will terrorism ever cease to exist.
"But Alak!" you're thinking, "We're a democracy, and the Ku Klux Klan continues to function!"

This is not a democracy. THAT'S why we have problems.

That was actually a major part of the argument. I don't define terrorism as evil. I define terrorism as a view point. The fact that he thinks that the Iraqi's are terrorists is the reason why I said ablosh the IRA. It brings me back to the WE are the terroists point. Does that clafiy at all?

[Alakhriveion]

That was actually a major part of the argument. I don't define terrorism as evil. I define terrorism as a view point. The fact that he thinks that the Iraqi's are terrorists is the reason why I said ablosh the IRA. It brings me back to the WE are the terroists point. Does that clafiy at all?

I only read one line of your post, sorry. Bad habit, that. I'll get to the rest now.

[Alakhriveion]

you are right about the kkk and the other groups that hate us in this country, but they don't do any terrorsitic attacks. what have they done to any1?

Well, they've killed a bunch of people. Hell, killing is just the tip of the iceberg.

it may be inhumane, but isnt killing over 3,000 people in one day in new york city a little crazy?

This fails to balance. It lacks justice.

[Archaic Sage]

Well, some of you are right, some of you aren'. This is going to be hard to explain, but Selena, you are rite. i said that we shouldnt have let up in afganistan, but continue after the terrorist bin laden there. you are right about the kkk and the other groups that hate us in this country, but they don't do any terrorsitic attacks. what have they done to any1? i would really like to know. And about the nuke and the environment, i saw those pictures. they don't look pretty either. But you know what? they only made me feel more confident about the decision with nuclear warfare on terrorists. Wouldn't you want that to happen to osama bin laden? it may be inhumane, but isnt killing over 3,000 people in one day in new york city a little crazy? i never said this country had no terrorism, but its [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] less than some of the other countries like syria and afganistan.

Actually Afghanistan has little terrorism these days. There are still the few, but that's what happens in a democracy.

What have the KKK done to people? Well, they lynch black people. Granted that was long ago, when it was done publicly. But they still do things like that.

The IRA, they recently killed someone in Ireland. They've had bomb threats on Margret Thatcher, set of nail bombs and all sorts of crap.

No, I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone. Don't you see the damage it does afterwards? Just because you can wipe out a few thousand people in a few seconds mean there are no after effects. You cannot live there for a long time after. And even once the radiation is gone, you've still got the mutations from anywhere around 50 miles away from the blast. And if the wind is in the wrong direction then more. You don't just kill the target, you kill thousands of others. You also kill future children, as they are born mutated.

Killing 3000 people is nothing in comparison to setting a nuclear weapon.

[Korhend]

This may be a bit anal of me but its not democracy thats keeping terrorism at bay. Its governmental reform.

[Selena]

You'd wanna nuke any country that has a terrorist network in it? Heh, well that's an easy way to exterminate millions of innocent lives. Terrorist are fanatics. Like fanatics, there aren't all that many of them, but they just make the most noise. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria... the countries are filled with people who wouldn't want to cause harm to anyone, much less American civilians. Anti-American sentiment is one thing, but actually going out of their way to kill someone? No, that's reserved for the few hundred fanatics out there.

So you think it's okay to vaporize millions of people, cause radiation poisoning, potentially rip apart the environment, and cause birth defects in infants for years to come... just to get rid of a few hundred people? That's not only cowardly, but makes you no better than the small collection of terrorists.

[Archaic Sage]

And if we continue on the path that we are going down, there will be a lot more innocent deaths. At least 17337 innocent deaths in Iraq since it started (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/), that's three times more than 9/11, at least. And in a country where we had no grounds to invade. If that's only seeing the good in the world, then, I'm lost for words.

[Oberon Storm]

ok selena, if its wrong, then what do you suppose to do with terrorists? let them bomb our country some more just like 9-11? well im not saying to take out innocent lives, they are inncoent and have no right to be taken. im just saying to take out the terrorists if it means by violent force. i only want the good of all in this world, and the only way to do that is to get rid of terrorists. i don't care how u do it, whether it be invasion or by nuking them, but they must be stopped. okay, i don't know too much on what the kkk does or the ira, but i do realize more now that they should be stopped too, what ever means possible! take them out, then go into iraq and take out thsoe terrorists, then go to syria to do that same, and i bet u guys will be happy. Im not trying to be forceful or aggresive, but terrorists have caused many deaths, and if we dont stop them now, we might not be able to stop them.

For right now I will ignore your horrible grammar and spelling and the fact not a damn thing you have posted has been terribly coherent. But you started out saying just to nuke people. Now you're saying you don't think innocent people should be killed but the terrorists need to be taken out even if that means nuking them. Of course that completely ignores the fact if you nuke them you take all the innocents, too. Whatever happened to MAD?

I have an idea. Instead of this "Kill the terrorists!" and treating only the symptoms, lets actually solve the damn problem. These people aren't just going around killing because it feels good. They have issues. I am not saying to not punish those that kill but lets find out why they want to kill and fix the damn thing. Or does that just make too much sense to work? I mean we gave Saddam his weapons. We outright support Isreali crimes against Palistinians. We invade nations without any provokation and let real killers like Osama Bin Laden go free. But no. None of that is wrong. We need to keep pissing everyone off. We need to nuke everyone that doesn't agree with America because we can. Well I feel better knowing the future is fucked.

[Archaic Sage]

Also, you have to remember that terrorists are not always terrorists because they want to be. Just like Nazi's not being evil. They were following a powerful figure. You follow powerful figures. If you do a little research into Milgram, 1974. You will see that you obey powerful authority figures. Many terrorists because they fear for their own lives. On the other hand, once you've been brought up to believe something you do. Just as if my parents had told me all my life that there are secret farms in the US where they eat people, I've never seen evidence against it, so I would believe it because I've been taught to believe it. No different from Hitler Youth.

Rehabilitation plays an important role in anything like this.

[Ken the Wandering Soul]

And besides, the "War on Terrorism" is nothing but a piece of crap. Talking about invading other countries and gettign rid of the terrorists is an extremely stupid strategy. You can tell just by looking at the first few years.

America ain't exactly the most popular place now in case you haven't noticed. Bush basically gave the other countries the finger when they offered to help rebuild Iraq, but not get involved with the occupation. Also the idea of completely abolishing terrorism is a naive and idiotic concept. Why? Becuase there will always be unhappy people who don't like the way things are run, and go to the extremes of killing others.

And to all you folks who talk about nukin' the world. No. Nuclear power is wild and dangerous, and it's volatile enough just being used as a power source. Dropping nuclear bombs is a big no-no. It causes death and pain not only for the current generation, for the generations that come after.

We talk about equality and preservation of life, but then we look at Abu Grave, and see how hypocritic we are. Hell, during WWII, anyone with japanese ancestry was sent to internment camps, showing we didn't really care about equality. They didn't even lock up Germans, even though Nazi's were the real enemy at the time. No, we went by the mantra we stilll go by today in our society: If your 'white', your okay. Anything else and your history.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

No, I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone. Don't you see the damage it does afterwards? Just because you can wipe out a few thousand people in a few seconds mean there are no after effects.

Exactly. I totally agree with you. Just look what happened because of the 9/11 attacks and the after effects of that to the Al Qaeda organisation. (Okay, it's not the same, but the numbers are almost comparable unless you use more modern nukes).

To Muscle E Mac

What do you think the aim of terrorism is, anyway?

Obtaining what you want through terror. How do you do that? Bombing. Part of the success of bombing campaigns is the terror it inspires. Bombing campaigns aren't just a physical assault, they're a psychological assault. The bombing isn't the actual tool. It is the terror associated with the bombing and the threat of more bombings.

Here's where I find the Bush Adminstration rather contradictory.

They say the terrorists hate your freedom and by extension our freedom, although British freedom isn't the same because we've got a law preventing complete freedom of speech (it's actually not a badly intentioned law as it bans any speech that incites racial hatred).

If that's the case, then what they want to do is destroy it.

Through fear from their bombing, they have managed to change the way your county acts. They have managed to trick your Leaders into creating a climate of fear, in which they've introduced new laws to restrict your individual freedoms, laws which people like Britney Spears don't mind. They've managed to create a climate where the US youth (the most impressionable section of society and the future tax payers and voters) think that the First Amendment goes too far.

I don't know about you, but I think that counts as a psychological victory.

Oh, and Ken, this comment is just a friendly little one and I apologise if you get offended by it. It's Abu Ghraib, or something along those lines, not Abu Grave.

[Black Knight]

Now your third issue is even more ridiculous then the first two. If i'm a sick man, then why do i want a civilized world? why do i want a peaceful world? Unfortunately, its going to take some drastic measures to make these terrorists wake up and realize that we aren't playing around with them. Have you heard of the saying, "Drastic times call for drastic measures"? If we nuke a terrorists filled country to shreads, then they will realize that we are serious about dealing with them. Its the only way.

I hope someone blows up your home; you sick bastard. Having a philosophy like that makes you no better than Bush or any supposed "terrorists". What has Iraq ever done to the US? Nothing! They weren't involved at all in 9/11! You spit out the same crap Hitlar and the Nazis used, claiming that Polish people were dangerous when they invaded and killed my family!

[Korhend]

And people say freedom of speech is a good thing.

[Reflectionist]

Of course it could be that no one felt it deserved being replied to.

That HAS to be the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

I did not comment on that area of your post because frankly it's not worth my time. The ridiculous views that you are entitled to are yours, and I'm not wasting my time disagreeing with nuclear weaponry. Besides, anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows what the effects of nuclear warfare is.

Uh, I'm against the war there, genius. Against any military force in the middle east by the United States. Against dropping the nuke. So... you contradicted yourself, or you can't read. My post was about the triggerhappy United States of America. Reminds me of the opening scene in 'Saving Private Ryan' where two German soldiers were trying to surrender, but the U.S. Soldiers shot them anyway, and said something along the lines of "Look, I washed for dinner"

No human being should ever have to witness a nuke. Obviously to witness it, you would have to be a very long distance away. I've read what happened to those Japanese people when Little Boy was dropped.

A little question: What exactly is a Liberal, in politics? I'm a little new to debating, and was just wondering. I listen to Anti-Govt. songs, and think no matter where the presidential election went, we'd all be screwed. And I don't really consider myself to be a political person at all. Anybody want to help me out here?

Thanks.

EDIT - please excuse the post, I made it before I realized there was a second page...

[Reflectionist]

except... there aren't any people in Iraq that have attacked us in this millenium...

You're pretty paranoid. Maybe that is why you agree to more fighting? I wouldn't just attack whoever looks guiltiest at the start of when we get attacked. I would wait until there is actual valid proof that a certain country did anything.

Sure, maybe Iraq did have WoMD's, but... 9/11 was caused by dudes with guns on airplanes. Not nuclear missiles. Not any kind of missiles.

Like I said... who are we going after in Iraq? Scattered resistance? Why don't they actually look for Osama Bin Laden? He's the guy that's been issuing threats. He's the guy that we know has something to do with 9/11, he said it himself, did he not? Then he booked it.

The United States can push from France to Berlin with heavy resistance in less than a year. Why can't we just get Iraq over with? Introduce democracy and not brute force. Show that the United States is more than just a militaristic overbearing nosy country.

Now if you'll excuse me....

*Reflectionist hands soap box to Korhend, and other politically intelligent people on this board*

[Archaic Sage]

Well, some of you people are crazy. If we pull out of Iraq and not fight terrorists, then they will attack us, in our country, just like 9/11. You are right about Iraq not being a terroristic country, but we were scared about weapons of mass of destruction. We felt the threat of a nuclear war if we didn't invade. But we never found anything in the first place anyways. But, i still believe some other country took them from Iraq so we would look for them for a while before anyone said, "Hey, they arent here!" We need to fight in Iraq until there is peace, then either go to Afganistan or to Syria. And to be honest with you, I don't care how my grammar is because I get my point across. I never said killing innocent lives is a good thing, it will only cause more chaos in the middle east. If we don't punish all of those that kill, then how will they learn? How will they know what is good and what isn't?

When Nuclear UN INSPECTORS said that they felt that Iraq had none, not a month before the War on Iraq started? Where did they suddenly go in that small month, if that, when experts said they didn't exist. There has not been any evidence in recent years of Nuclear Capabilities. Look at North Korea, that is a country that is more likely to have nuclear capabilities. There was even a mushroom cloud reported over their country. We don't invade there? Of course not. Because we would loose as they would use Nukes, so we invade a tiny country, that has no political power and impose democracy on them, as that's what we're doing.

Nukes are not small things either. They are going to be hard to transport without someone noticing them.

We were in Afghanistan, the country that attacked the US, before Iraq. We gave up there and went to Iraq. You're arguments are crumbling, you seem to have your information mixed up.

Further, grammar is incredibly important in a a debate. Your point may be completely destroyed by a poor piece of grammar.

Punish those who kill? OK, I'll punish most US soldiers, as they've killed loads of innocents. I'll go an punish Bush, as he's behind this.

Morals depend upon the person. You seem to be a conservative, your morals and mine are not the same. What you think is wrong, I do not. Are you going to punish me because I think abortion is the woman's choice and that euthanasia is correct? I think not.

[Reflectionist]

*reads Archaic Sages post

Yay! I have a slight understanding of the topic!!! I said some things that coincide with what you said, I'm feeling pretty good about myself...shouldn't last long though, knowing me and my political debating... uh... anti-expertise?

[Oberon Storm]

And to be honest with you, I don't care how my grammar is because I get my point across.

No you don't. None of your posts have held an ounce of fact or any evidence of anything.

[Black Knight]

We are in Iraq for a reason, to institute peace.

What!? 2+2=5 now!? I didn't know that invading an innocent country, torturing people, dropping bombs on their homes and shooting the hell out of them resulted in peace?! Why didn't anyone tell me this before!? I'm so glad I have smart people like you to inform me about these issues.

[Wanchimaera]

Some of you are acting like the war in Iraq is going just fine and dandy and that our soldiers are doing nothing but good, and some of you are acting like they're there just bombing the crap out of civilians. While civilians die in just about any war, you do have to give the soldiers credit for ousting Saddam Hussein. While Iraq has gotten the chance to vote, voting wasn't the selling point of the war. I'd feel better if WMD had been found, but they haven't as of yet and I don't think we will. Remember that Saddam put a hit on Bush the First. I can't help but see this as revenge.

[Reflectionist]

You three just hate me because i am right, right?

A word of advice, I've tried that excuse before. It doesn't work. Nice try. I wasn't born yesterday.

And, so, by your logic, if we blindly kill in Iraq, then we'll eventually, though probably accidentally, kill some terrorists who happen to be in the way of the US Gunfire?

Being paranoid is not a good thing. At least, not in this case. If you're more laid back, and don't give a fuck, then whoever attacks you is going to SEE that you aren't bothered by it, and will go away. So you just build back up, and walk away. If you want to take it to heart, let it get to you, fine. But the enemy, the terrorists, are going to see that what they're doing pisses you off, so they do it more, and with more force.

So what it boils down to is simple bullying. Nations bullying Nations. There will more than likely be another attack. Because the United States took the easy way out. Prosecution with no resolution. That should be GWs motto.