From heros to zeros!

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
you\'re with us or against us

He said it in a much dirtier way. He said something like \'You either support the US, or you support the terrorists\'. No one wants to be in the terrorists side, so it makes people think \'ok, then I\'m with the US\'.

It surprised me somewhat that afghanistan was attacked first.
[...]
they didn\'t give the taliban enough time to discuss it. The US seemed eager to retaliate on afghanistan.

Well, since Al Qaeda\'s HQ was\\is in Afghanistan, it was pretty obvious that they\'ll attack Afghanistan before they go into Iraq.
Personally, I think that they gave the Taliban more than enough time. They should\'ve given the Taliban a day (no more than two) to decide if they\'re giving Bin Laden and as many Al Qaeda people as they can, or not.
Not retaliating to something like 9/11 fast and hard is probebly the worse thing a country can do against terrorism.
Of course they\'ll be eager to retaliate. Did you expect them to just sit there with their arms crossed and have a frown face after 9/11?

Still however it remains to be seen if afghanistan becomes a stable democratic nation and doesnt plunge again in a war.

No way they\'re going out of this without a war.
The Taliban is growing weak, the Northern Alliance is going strong. They\'ll probebly take over and be worse (yes, worse) than the Taliban (atleast the Taliban don\'t go into a village and rape and slaughter women and children for the heck of it). The Taliban will fight against the Northern Alliance, and when the Taliban will be strong enough, the US will step in again to push them down.
The war in Afghanistan will continue for as long as the US thinks that Islam = Bad.

Again like with afghanistan i feared a guerilla war especially in baghdad, again i was wrong.

Wrong? Then how come soldiers keep dying in Iraq?
Of course there\'s a guerilla war. The US don\'t want to stay in Iraq, they got better things to do. They stay there because the civillians are upset with the American army reign and oppose it.

When bagdhad fell clearly the iraqi people were glad to have been liberated.

Liberated?
Neither the Shiites nor the Sunnis thinks Iraq is liberated. True, the Sunnis didn\'t like Saddam at all, but do you think they like being controlled by the US? Hell, it\'s even worse! Controlled by a foreign army!

Unfortunately the few that fight the soldiers now could mess up the whole proces and leave iraq not in a much better state.

What you\'re saying, is that what the majority of the Iraqi population thinks is right will leave it in a worse state than what the US (the minority) thinks?
I thought you support democracy?
I thought the world learned it\'s lesson from Lebanon and South Africa?

Furthermore its a shame and mistake the defence of the usa  instead of foreign matters got the task of rebuilding iraq.

Actually, it makes alot of sense.
Right now, Iraq isn\'t a country or a state. Right now it\'s a populated land mass controlled by the US army.
To make it a foreign matter to the US, they have to leave Iraq under the control of any country besides the US (preferably Iraqi citizens).
As long as it\'s controlled by the US army, it\'s nothing but the defence ministry\'s matter.

Third, war is a very unpredictive chaotic mostly out of control process where most of what comes from it is damaging. The acts of american soldiers is one example of this.

Wrong.
War isn\'t chaotic. The battlefield might be.
It\'s unpredictable only because nothing is predictable.
And war is never out of control. There\'s always a commander awake and making sure everything runs as smooth as possible. Afterall, no one wants to lose in a war.

The acts of any American soldier that are considered as \'wrong\' only show that the US army don\'t filter those that want to join it, and is full of anti-Islamic propaganda.

And many dictatorial hostile countries with wmds still exist.

The problem isn\'t really hostile countries with wmds, but friendly countries with them.
First of all, hostile countries are hostile for a reason. It\'s known why they\'re hostile, and who they\'re hostile toward.
It\'s easy to defend against someone with known goals.
Also, other countries can put pressure into these countries to disarm themselves (such as what is going on in Iraq).

Friendly countries, however...
They produce wmds without any third-party organization monitoring them, they got no known agendas, they got no known enemies, and you trade with them.
A \'friendly\' country can suddenly attack with so many wmds that they won\'t even have soldiers to fight against.
Totally unexpectable, and almost impossible to defend against.

Why do i think us wanted to attack iraq?
1) extend its influence in the middle east
2) be less dependant of saudi arabia
3) bush wanted to continou where his father left (its personal)
4) to liberate the iraqis

1. The US got Israel, Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and Turkey with good relations. They also have Jordan and Egypt in ok relations. They got bases all over the Middle East (even in Iraq, since the first Gulf War, maybe before). They got more influence in the Middle East than any place in the world, including Europe (and maybe some of the states in the US :rolleyes: ).
2. They don\'t really have anything to be dependant to Saudi. Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE got alot more oil, turkey got high-tech bases, they got alot of forces in the gulf itself and in the eastern med\' sea... Saudi is good for them, it\'s big so there\'s alot of room for bases, but they don\'t need it.
3. \"This is the guy who tried to kill my dad.\" -Bush
4.

What else was i wrong about?
I believed Turky to invade northern iraq, fortunately they were wise enough not to even when us asked their help

They didn\'t even let the US attack from there.
I\'m not sure if it was a good idea to decline the US from attacking from their territory or not.
On one hand, if they let them, they got good relationship with the US.
On the other hand, the Turkish Muslims will use it against the gov, and other Islamic countries will support them.

I don\'t know much of the current gov vs Muslims situation in Turkey, so I don\'t know if it was a good idea or not to oppose to the US.

[DepthBlade]

Originally posted by Taldor

Originally posted by DepthBlade
2)be less dependant on saudi arabia (What do you mean by this? How were they dependant on them?)

Never heard of OIL?

I heard of OIL!! I just didn\'t know what resource that they were dependant on that country for!

[TheTaintedSoul]

SaintNuclear since your opinion seem to differ so much of mine im curious to what your view on the matters are. Could you give an explanation of your ideas?

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Even if the stock markets have stabilized after 9/11, it doesn\'t mean it\'s economical impact doesn\'t matter anymore.

I talked about the stocket market and economy in general. You are right that the actions of the usa following 9/11 do have a negative effect on the economy. I don\'t think this is a snowball effect though, meaning after getting worse it levels. The war on iraq had less effect on the stock market and economy then expected. But its true that the cost to maintain troops was high and that this was bad on the us budget.

He said it in a much dirtier way. He said something like \'You either support the US, or you support the terrorists\'. No one wants to be in the terrorists side, so it makes people think \'ok, then I\'m with the US\'.

You\'re sure? I remember it differently. Anyway it reflects bad on the us.

Personally, I think that they gave the Taliban more than enough time. They should\'ve given the Taliban a day (no more than two) to decide if they\'re giving Bin Laden and as many Al Qaeda people as they can, or not.
Not retaliating to something like 9/11 fast and hard is probebly the worse thing a country can do against terrorism.

Considering terrorism has become more dangerous because of the war in afghanistan youre wrong. And if you give the taliban only one day then dont at all. Just be honest of your intent and attack.
I think if the taliban had been given more time a peacefull way out might have been possible where the terrorist threat in afghanistan was removed. However small the chance. Its a better solution then gettin much more afghanistans killed then the death toll at 9/11.

No way they\'re going out of this without a war.

So you agree with the war of the us on afghanistan yet you think it will throw afghanistan into more chaos?

Wrong? Then how come soldiers keep dying in Iraq?
Of course there\'s a guerilla war.

yes there is now, i meant of iraqi soldiers against the us soldiers before baghdad fell

Neither the Shiites nor the Sunnis thinks Iraq is liberated. True, the Sunnis didn\'t like Saddam at all, but do you think they like being controlled by the US? Hell, it\'s even worse! Controlled by a foreign army!

As far as i know most iraqis are glad to have saddam removed. Quite logical really. Under his regime you could be picked up put in jail, tortured and killed anytime without reason. Ultimately the iraqis should get control of their own country of course.

What you\'re saying, is that what the majority of the Iraqi population thinks is right will leave it in a worse state than what the US (the minority) thinks?
I thought you support democracy?
I thought the world learned it\'s lesson from Lebanon and South Africa?

I don\'t really get what you mean. Also what about lebanon and south africa are you talking about? The black white segregation?  
Most iraqis whether do want their country to be stable. And the iraqis supporting atacks on troops are in a minority. Many iraqis want the us army to leave in the shortest time possible, yes, but not in a violent manner.

Actually, it makes alot of sense.
Right now, Iraq isn\'t a country or a state. Right now it\'s a populated land mass controlled by the US army.
To make it a foreign matter to the US, they have to leave Iraq under the control of any country besides the US (preferably Iraqi citizens).

It might make sense, only the defence apartment hass less knowledge/interist of developing a country. They had almost no plan for after the war was over. Which is pretty stupid if you go into war planning to leave that country in a good state.

Wrong.
War isn\'t chaotic. The battlefield might be.
It\'s unpredictable only because nothing is predictable.
And war is never out of control. There\'s always a commander awake and making sure everything runs as smooth as possible. Afterall, no one wants to lose in a war.

I strongly disagree with you here, war is most certainly chaotic by nature. Just consider what happened in ww1, the plan there was to let the assisanation get slightly out of control into a small war for gain of territory.
Just name one war where most happened as planned.

The acts of any American soldier that are considered as \'wrong\' only show that the US army don\'t filter those that want to join it, and is full of anti-Islamic propaganda.

Do you have proof that there is a lot of anti islamic propaganda?
The actions of soldiers torturing resemble very precise the prison experiment which had similair conditions. Why the american soldiers are trigger happy i dont know, also a lot of friendly fire comes from american soldiers.

The problem isn\'t really hostile countries with wmds, but friendly countries with them.

Are you talking about countries like pakistan? a friendly country turning hostile would be serious yes. But what country you think that is likely for? That has somehting to gain and cab win in such a situation?

1. The US got Israel, Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and Turkey with good relations. They also have Jordan and Egypt in ok relations. They got bases all over the Middle East (even in Iraq, since the first Gulf War, maybe before). They got more influence in the Middle East than any place in the world, including Europe (and maybe some of the states in the US :rolleyes: ).

UAE?
Okay thats true, they do have influence already.

2. They don\'t really have anything to be dependant to Saudi. Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE got alot more oil, turkey got high-tech bases, they got alot of forces in the gulf itself and in the eastern med\' sea... Saudi is good for them, it\'s big so there\'s alot of room for bases, but they don\'t need it.

mm not sure right now, ill concede to that for now.

What do you think the reasons were then?

They didn\'t even let the US attack from there.
I\'m not sure if it was a good idea to decline the US from attacking from their territory or not.

Correct, and their relation with the US is still good. The us tries to get them in the european union because of the friendship. Why wouldnt it be good for turkey to not invade northern iraq getting into trouble with kourds?

[kbilik]

Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
I talked about the stocket market and economy in general. You are right that the actions of the usa following 9/11 do have a negative effect on the economy. I don\'t think this is a snowball effect though, meaning after getting worse it levels. The war on iraq had less effect on the stock market and economy then expected. But its true that the cost to maintain troops was high and that this was bad on the us budget.

Many economic and regional factors indicate 9/11 did have a snowball effect. The economy would have been in far greater condition if this attack did not occur in the first place along with all the side-effects.

Considering terrorism has become more dangerous because of the war in afghanistan youre wrong. And if you give the taliban only one day then dont at all. Just be honest of your intent and attack.
I think if the taliban had been given more time a peacefull way out might have been possible where the terrorist threat in afghanistan was removed. However small the chance. Its a better solution then gettin much more afghanistans killed then the death toll at 9/11.

The Taliban was given plenty of time to hand over Bin Laden and various Al-Quida leaders to the US. The reply? Taliban: They [Al-Quida and Bin Laden] are guests and under Muslim law it is illegal to hand them over. Under the circumstances there was no other choice but military strikes.

It is also known that Al-Quida\'s capabilities to carry out and plan attacks has been severly degraded (not totally - remember Madrid and Turkey bombings, plus thesurface to air missile attack that almost shot down that Israeli jet in Africa?) following the invasion of Afghanistan. It\'s really hard to plan attacks if you are on the run and wooried about US or Pakistani forces finding you in Afghanistan or Pakistani tribal regions.

 It might make sense, only the defence apartment hass less knowledge/interist of developing a country. They had almost no plan for after the war was over. Which is pretty stupid if you go into war planning to leave that country in a good state.

The defense department wins wars - that is its jobs. The job of reconstruction should have been more thoroughly planned and discussed with the UN. However, this insurgency was unexpected by the war planners (yeah right like they were really going to give the US troops flowers and drop their weapons - foolish prediction). It was also thought that the Shia majority that were depressed under Saddam would stand with the coalition. It now seems that radical Shia elements are undermining reconstruction and this is probably being in some way funded by the Iran Shia Theocracy (a possibility knowing that Iran has funded anti-Saddam terrorists and insurgents in the past).

[TheTaintedSoul]

Originally posted by kbilik
Isn\'t 12 years enough time for the UN to get some results? They failed to find either 1) anything or 2) Proof of destruction of the 80s chemical weapons that the US gave him.

How do you expect someone to proof destruction of weapons? Fact is there is almost no proof for wmds. And the us still attacked.

No, the economic effects of 9/11 have not faded away as there is still no replacement for the amount of lost life, property, and company migrations that these attacks have brought. A lowering of investor confidence by a vaste percentage isn\'t helping either.

The losses wont come back true, but the economic effect has ceased. There is no snowball effect occuring now.

The option if not hunting out these organizations is unacceptable. What happens if they strike another financially important infrastructure on the scale of 9/11? What then - do you expect a whimper and no response?

1) figthing a war and killing thousands just for the usa to be safe is wrong
2) the  war on terrorism so far has only caused terrorism to increase worldwide as well as the threat is poses. So doing nothing makes more sense.

As for the US not having the finances to attack - that argument doesn\'t prevent deficit spending. DOn\'t underestimate the lengths the US will go to retailate if another 9/11 happens. I surely hope not.

Ruining your economy to retaliate is plain dumb.

[kbilik]

Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
How do you expect someone to proof destruction of weapons? Fact is there is almost no proof for wmds. And the us still attacked.

Easily. If Saddam did as he stated (destroyed his WMDs and did so officially under his government workers watch), he should have provided the location, records,  and number of WMDs destroyed. The problem? He didn\'t! Heck they don\'t even know where this so called \"destruction and demilitarization\" took place. Hmm.. isn\'t that suspicious.

The losses wont come back true, but the economic effect has ceased. There is no snowball effect occuring now.

See post above regarding a snowball effect. The lack available funds is enough to keep the US and world economy in a far worse state then pre-9/11.

1) figthing a war and killing thousands just for the usa to be safe is wrong
2) the  war on terrorism so far has only caused terrorism to increase worldwide as well as the threat is poses. So doing nothing makes more sense.

It is not just for the USA. It is for world financial, military, political stability. An attack on nuclear reactors or some nations food supply would have drastic global influences.

The world is connected - don\'t make the mistake that a problem in this or that region will not affect or spread to other regions.

Ruining your economy to retaliate is plain dumb.

Its dumb but sitting there and letting them strike thus completly destroying not just your economy, but the world\'s economy is worse.

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
SaintNuclear since your opinion seem to differ so much of mine im curious to what your view on the matters are. Could you give an explanation of your ideas?

I\'ll have to think about it... If I start I might accidently make it 20 pages showing how other stuff are connected to it, and how other stuff are connected to these other stuff, etc :rolleyes:

I don\'t think this is a snowball effect though, meaning after getting worse it levels.

Read one of my above posts about how it can snowball to a nuclear war.

Considering terrorism has become more dangerous because of the war in afghanistan youre wrong.
[...]
Its a better solution then gettin much more afghanistans killed then the death toll at 9/11.

I didn\'t say it\'s good that they killed innocent civillians, I said it\'s a good thing that they retaliated.
Destroying everything on the way was wrong.

If the US wouldn\'t have retaliated after 9/11, it\'d show terrorists around the world that there\'s no punishment for destruction toward the US. Terrorists would do 9/11-like attacks toward the US every other day.

Retaliation isn\'t a bully-ish way of showing who\'s stronger. It\'s a way of showing that you don\'t get away after messing with them.
Think about a guy that touches a random chick\'s boobs and gets slapped. Was the chick a bully for slapping him? No.

And if you give the taliban only one day then dont at all.

I said one day to decide if they want to give Al Qaeda up or not. Of course that actually doing it would take longer, so the US would give them time to do it.

So you agree with the war of the us on afghanistan yet you think it will throw afghanistan into more chaos?

I agree on a retaliation after 9/11, I don\'t agree about the indiscriminated disaster the US is causing, and I don\'t agree about the support of the Northern Alliance and the taking-down of the Taliban government.

I don\'t really get what you mean. Also what about lebanon and south africa are you talking about? The black white segregation?  
Most iraqis whether do want their country to be stable. And the iraqis supporting atacks on troops are in a minority. Many iraqis want the us army to leave in the shortest time possible, yes, but not in a violent manner.

You said that those that attack the soldiers will mess things up.
The US is trying to install a pro-US-democratic-capitalist regime, yet it\'s the minority in Iraq.

The same things happened in Lebanon and S. Africa happened. The strong minority ruled.
You know what happened then? The majority failed to be as weak as the minority expected it to be, and did a violent coup.

The majority of the Iraqis oppose having a puppet-government controlled by the US. A few of them actually do something about it.
Not wanting a puppet-government isn\'t not wanting the country to be stable, it\'s exactly the opposite.

I strongly disagree with you here, war is most certainly chaotic by nature. Just consider what happened in ww1, the plan there was to let the assisanation get slightly out of control into a small war for gain of territory.
Just name one war where most happened as planned.

As long as there are commanders, and soldiers follow their orders, wars aren\'t chaotic. The battlefield can seem chaotic, but it\'s chaotic only when soldiers run around not caring what their officers tell them what to do.
What happened in WWI was that a certain population wanted independance, and assasinated one of the royalty in the country they were in.
The country attacked their neighboring country that had a majority of the population that assasinated the royalty. And then the chain of alliances started the war.
No one planned the assasination to cause a war, not even a small one. They thought it\'ll give them independance.

And wars that went as planned? It depends on your POV.
From the US\' POV, for example, WWI and II went as planned.
From Israel\'s POV, the Independance Day War went as planned, and so did the Six Days War.
Britain\'s wars against France during the Imperialism always went as planned. So did the conquering of most of Africa by European countries (some of them didn\'t went as planned because the conquering countries had more casualties than expected).

Oh, wait, you asked for only one, right? :rolleyes:

Do you have proof that there is a lot of anti islamic propaganda?

I can\'t show you video bits of obvious propaganda, or documents or whatever, but it\'s pretty easy to see.
First of all, there\'s O\'Reilly and Fox. But it\'s more than that.
Islam is often looked down upon as a barbaric religion that supports dying for it.
Also, I saw Americans justifying the war in Iraq like \'We want to liberate them! They make the women wear robes all over their body! It\'s so cruel!\' many many times.
The Taliban vs N. Alliance is another thing. On one hand, there\'s the Taliban, an extreme Islam government that the population of Afghanistan supports. On the other hand, there\'s the N. Alliance that is more moderate than the Taliban, and they enjoy pillaging villages, murdering people, and raping women.
Do the US support the less-Islamic side, or the more-Islamic side? They support the less-Islamic side, ignoring completely the fact that the more-Islamic one is actually much better to Afghanistan and the surrounding.

Are you talking about countries like pakistan? a friendly country turning hostile would be serious yes. But what country you think that is likely for? That has somehting to gain and cab win in such a situation?

Pakistan is far from being friendly. They\'re arming themselves to the teeths with nukes to throw on India (wich is doing the exact same thing).
I\'m actually talking about countries like Canada, European countries, a few S. America countries, etc.
Each one of them can arm with wmds without anyone noticing.
I can\'t classify Israel as a friendly country as it got hostile relationships with various countries, but I can tell you that Israel can create atleast 100 H-bombs each year (and that\'s only in one plant. who knows if we got more of those). That\'s excluding chemical and biological weapons, of course.

What do you think the reasons were then?

The Omega Agency.
And if not that, then creating the puppet-government they\'re trying to in Iraq.

And UAE is the United Arab Emirates. It\'s kinda like Kuwait and Qatar, only that it\'s made of many tiny emirates. Highly oil-rich, of course.

2) the war on terrorism so far has only caused terrorism to increase worldwide as well as the threat is poses. So doing nothing makes more sense.

The increase in terrorism is caused by armies killing innocent civillians, destroying infrastructures, installing puppet-governments, etc.
As I said above, doing nothing will only show to the terrorists that you don\'t mind them attacking you, and they\'ll attack more frequently, and harder.

[Monketh]

Ah, UAE.  Those guys are crazy.  According to an article in PopSci, they\'re making huge islands and planning on beating out the twin Petronas and other towers to hold the record.

If Islam is looked down upon, it\'s the terrorist\'s own fault, and partially that of  the moderates who won\'t stop them.


Saint: The Iraqi government is to be friendly to the US, of course, but not controlled by it.
Obviously, the average Iraqi (and the militants) don\'t understand that if we weren\'t being attacked, we\'d be gone by the end of this summer.  I thought terrorists were supposed to have patience.
Mr. Sadr is shelling his own mosques to stir up hatred, and his fighters claimed to a Time Magazine reporter that he couldn\'t see the wreckage of two american tanks since a machine came and sucked it up. :rolleyes:

Although, of course, I agree on the point of snowballing.

[TheTaintedSoul]

ill keep it short,

SaintNuclear, so you support retaliation yet not the way the usa does? In what way would you retaliate then?

Depthblade, i meant that the usa didn\'t depend on saudi arabia for providing a base for troops and delivering oil possibly.
About liberation, i cant prove the usa acted to liberate iraq, i want to believe it. And if you say its wrong explain why. Rejecting something is easy, giving good arguments is harder.
But you think the reason was oil then?

Monketh, terrorists do NOT represent the islam! That islam (as well as religion in general) is indeed since 9/11 been viewed upon more negatively is a shame.

Hm it appears im outnumbered 3 to 1 concerning the snowball vs faded effect of economy. Still im not convinced. Ive seen no clear logical reasoning for the snowball effect yet economists do say the effect is gone. Ill look back tomorrow to see if i didn\'t miss anything.

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by Monketh
If Islam is looked down upon, it\'s the terrorist\'s own fault, and partially that of  the moderates who won\'t stop them.

And the media that makes people think that the Islam supports dying for the religion, wich is false. Islam is against dying for the religion.

The Iraqi government is to be friendly to the US, of course, but not controlled by it.
Obviously, the average Iraqi (and the militants) don\'t understand that if we weren\'t being attacked, we\'d be gone by the end of this summer. I thought terrorists were supposed to have patience.

Afaik, the president that the US wants Iraq to have lived in the US and UK most of his life. A total outsider by the eyes of the Iraqis.
How can such a president not be a puppet-government?

These militants are attacking the soldiers because they don\'t want the government the US wants Iraq to have. They want their own government.
If they won\'t fight against the army, the army might leave in the end of the summer, but it\'ll leave them with a government they oppose.

[DepthBlade]

My personnel opinion is that they never went there to free the Iraqis, why haven\'t they went to other countries that mistreat their people then? North Korea, China, certain parts of South America! They originally went there for the so called weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION but on the way they picked up all these other reasons for going there? I have stated my opinion to why i think they went already and it hasn\'t changed...

[The Limpid School]

Keep in mind that the soldiers fighting in this conflict are doing so for very different reasons. The American, Australian, UK and both New Zealand troops are there for their government. The Iraqis that are still fighting are doing so for religious reasons. Their religion has been in place for centuries and they see nothing wrong with it.

The big question is: when will it stop. Until all Iraqis are dead or the Americans swallow their pride. For every Iraqis that dies, the others get more upset, angrier and end up listening more to the religious fanatics. Eventually, through no fault of their own, every Iraqi citizen will be a \"terrorist\". And the Bush Administration won\'t pull out of Iraq because if they show weakness, or go back on their policy, they\'ll get murdered at the election polls.

It\'s a sad conflict fought between actaul people. I lived among Muslims in Saudi Arabia for six year when I was young and their not bad people. And the Americans aren\'t bad either. But neither will blink first.

[DepthBlade]

I don\'t know how it will stop? They basicly found a BIG KILLER BEES nest and busted a cap in it, just like that movie killer bees! There is a solution probally not a good one, actually its not even a option but i think the only way to end the fighting there is to get the yanks out and blow up the whole freaking country! Even if the US leave, it won\'t stop the fighting, its ANARCHY there! Then so as they leave another person will take power and use it just like Sadaam, and then we will have to do this all over again!

[SaintNuclear]

Missed Tainted\'s post:

Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
SaintNuclear, so you support retaliation yet not the way the usa does? In what way would you retaliate then?

Ok, presuming they have information on Al Qaeda\'s bases and hideouts in Afghanistan and other countries in the world, I\'d send squads to them.
A building that is known to be a base will be invaded. Officers and higher ups are arrested for interrogations. The others are worthless, a bullet to the head is more than enough.
Tunnels with terrorists will have tear gas pumped into them. The terrorist will run out. Again, officers are arrested, grunts are shot.
A building that is known to have only terrorists in (no civilians) and isn\'t a main terrorism operations center (with alot of officers and other such goodies) will simply be raised to the ground. No need to waste time in transporting soldiers there.

No innocent people dying, no whole cities being destroyed, short, clean, and deadly. Goodbye. :tup:

Still im not convinced.

Have you read my post about snowballing of the economy yet?

economists do say the effect is gone

On every economist you find that says the snowball effect is gone, you can find an economist that says it\'ll keep snowballing for the next few years (or more).


---------

Originally posted by DepthBlade
China

China is mistreating it\'s citizens? First time I hear about it, really. Can you give examples? (no, not asking for prooves, only examples)


---------

Originally posted by The Limpid School
The Iraqis that are still fighting are doing so for religious reasons.

Actually, they\'re doing it for territorial reasons. Iraq is their home, and no matter what the west thinks about their home, it\'s still their home and they like it. They\'re fighting because their home was invaded by foreigners that try to change it without asking them, the residents, if it\'s fine by them.
In the US you\'d get shot for invading to someone\'s home, and you won\'t be jailed nor sued for that.


I agree completely about your next paragraph.

[Davis]

Originally posted by The Limpid School
Keep in mind that the soldiers fighting in this conflict are doing so for very different reasons. The American, Australian, UK and both New Zealand troops are there for their government. The Iraqis that are still fighting are doing so for religious reasons. Their religion has been in place for centuries and they see nothing wrong with it.

I don\'t understand that. The troops aren\'t trying to eradicate Islam, the new Iraqi government officials are Muslims, and Saddam Hussain did not run a religious government, as opposed to, say, Saudi Arabia.