I don't wish death on anyone but if thousands more Americans were to die from one or more terrorist attacks I would say that the foreign policies of the current and previous US regimes were responsible and that they brought the attacks on themselves.

As I said in a previous post, you don't think terrorists blow themselves up in terrorist attacks because they simply don't have anything more interesting to do that day. They are driven by hatred. Why don't you look at why that hatred exists and you might come a little closer to understanding why terrorist attacks like Sept. 11 happen.

And, no, its not jealousy. :1orglaugh

but then again, it's just a family feud passed on for generations. or the hilter-esque brainwashing of the masses to some extent (probably similar to what you consider what the media does to US citizens, supposedly).


there are several groups out there, even in the US that have somewhat unsubstaniated claims, yet they do the things they believe in or are taught to believe in just because it's fun.

sometimes that includes doing some pretty nasty things.

Do you have any idea how many times we have heard that one over the last 19 months?

Do you know how many times the people saying it were wrong?

It may happen - and it certainly may not - but it's been predected now 25-30 times. If they do - their fate awaits them.

I don't know about jealousy... but it sure sounds like the same old anti-American crap you have been whinning about for the last couple months... you seriously need a hobby - something to divert the hate that for whatever reason, you feel you need to expose us all to.

I hate to break it to you - although you are fun to play with, not one person in the United States really gives a shit what you think - but you keep telling us over and over and over...

Glad to know you speak for everyone in the USA. :1orglaugh

By the way, this place is my hobby. Nice to know I'm giving you the shits though. Thank you for the compliment.

I do understand where hatred comes from. It comes from people like yourself who perpetuate it. You sit in your country and judge my country by the actions of a handful of men & women you neither know or understand. You can criticize any political system you want.

But you have taken it to the deepest level there is..and that is the personal level. The personal level of people who have no stake or involvement in this war. The personal level of people who were against the war but could do NOTHING to stop it. You think it is fine if they get killed right along with the "militarists". I guess for you that's acceptable collateral damage.

But I do NOT take pride in seeing American bombs killing innocents in Iraq. I do not find comfort that our military command will also say it's just collateral damage. And most of all, I DO NOT WISH THE DEATH OF ANY INNOCENT!

Maybe it's time YOU start practicing a bit of what you SEEM to be preaching. Why didn't *YOU* SOMEHOW stop the Aussie troops from going to war in Iraq? Why didn't *YOU* somehow stop your government from backing the war? Why didn't you do something, any fucking thing other than writing inane messages on a message board about how bad the Americans are?

Oh..that's right..you didn't do anything because there was no possible course of action you could affect to change the outcome.
Following your logic though, that won't make any difference to the terrorists and YOU should be subject to death also then!

The difference between you and I? I don't wish that upon your country like you wish it upon mine.

Since you're UP for cliche's "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!"

I think that there will be more "terrorist" attacks against American assests abroad and very possibly upon the mainland. I also think that there will be greater hatred spawned in the Muslim world and it will probably iincrease the roles of existing "terrorist orgs" as well as spawn new orgs.

I also think, and have previously so stated, that the take down of Iraq is about strategic positioning and a show of force, as being the primary reasons for this war, among multiple reasons (not the least of which Saddam has been a thorn in our side for 12 years). We are basically showing the muslim nations that we will not tolerate "terroists" and sending a loud message that if you do not control your people, we will control your nations.

This administration made it clear, and it would have been difficult to make it any more clear, that we are engaged in a war, a war that the Administration said could last as long as ten years (others have said as long as 20-30 years). The Administration made it clear that if you harbour, feed, assist in any way, "terroists" we will consider you as being "terrorists". This message, though not specifically stated as thus, was directed at the muslim nations. Bottom line, if acts of terrosim against the US are continued, ultimately, for every American death there will be a 1000 Muslim deaths and more Muslim nations taken down.

We Americans, and the world, will have to see what future events happen and what future Administrations do, but I have little doubt that, if there are continued attacks, particulary against the mainland, other Administrations will take nations down.

You are right - I cannot speak of all of America.

I've read your silly attempts to put the US down - I've see the replies you've gotten.

So I can say very, very few people in America give a shit what you think of the US - but I sure can't imagine who or why. You've never had anything constructive to say that I've ever seen, about anything, ever.

If bad-mouthing the US is your "hobby" - I guess I'll quit laughing at you and offer some pity. You must be one sorry and lonely dude.

You gotta love apologists for terrorism. People who say things like you, but are in power, reate more terrorism than anyone else, because they make terrorists think they have a sympathetic ear.

Thanks, Joe.

DAMN well said !!!


But I guarantee you it fell of deaf ears....

How does the 98 pound weakling deal with the big bully in the playground who beats him up and steals his lunch money? He either sits there and takes it or comes up behind him one day with a pick handle and smashes him in the back of the head.

I understand Palestinian suicide attacks too. It's all they have. They're battling one bully backed by a bigger bully.

I think the answer to stopping terrorism isn't more violence but diplomacy and negotiation.

Call me a peacemonger but thats what I think.

You have two LARGE leaps of logic in your arguments:

1)The first one is that (and boy how it changes from disarming Iraq to Liberating the Iraqi people, now back to "Disarming Iraq) you make it sound like an OPEN AND SHUT case that Iraq was either involved directly with the 9/11 attacks or funding such terrorist attacks. It is your speculation..not fact. There is STILL no strong evidence of a connection between Sadam and the militant muslims who attacked/are planning to attack the U.S.

2)We showed the Muslim nations that we will kick their butts if they do anything we don't like by sending in troops and occupying their lands? YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! (in my best John McEnroe voice). Where the fuck are we going to come up with that manpower, weaponry, and most of all MONEY to accomplish such a hurculean task? It is a fool's dream to think the United States can shut down one muslim nation after another. And even if we could, it's been done before..and it's called Colonialism!

I do not believe that Saddam/Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. He made himself a target (a thorn in our side for 12 years) and as I stated Iraq is strategically located for us to confront other known enemy nations in that part of the world, ie Iran to one side and Syria to the other and whoever else chooses to become one, or cannot control their people.

We put sixteen million people in uniform, with less than half the current population, during the Second World War. We fought that war with a fraction of the current GNP and that was a "hurculean task", but we did it.

I doubt that we will have to shut down one Muslim nation after another. The leaders of the nations will get the message and begin to police/control their people.

By the way it is not called "Colonialism" it is called defense.

more realist than apologist. it's understanding why it happened not condoning it.. theres a difference.
saying that a terrorist attack on australia is more likely because of the actions of our government in foreign policy (attacking Iraq) is basic common sense.. when we get another terrorist attack on our people and say 1000 people die, I'll be able to say quite firmly that our actions in Iraq and East Timor are large factors.. It won't however mean that because I know they are part of the equation that it's an apologist position, or stop it from being a bad thing. It's nothing to be ashamed of, or unpatriotic or whatever, it's just the cold hard truth.. theres a reason terrorists don't give a fuck about the Swiss.

It's always nice to see a thread turn out exactly how you planned it....

(proud) :thumbsup

That's all they have? Mate, they've been supported by all the Arab states and the former Soviet Union for fucking years. Don't give me that b.s., that's all they have. Why don't Arab states put so much more of an effort in cultivating terrorism than actually alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people.

You're an idealist. You've never lived in the middle east. You don't know or understand the history. You believe the lies you hear in the media which completely present an imbalanced story in favor of the Palestinains.

Centurion

You do not live in the real wolrd if you think the USA will stand by and allow itself to be repeatedly attacked without responding in a massive way. Thus far our response to 9/11 has been a rather suppressed response.

By the way I did not take the time to rip your post , as many of your points are not valid, because I am growing somewhat tired.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Ahh, the cry of the vanquished. "Wait'll next year."

Uncle Saddam let you down. You bet on the wrong team.

That would increase terrorism, not decrease it. Negotiating with terrorists sends a clear message that terrorism is an effective political tool.

I think you're confusing this war with the raids on Taliban and Al Queda bases in Afghanistan. This war is supposed to be about freeing the Iraqi people from a tyrant who poses a military threat to other middle-eastern countries.

Wrong, Israel has a solution that euro-pansies won't let them carry out. :thumbsup

Fucking memory... getting as old as theking....

I remembered it was about protecting the US from attacks... by removing those famous WMD ...

BTW, any news on Osama???

looks like it worked.

nope, haven't heard a peep from al quada ever since they started dying in afghanistan

its weird how so many say the whole world doesnt want this war but when ever i see pool results weather it be online or in the paper more people say yes war is bad but this war is needed

more important question (yes/no)

what do we do in the meantime... to solve the same question that keeps getting asked...

communism
socialialism
capitalism

it's all the same shit just recycled...

when will it be solved -- when can man walk the earth in peace
once again

it starts right here baby

one more time around

just like you

That's funny. *I* do not live in the real world?

It's not me that thinks we have a million man standing Army that can invade and occupy Syria, Iran, Libya, etc.

It's not me that thinks we have the firepower/money/resourdes to take over any Muslim nation we don't like!

2/3rd of our Infantry is right NOW in Iraq/Kuwait! That's a "suppressed response?"

And it's not me that thinks we have the right to invade ANY country simply because we don't like the way they run their government/country.

King..we've had to call up the National Guard to take over duties normally run by the regular army. So do we use the "weekend warriors" to invade Iran then? Or are you now saying that we need to re-start the draft?

Evan the Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan. There were several stories from the AP today about how resurgent the Taliban has become in Afghanistan. And we have a WHOPPING 5000 soldiers to patrol the entire country!

For all the fuckers that support the war -
Enjoy

We will re-institute the draft when push comes to shove. I have already pointed out to you that the USA put sixteen million people into uniform, with less than half the current population and a fraction of the current GNP, during the Second World War.

Do you really think that the USA will stand by and allow itself to be repeatedly attacked?

It is not me either.

It is not a question of like or dislike, it is a question of becoming a percieved enemy.

Yes.

Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. Being a percieved enemy does.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...168/3qpqh.html


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_030408163048


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Apr7.html

yeah baby! looks like my troops are getting it done!:1orglaugh

You really do live in the past. It's PRESENT day, and it's NOT WWII! In WWII, we had STRONG allies fighting WITH US! Now we have only a few thousand brits and a couple thousand Aussies.

And as for your repeated figure of putting 16 million into "uniform"..let's break that down a bit:

1)That number is not 16 million at ONE time..it was over a course of several years!
2)Because you are in "uniform" does not mean you are on the front lines fighting. Well over HALF of that number were purely support personnel..with most of them stationed in the U.S.

But again, you're point of going back to WWII is totally irrelevant to today's conflicts. And I notice you even left out the Koren War (where the best we could do was a "draw"), Vietnam..where we lost.

To say we put 16 million in uniform back in the '40s does not equate to front line invasion, conquering, and occupying several Muslim countries TODAY.

get a grip dopey, we have the money and firepower to bomb any and all muslim nations who decide they want to hate us back to the stone age (granted, its a short trip)
how about explaining how this big bad muslim force is going to land on our beaches?
Its no longer about the number of people in your military, its about your technology.
welcome to the 21st century

FYI I am fully aware that The Second World War is over. I am fully aware that the US had allies. If there was a point to be made, you failed.

Wrong. When the Second World War ended we had sixteen million people in uniform.

FYI I am fully aware what percentage of forces are support and what are combatants. I spent 12 years in the Army. FYI it is approximately 90% support and 10% combatants.

Wrong. Truman made a political decision to hold at the 38th Parallel, which was the border prior to North Korea invading the South.

Wrong. There was not a military loss in Vietnam and we could have ended the war in one day with the use of Nukes, within thirty days with 24/7 conventional bombing (11 days of 24/7 brought them to the peace table), within ninety days with ground forces if the military would have been allowed to invade the North.

It was politicians that micro managed the war and extended the war and it was politicians that agreed to withdraw our forces. There was not a military loss in any form, but a political decision was made to withdraw our forces.

Of course you are right. The USA does not have the power to defeat a bunch of third world nations. The USA is at their mercy. We will allow them to attack us at will. We are helpless. I am making arrangements at the local Mosque today to become a Muslim. Allah be praised.

Because we cost more to produce...that's what you get when you go with quality over quantity:winkwink:

"I wish I may, I wish I might..."
If I'm "dopey", then you're "ignorant".
I love the desk jockeys who love to throw around terms like "bomb them back to the stone age!"
And of course, all you have to do is push a button!
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh