Political Crossfire Forums

[Poon]

XxMorningStarxX wrote: ????????????? how did i ignore previous posts?? I arguied that China spent like 20-40 billion, which they do. Yeah isaid they spent a larger percentage of their GDP than the U.S., but i get this from majority of sources- if that's the only part u dispute and proved wrong, then i will stand corrected. I wasn't exactly "spouting" anything. I was just saying that AMericans on this forum should realize that The U.S. also has its own interests, and therefore will obviously not stand by while China, a state with questionable integrity, becomes more powerful.


Previous Post by MorningSTar:

XxMorningStarxX wrote: ACtually, that's true. The U.S. spends a much lower percentage of the national GDP than China.

[Poon]

JDnCoke wrote:
What the hell does Washington have to fear? US military supremacy is assured... The only countries currently capable of challenging the US on expenditure is the EU which, in total spends $205,326,700,000, less than half the US rate... The EU is not a country. But I agree, the U.S. has nothing to fear from anyone, militarily. If anything, its other countries that have to be careful of getting on the wrong side of the U.S.

[Slayer]

Sun Bin wrote: Quote: American citizens pay taxes when we purchase a house, we are taxed when we purchase a vehicle, on top of that we are charged recurring taxes each year on Property and vehicles that WE'VE ALREADY OWNED! WTF is that? I think its BS. Americans are taxed on every paychecked they earned (State Tax, Federal Tax, Medicare and Social Security) More BS! We are taxed on every small purchase we make (Sales Tax). Please tell me you must be joking right? Or perhaps you did not put much thought into your little comment? :wink:

It interests me to no end how people like yourself love to complain about having to pay taxes and how the government loves to "soak every penny" out of every American citizen's paychecks and purchases, yet when it comes time for the President to look into tax cuts, you start complaining about deficit spending, and how cutting taxes is a bad idea; that the economy couldn't possibly benefit from tax breaks, big or small (no way!).

I don't particularly like having to pay taxes myself, but I don't complain to much (although I have my ideas on the way the money should be spent) because where else is the government going to get the money to support the MILITARY, or all of these stupid government programs you want, like social security. The government can't run itself. And I'm sure you people love to eat up the fact that this government is for the people, by the people. So, in that case, it's up to every American citizen out there to maintain it.

Quote: Depite all the taxes that Citizens pay, the U.S. gov't is over $8 trillion in debt. Our social security is becoming insolvent. Where did all the money go? Money for war? Money in the pockets of Corporate elites who are benefiting from Corporate welfare? Money for politicians who are in the pockets of the corporate Elites?

We could do it your way, and pay off the national debt, since it seems that this debt we have is such a big deal, then not worry about government funding of health-care and subsidizing other programs like a broke system like welfare.
Hell, that's all we could focus on for the next 10 years, paying off our National debt, then guess what every Liberal in America would be doing? What they've always been good at... Bitching.
Face it, the U.S. Government can never win, so what's the point for you guys to even bother.

When there is a war that needs to be fought, yes it's up to the Americans to pay for that war. No one expects things like a terrorist attack to pop up some random day in September.. but when it comes time to defend ourselves, who're the ones bitchin'? Can ya see a pattern here?

I'm not gonna sit here and say that there isn't any form of corruption in our government and businesses. There is corruption everywhere and there is nothing you can do to stop 100% of it from happening. And I agree that it is unfortunate that hard earned American dollars go pouring into their pockets, but you gotta start taking the bad with the good here.
If we can't get around the fact that, no matter how awesome our country is, we have our flaws, then who else can you trust? If the U.S. Government is so tyrannical as you people make it out to be, and if you so predictably prefer socialism over a little tainted capitalism here and there, then you do not have to stay here.

Quote: I agree with your point that the World needs a "Policeman". But what do you think of a police that uses Napalm in war, or massive bombs that serve not only to destroy enemy combatants, but to Shock and Awe the civilian population? What possible use could Napalm be other than to cause unimaginable suffering to innocent civilians and combatants alike? I don't have a link yet, but I do believe the U.S. military still keeps Napalm, Biological weapons and other questionable weapons in her arsenal.

No, we need to be more vigilant than just a world policeman. We need to stay on top of every threat out there.

"This is war. It is the most important skill in the nation. It is the philosopy of survival and destruction. It is a matter of life or death. You must know it well."
- Sun Tzu.

This bulls**t poking and prodding of our enemies, letting them draw first blood, is complete asinine and utter idiocy. If we want to maintain the most security of our nation, we need to be there waiting, on theirdoorstep, if they decide they have a problem. I'll be damned if we are going to sit back and wait for a crooked nation like Iran bully us or the rest of the world around simply because "they haven't done anything to us"... yet. That is foolishness in every true sense of the word.

You have no strategic inclination, do you? Our job in the military is not "shock and awe" civilians. It's to get the job done the most effectively, whether we use Napalm or any other kind of weapon. The killing or unnecessary suffering of civilians is of no strategic importance whatsoever to a military mission. The only problem you have is the collateral damage where we place our bombs. If we had any intent on killing innocent civilians for the shear hell of it, why the hell are we developing smarter weapons? We could level that place. We could turn Baghdad into what Berlin was in the 1940s. We could wipe Iraq entirely off of the map. This just goes to show you that you have no freakin' clue. The only thing you know about war is what you read on the front page of your New York Times.

Biological and Chemical agents are against U.S. policy. But what good would it do going down that road, you don't trust the government anyway.

Believe what ya wanna believe, and I'll know that you are wrong.




You knocked 'em dead :clap:

[Slayer]

superchick wrote: I just find it very ridiculous the reaction of the US. You are spending way too much on your military...do as I say NOT as I do.

Our military provides freedom to countries that have a dictator rule. China would do just the opposite, which is why we can not let them have a huge military build up!!!! America doesn't suppress freedoms!!

[XxMorningStarxX]

Danpt2000 wrote: XxMorningStarxX wrote: ????????????? how did i ignore previous posts?? I arguied that China spent like 20-40 billion, which they do. Yeah isaid they spent a larger percentage of their GDP than the U.S., but i get this from majority of sources- if that's the only part u dispute and proved wrong, then i will stand corrected. I wasn't exactly "spouting" anything. I was just saying that AMericans on this forum should realize that The U.S. also has its own interests, and therefore will obviously not stand by while China, a state with questionable integrity, becomes more powerful.


Previous Post by MorningSTar:

XxMorningStarxX wrote: ACtually, that's true. The U.S. spends a much lower percentage of the national GDP than China.

that really doesn't answer much, especially since i already admitted that what i said may be inaccurate- i'm only as resourceful as the sources i read, and who's to say all of them are accurate. I did read the post in between by the way (on page 2 i believe, yes i read all of them), and i chose not to address it because it wouldn't make a difference to the point I was trying to make- is that considered "spouting information?"

[XxMorningStarxX]

Danpt2000 wrote: JDnCoke wrote:
What the hell does Washington have to fear? US military supremacy is assured... The only countries currently capable of challenging the US on expenditure is the EU which, in total spends $205,326,700,000, less than half the US rate... The EU is not a country. But I agree, the U.S. has nothing to fear from anyone, militarily. If anything, its other countries that have to be careful of getting on the wrong side of the U.S.

namely Venezuela and the nut over there in Iran- :lol:

True the E.U. is not a country, but the closer the E.U.is pulling itself together (except maybe for Britain), the more likely they are going to act inthe future as one political and economic entity, maybe like the United States?

[XxMorningStarxX]

Slayer wrote: superchick wrote: I just find it very ridiculous the reaction of the US. You are spending way too much on your military...do as I say NOT as I do.

Our military provides freedom to countries that have a dictator rule. China would do just the opposite, which is why we can not let them have a huge military build up!!!! America doesn't suppress freedoms!!

You're words are beginning to sound like chauvinism to me, but at least you're speaking in half truths.

Yeah, we free countries from dictatorships... countries that we see GREAT BENEFIT FROM

why not free Sudan or the "Democratic" republic of Congo? They got generations of blood on their hands! NO we chose to invade Iraq instead because they ahve a ton of oil. I know it sounds very simple and cynical- "yeah, we invaded iraq for the oil" sounds a bit obvious- but shockingly enough it's true

IF Iraq had nukes, it would take years to develop and deploy. Before they are able to deploy them, we would already know, then we could actually have a fully backed U.N. police action. You have any idea how much radioactive isotopes get released during a nuclear test or experimentation? And If Iraq gives nukes WITHOUT our knowledge to Al-Qaeda (somehow)- they attack us, our patriotism surges, and once again there will be no opposition to an invasion of Iraq. like.. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NO-FIRST STRIKE POLICY OF THE U.S.??? There was clearly no connection between Sadam and BIn-laden, which was one of the whole pretextes for the war, which means september 11th can't be accounted as a first strike on the part of saddam!! It's our no-first strike policy that gave us integrity during teh cold war, against a much more powerful enemy.

But no, we had to go in there with hardly any evidence and as a result our credibility has collapsed

What's next, depose Hu Jing Tao over China's human rights records? please..... I can see many chauvinist pigs painting China as a "red dictatorship" easily for their own gain.

[Slayer]

XxMorningStarxX wrote: Slayer wrote: superchick wrote: I just find it very ridiculous the reaction of the US. You are spending way too much on your military...do as I say NOT as I do.

Our military provides freedom to countries that have a dictator rule. China would do just the opposite, which is why we can not let them have a huge military build up!!!! America doesn't suppress freedoms!!

You're words are beginning to sound like chauvinism to me, but at least you're speaking in half truths.

Yeah, we free countries from dictatorships... countries that we see GREAT BENEFIT FROM

why not free Sudan or the "Democratic" republic of Congo? They got generations of blood on their hands! NO we chose to invade Iraq instead because they ahve a ton of oil. I know it sounds very simple and cynical- "yeah, we invaded iraq for the oil" sounds a bit obvious- but shockingly enough it's true

IF Iraq had nukes, it would take years to develop and deploy. Before they are able to deploy them, we would already know, then we could actually have a fully backed U.N. police action. You have any idea how much radioactive isotopes get released during a nuclear test or experimentation? And If Iraq gives nukes WITHOUT our knowledge to Al-Qaeda (somehow)- they attack us, our patriotism surges, and once again there will be no opposition to an invasion of Iraq. like.. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NO-FIRST STRIKE POLICY OF THE U.S.??? There was clearly no connection between Sadam and BIn-laden, which was one of the whole pretextes for the war, which means september 11th can't be accounted as a first strike on the part of saddam!! It's our no-first strike policy that gave us integrity during teh cold war, against a much more powerful enemy.

But no, we had to go in there with hardly any evidence and as a result our credibility has collapsed

What's next, depose Hu Jing Tao over China's human rights records? please..... I can see many chauvinist pigs painting China as a "red dictatorship" easily for their own gain.


Where do i Begin? First off if we are fighting a war for oil then why the f**k are gas prices going up?

So you would rather wait until a country attacks the US before we stop them from developing wmds? Not a very good idea. Even if we did, then you liberals would piss and moan that we didn't do anything to stop it!!!!!!!!!

I agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, but when we invaded them EVERYONE thought that Iraq had nukes. Even your hero John "The Foolish Liberal" Kerry. And now that we know that they didn't its way to damn late to pull out now. And last but not least everyone of our troops knew what we were getting in to when we enlisted. You are not fighting the war WE ARE!!!! So you can stop bitching about that too! And if you care to take one look at a map you'll see that Iraq gives us a great foothold in the middle east so we can more easily respond to other threats there, like Iran. You most certainly have no strategic bone in your body. So save your third grade responses for some other topic and leave the running of America to real men!

[Poon]

Every American Citizen Has a right to B!tch (right in your face if we can) because living here we all have a vested interest.

[jeechoscopy]

China’s international relationship is more transparent than America’s. I support China.
But I’m afraid to express these thoughts because of the American dictatorship.

I would appreciate any alliance India, china and Russia create against this dictatorship.

[Slayer]

jeechoscopy wrote: China’s international relationship is more transparent than America’s. I support China.
But I’m afraid to express these thoughts because of the American dictatorship.

I would appreciate any alliance India, china and Russia create against this dictatorship.

You've got to be kidding me. I cant even respond to such a foolish statement. If Americas "dictatorship" is wrong in your eyes then get the hell out of here. Maybe you can go live in China where the people are free to voice their opinions.

[XxMorningStarxX]

Slayer wrote: XxMorningStarxX wrote: Slayer wrote: superchick wrote: I just find it very ridiculous the reaction of the US. You are spending way too much on your military...do as I say NOT as I do.

Our military provides freedom to countries that have a dictator rule. China would do just the opposite, which is why we can not let them have a huge military build up!!!! America doesn't suppress freedoms!!

You're words are beginning to sound like chauvinism to me, but at least you're speaking in half truths.

Yeah, we free countries from dictatorships... countries that we see GREAT BENEFIT FROM

why not free Sudan or the "Democratic" republic of Congo? They got generations of blood on their hands! NO we chose to invade Iraq instead because they ahve a ton of oil. I know it sounds very simple and cynical- "yeah, we invaded iraq for the oil" sounds a bit obvious- but shockingly enough it's true

IF Iraq had nukes, it would take years to develop and deploy. Before they are able to deploy them, we would already know, then we could actually have a fully backed U.N. police action. You have any idea how much radioactive isotopes get released during a nuclear test or experimentation? And If Iraq gives nukes WITHOUT our knowledge to Al-Qaeda (somehow)- they attack us, our patriotism surges, and once again there will be no opposition to an invasion of Iraq. like.. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NO-FIRST STRIKE POLICY OF THE U.S.??? There was clearly no connection between Sadam and BIn-laden, which was one of the whole pretextes for the war, which means september 11th can't be accounted as a first strike on the part of saddam!! It's our no-first strike policy that gave us integrity during teh cold war, against a much more powerful enemy.

But no, we had to go in there with hardly any evidence and as a result our credibility has collapsed

What's next, depose Hu Jing Tao over China's human rights records? please..... I can see many chauvinist pigs painting China as a "red dictatorship" easily for their own gain.


Where do i Begin? First off if we are fighting a war for oil then why the f**k are gas prices going up?

So you would rather wait until a country attacks the US before we stop them from developing wmds? Not a very good idea. Even if we did, then you liberals would piss and moan that we didn't do anything to stop it!!!!!!!!!

I agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, but when we invaded them EVERYONE thought that Iraq had nukes. Even your hero John "The Foolish Liberal" Kerry. And now that we know that they didn't its way to damn late to pull out now. And last but not least everyone of our troops knew what we were getting in to when we enlisted. You are not fighting the war WE ARE!!!! So you can stop bitching about that too! And if you care to take one look at a map you'll see that Iraq gives us a great foothold in the middle east so we can more easily respond to other threats there, like Iran. You most certainly have no strategic bone in your body. So save your third grade responses for some other topic and leave the running of America to real men!
i know, that part i do agree with you, i hate the pansies that like.. opposed Afghanistan at first, and then when they opposed Iraq, they were like OH BUT WE SUPPORTED AFGHANISTAN. Yeah do you consider me as part of that "group?" i follow the news every day, i knew Iraq had no nukes- or at least it was very unlikely - look back at what i said earlier on nuclear testing detection. I've opposed war with Iraq from the start.
strategic bone? dude get real- i've studied tons and tons of international relations at the university level, along with knowing chinese, russian, french, and german. Shut THe f**k up. I also happen ot have family members in Iraq, which MEANS EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT FIGHTING, IM GODDAMN WORRIED.

Family members happen to be in Marines too- I know air force is hard, but i haven't heard a single one of you get wasted.

Wow i'm such a liberal, just because i dont thin klike a goddamned retard.

The point is Iraq was a mistake, and even though we find that out NOW, some people in high offices do not admit it!!!

and for god's sake man you must be RETARDED. WHY ARE THE OIL PRICES GOING UP?? BECAUSE THERE IS NO MORE OIL LEFT, WE DRILLED AL OF IT. OIL IS GONNA BE GONE IN ABOUT 20 YEARS. YOU KNOW HOW MUCH OIL TANKS AND AIRCRAFT EXPEND. THATS WHY.

but the thing is, right winggers don't believe that oil is gonna run out. they believe that it's always gonna be there, and thats why they invaded iraq. Such people, i ntheir "infinite wisdom," think that the high amounts of oil used in the war will result in a momentary increase of oil costs, but once we gain control, maybe it will come back down because we control the oil.... NOT

yeah.. and the "Iraq as a strategic post" excuse hardly works on the world stage. We Americans must know what's best for everyone else do we? what's next? INVADE CHINA CUZ IT HAS A DICTATORSHIP AND HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES? be real. I can bet you didn't read a single thing i said in my last post, because these questions should have already been answered.

Excuse the imflammatory response, but i don't get to talk to people who are so undereducated and ignorant on this political forum- thank god for all you guys who have good judgement!!!!

[XxMorningStarxX]

jeechoscopy wrote: China’s international relationship is more transparent than America’s. I support China.
But I’m afraid to express these thoughts because of the American dictatorship.

I would appreciate any alliance India, china and Russia create against this dictatorship.


Umm... American REALLY ISN'T A DICTATORSHIP--- CHINA IS.
it appears that foolishness prevails on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Poon]

I know this is off topic, but:

Whats with all the references to Sun Tzu, Sun Pin? I have a suspicion that Mr. Sun Pin here has his roots in TAiwan. He probably hates China because he is opposed to the idea Taiwan / China unification. My position is that we should avoid violence. There really is no need to integrate Taiwan with China forcefully, Taiwan is ethnically Chinese, and there is ongoing trade between the Island and the Mainland. Perhaps in distant the future Taiwan will merge with Mainland China........

[XxMorningStarxX]

Danpt2000 wrote: I know this is off topic, but:

Whats with all the references to Sun Tzu, Sun Pin? I have a suspicion that Mr. Sun Pin here has his roots in TAiwan. He probably hates China because he is opposed to the idea Taiwan / China unification. My position is that we should avoid violence. There really is no need to integrate Taiwan with China forcefully, Taiwan is ethnically Chinese, and there is ongoing trade between the Island and the Mainland. Perhaps in distant the future Taiwan will merge with Mainland China........

perhaps in the future, yes. But why? Why reunify? China and Taiwan are so different that reunification will prove to be an organisational chaos. It's not like the PRC ever controlled Taiwan in the first place. I personally think China's policy on Taiwan claiming jurisdiction over the island nation is absotutely asinine. Taiwan has been self governed since 1949, and China can't lay a finger on it. The U.S.'s "one China policY" is an appeasement policy towards a corrupt regime.

[Sun Bin]

Danpt2000 wrote: I know this is off topic, but:

Whats with all the references to Sun Tzu, Sun Pin? I have a suspicion that Mr. Sun Pin here has his roots in TAiwan. He probably hates China because he is opposed to the idea Taiwan / China unification. My position is that we should avoid violence. There really is no need to integrate Taiwan with China forcefully, Taiwan is ethnically Chinese, and there is ongoing trade between the Island and the Mainland. Perhaps in distant the future Taiwan will merge with Mainland China........

These references just go to prove just how much people like you know about strategy..

and.. nope, you're wrong again. 100% American, born and raised. However, I will give you credit for being absolutely right about the Taiwan issue being one of the many reasons why I despise China. And I can tell ya that I don't trust the PRC any farther than I can throw 'em.

Quote: perhaps in the future, yes. But why? Why reunify? China and Taiwan are so different that reunification will prove to be an organisational chaos. It's not like the PRC ever controlled Taiwan in the first place. I personally think China's policy on Taiwan claiming jurisdiction over the island nation is absotutely asinine. Taiwan has been self governed since 1949, and China can't lay a finger on it. The U.S.'s "one China policY" is an appeasement policy towards a corrupt regime.

Correctly stated. Especially in regards to our soft "One China Policy".. What a f***ing joke. And, this issue is one of the things I disagree with Bush on.

Not to mention, China doesn't have any more right to the Island than Japan does, considering they both had control over the Island at one point in time..

So, I think it's in the best interests of both China and the US that Taiwan stay it's own nation.

[Sun Bin]

Quote: Family members happen to be in Marines too- I know air force is hard, but i haven't heard a single one of you get wasted.

There have been plenty of us Air Force guys get killed over there, actually.

Quote: The point is Iraq was a mistake, and even though we find that out NOW, some people in high offices do not admit it!!!

*sigh* .. I've said it time and time again... We've been dealing with Iraq for 11 years prior to paying them a second visit. Not only that, but technically, the war with Iraq never ended. Saddam was supposed to live up to the terms of the Cease-Fire agreement, which he did not.. therefore, in the breech of the terms, it might as well have been an unofficial means to go back over there and kick Saddam's ass once again.

Now, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why, in the 8 years of Clintons stint in office, did anyone b**** on such a large scale when Clinton bombed Iraq not once, but 3 times?! And all of a sudden it's a terrible idea that President Bush finally put an end to all of that.

You all think that it's Bush's fault for going into Iraq, misleading us in the process of making the case, yet you still fail to see how this all actually works. The president's job is not to collect intelligence.. that is not his job. His job is to act on the intelligence in which he is given. The intelligence community's collection of information regarding Saddam trying to acquire, produce, or intent on producing NBC weapons, was unfortunately not as accurate as it was when it had been collected. This does not mean, however, that Saddam had no intention or the means to produce these weapons. In fact, there has been high speculation that Saddam transported them off to Syria, even before the war. Even Saddam's own Baathist General, Georges Sada, has attested to the fact that he hid them.

Like I've said before, we cannot afford to second guess and give our enemies any more chances. Saddam may not have been a direct threat, I can agree. But, that isn't what we were worried about. We weren't concerned, necessarily, about Saddam developing ICBMs with MRV warheads attached to them so that he may be able to eventually launch them from some silo in Baghdad. We were concerned with him developing these weapons and dealing them to terrorists. We know he's HAD them. We know he's USED them. We know that he had acted irresponsibly in invading neighboring Kuwait, We know that he has decieved the UN over and over and over again, and we know Saddam has openly supported terrorism by giving money to suicide bombers and their families for attacking Israel, so what could possibly make you think that Saddam is at all trust worthy, and worth us giving him yet another benefit of a doubt?

Quote: and for god's sake man you must be RETARDED. WHY ARE THE OIL PRICES GOING UP?? BECAUSE THERE IS NO MORE OIL LEFT, WE DRILLED AL OF IT. OIL IS GONNA BE GONE IN ABOUT 20 YEARS. YOU KNOW HOW MUCH OIL TANKS AND AIRCRAFT EXPEND. THATS WHY.

Dude, I'm pretty sure that there is plenty of oil left. OPEC just chooses to raise the price per barrel based on supply and demand. Although it could be a very real possibility that oil runs out in a very short time anyway. However, we still have oil reserves in Alaska and off the coast of Florida that need tapping.. so no, there is still oil left to be consumed, for sure, however small. But people are even bitchin' about that.

And I'm pretty sure, with as technologically advanced as we are, if we have to, we could come up with, and we already are coming up with, better or more efficient forms of energy. So, i'm not in the least bit worried

Quote: but the thing is, right winggers don't believe that oil is gonna run out. they believe that it's always gonna be there, and thats why they invaded iraq. Such people, i ntheir "infinite wisdom," think that the high amounts of oil used in the war will result in a momentary increase of oil costs, but once we gain control, maybe it will come back down because we control the oil.... NOT

God, oil is not why we invaded Iraq, already. Do you know why we have to secure their oil fields like in Kirkuk, Basrah, and the rigs in the Persian Gulf? Because without their main export: Oil, Iraq has nothing to base their economy on. And, if Iraq has nothing to base their economy on, then our efforts in rebuilding the country are completely wasted. Why do you think the terrorists keep trying to blow the damn derrecks and rigs up?
Now, after we get all of this mess cleaned up in Iraq, and things start getting a little more stable over there, then I wouldn't be surprised if Iraq started making money if we establish trade with them and import their oil.
But even then, that is mutual between the U.S. and Iraq, since Iraq gets rich off of our consumption. Otherwise, we'd just make it the 51st state.. and I'm pretty sure that's just as far fetched as us going over there simply because "we're greedy, we have a gun, and we want all of your oil iin the bag right now, or..." .... no.

Quote: yeah.. and the "Iraq as a strategic post" excuse hardly works on the world stage. We Americans must know what's best for everyone else do we? what's next? INVADE CHINA CUZ IT HAS A DICTATORSHIP AND HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES? be real. I can bet you didn't read a single thing i said in my last post, because these questions should have already been answered.

One cannot know all of the rewards or consequences of going to war. However, the rewards we measure should outweigh the consequences or risks of taking that action.

Iraq is actually a very strategic position in the middle-east. If Iraq transitions its position and the government establishes really good relations with the U.S., like Germany and Japan did after WWII to present day, then we have a very strategic partner. Think about where our influence is at. Right in the middle of all of those middle-eastern countries. And I would be willing to bet, that if Iraq ends up becoming strategic partners with the U.S., we will still have military bases there. It wouldn't surprise me if we kept a few over there once this is all said and done. But, why would that surprise you? We have military bases all over the middle-east already, so calling it "occupation" is merely a showing of disdain for our continuing presence... hardly justified.

[Slayer]

Sun Bin wrote: Quote: Family members happen to be in Marines too- I know air force is hard, but i haven't heard a single one of you get wasted.

There have been plenty of us Air Force guys get killed over there, actually.

Quote: The point is Iraq was a mistake, and even though we find that out NOW, some people in high offices do not admit it!!!

*sigh* .. I've said it time and time again... We've been dealing with Iraq for 11 years prior to paying them a second visit. Not only that, but technically, the war with Iraq never ended. Saddam was supposed to live up to the terms of the Cease-Fire agreement, which he did not.. therefore, in the breech of the terms, it might as well have been an unofficial means to go back over there and kick Saddam's ass once again.

Now, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why, in the 8 years of Clintons stint in office, did anyone b**** on such a large scale when Clinton bombed Iraq not once, but 3 times?! And all of a sudden it's a terrible idea that President Bush finally put an end to all of that.

You all think that it's Bush's fault for going into Iraq, misleading us in the process of making the case, yet you still fail to see how this all actually works. The president's job is not to collect intelligence.. that is not his job. His job is to act on the intelligence in which he is given. The intelligence community's collection of information regarding Saddam trying to acquire, produce, or intent on producing NBC weapons, was unfortunately not as accurate as it was when it had been collected. This does not mean, however, that Saddam had no intention or the means to produce these weapons. In fact, there has been high speculation that Saddam transported them off to Syria, even before the war. Even Saddam's own Baathist General, Georges Sada, has attested to the fact that he hid them.

Like I've said before, we cannot afford to second guess and give our enemies any more chances. Saddam may not have been a direct threat, I can agree. But, that isn't what we were worried about. We weren't concerned, necessarily, about Saddam developing ICBMs with MRV warheads attached to them so that he may be able to eventually launch them from some silo in Baghdad. We were concerned with him developing these weapons and dealing them to terrorists. We know he's HAD them. We know he's USED them. We know that he had acted irresponsibly in invading neighboring Kuwait, We know that he has decieved the UN over and over and over again, and we know Saddam has openly supported terrorism by giving money to suicide bombers and their families for attacking Israel, so what could possibly make you think that Saddam is at all trust worthy, and worth us giving him yet another benefit of a doubt?

Quote: and for god's sake man you must be RETARDED. WHY ARE THE OIL PRICES GOING UP?? BECAUSE THERE IS NO MORE OIL LEFT, WE DRILLED AL OF IT. OIL IS GONNA BE GONE IN ABOUT 20 YEARS. YOU KNOW HOW MUCH OIL TANKS AND AIRCRAFT EXPEND. THATS WHY.

Dude, I'm pretty sure that there is plenty of oil left. OPEC just chooses to raise the price per barrel based on supply and demand. Although it could be a very real possibility that oil runs out in a very short time anyway. However, we still have oil reserves in Alaska and off the coast of Florida that need tapping.. so no, there is still oil left to be consumed, for sure, however small. But people are even bitchin' about that.

And I'm pretty sure, with as technologically advanced as we are, if we have to, we could come up with, and we already are coming up with, better or more efficient forms of energy. So, i'm not in the least bit worried

Quote: but the thing is, right winggers don't believe that oil is gonna run out. they believe that it's always gonna be there, and thats why they invaded iraq. Such people, i ntheir "infinite wisdom," think that the high amounts of oil used in the war will result in a momentary increase of oil costs, but once we gain control, maybe it will come back down because we control the oil.... NOT

God, oil is not why we invaded Iraq, already. Do you know why we have to secure their oil fields like in Kirkuk, Basrah, and the rigs in the Persian Gulf? Because without their main export: Oil, Iraq has nothing to base their economy on. And, if Iraq has nothing to base their economy on, then our efforts in rebuilding the country are completely wasted. Why do you think the terrorists keep trying to blow the damn derrecks and rigs up?
Now, after we get all of this mess cleaned up in Iraq, and things start getting a little more stable over there, then I wouldn't be surprised if Iraq started making money if we establish trade with them and import their oil.
But even then, that is mutual between the U.S. and Iraq, since Iraq gets rich off of our consumption. Otherwise, we'd just make it the 51st state.. and I'm pretty sure that's just as far fetched as us going over there simply because "we're greedy, we have a gun, and we want all of your oil iin the bag right now, or..." .... no.

Quote: yeah.. and the "Iraq as a strategic post" excuse hardly works on the world stage. We Americans must know what's best for everyone else do we? what's next? INVADE CHINA CUZ IT HAS A DICTATORSHIP AND HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES? be real. I can bet you didn't read a single thing i said in my last post, because these questions should have already been answered.

One cannot know all of the rewards or consequences of going to war. However, the rewards we measure should outweigh the consequences or risks of taking that action.

Iraq is actually a very strategic position in the middle-east. If Iraq transitions its position and the government establishes really good relations with the U.S., like Germany and Japan did after WWII to present day, then we have a very strategic partner. Think about where our influence is at. Right in the middle of all of those middle-eastern countries. And I would be willing to bet, that if Iraq ends up becoming strategic partners with the U.S., we will still have military bases there. It wouldn't surprise me if we kept a few over there once this is all said and done. But, why would that surprise you? We have military bases all over the middle-east already, so calling it "occupation" is merely a showing of disdain for our continuing presence... hardly justified.

They just keep getting better!!!!! :lol:

[leviathan2006]

I am not sure what the US is trying to say, they are saying that anyone who challenge US in military fields are a threat to world peace. However it seems that having a power check would be the best way to prevent any one country from dictating the global political arena. Moreover, there seems to be more then 1 emerging power, this may help to prevent the occurrence of a 2nd cold war.

Just to add on, if China really had the military capability equal to that of the US, there will be no "liberation of Iraq".

So why not just accept the fact of other emerging powers and allow these countries to check against one another. I hope that in that way world peace can be pro-longed

[leviathan2006]

we cannot just invade a country cause we believe that it may want to manufacture weapons of mass destruction and attack us. for christ sake, we ourselves hold on to the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, so what? UN peace keeping forces are suppose to invade us now?

the point with iraq is that we bombed it, but we did not invade it. the whole point is not the killing etc, its the fact that we used military means to take over another country for more than 400 days. please, that is the thing all other countries are worried about. so what now? iran wants to develop nuclear power, we invade them?