AstroProdigy

You already attack me as much as you can Aileron :-(

You fail at getting on the top 10 just like you fail at massing.

It has mine :-(. Why am I so much more vulnerable to sab than everyone else even with a huge sentry?

They are :-\. The only thing that saved me any shred of intelligence was living in a good neighborhood full of immigrants with immigrant parents. Turns out immigrants and their kids are the only thing keeping America going. !@#$%^&* those immigrants ruining our economy!

Aileron knows the secret of his special move that cannot be divulged to anyone else. Sounds like cheating for me especially with the coincidence that he just happens to be using that formula for himself only. I say Aileron resign from game, but give his money to a noob first. Me for example?

Not that this is relevant, but I believe Drake does not live in America and thus is not under their jurisdiction.

Alright Aileron you really seem to have completely digressed from the original point by the end of that first post. The point I was making is that this should be a states issue as it would decrease partisan bickering and better reflect the regional differences in beliefs in America. Of course the federal government would have to start out by turning abortion rights into a states issue. The problem with the federal government representing the majority of it's people is that if 51% of people believe in something then 49% of 300 million which is 147 million people are dissatisfied and if you delegate this issue to the states you will have a much larger majority of satisfied people. It will also mean that politicians who get many of their votes solely on certain issues like abortion rights can be kept out of the federal government with their corrupt agendas. However I disagree with you about the Supreme Court being liberal. It now is conservative as the 5-4 majority will almost always fall on the conservative end and if a Republican gets elected to the presidency it's likely to turn into an ultra conservative court with the retiring of liberal judges and appointing of more conservative judges. Remember the argument that Alito and Roberts would respect precedent? I think we can now safely say that's out the window and the Supreme Court is going to largely be the type of partisan battle that it was never meant to be. What's the solution? Well to start take some of the most divisive issues that don't need to be federal issues out of their hands and return them to the state. If you want to mention other issues and state your opinion of whether they should be state or federal issues and why then feel free as that is the topic.

I'll start off: Abortion should absolutely be a state issue! There's no reason politicians should be able to weasel their way into power in the federal government on this issue. If South Dakotans don't want abortions they shouldn't be forced to give abortions. If New Yorkers want that freedom they should absolutely have that right. The federal government should not be allowed to legislate the same law to different cultures. No matter what stand the federal government takes here the other side will fight to the death for it and since most of the opposition comes regionally sending the issue to the states should lighten the partisanship on capital hill and at the same time pacify the conservative right. If a person in a state where abortions are banned wants to have one then they can simply go to a state where abortions are legal and have their transportation taken care of by the federal government. If people in a state where abortion is banned get sick of it they can fight to legalize it and not waste the time of us "liberal elites" in the northeast to fight for it for them. To make the pro abortion people less angry a law should be enacted saying abortion is legal everywhere, but can be made illegal by a popular referendum for a state and vice versa if it's already been made illegal. That way there won't be a period where people can't have abortions while waiting for a law to be passed making it legal.

Canada has weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction.

Cuz Aileron sabotages 8k high top speed and level 3 bullet a day and I coulda used the money to build #1 sentry AND finally be able to build my defenses sabotage free! Noob :-(

NOOB WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE THE MONEY TO ME!?!

Meanwhile Stalin had to elevate his own status to that of some sort of Commy super being, a god even, to do what he did. The moral of the story any time there is a God involved or someone claiming to be superior or following the word of someone superior it can end in m!@#$%^&* murder.

and 1337 Soldiers are #1 again PWNT

Your merc strategy fails because the lack of income coming to you means you'd have to be able to attack constantly to make up for it, which is impossible with the limit in turns. Maybe if you had a few thousand extra turns.

I agree with the last sentence there. Also when this was being offered it was 2003 and since then we've basically thrown that away and will need to try a lot harder to get cooperation again. When Obama said to talk with Iran he was attacked within his own party and with the likely candidates for the Democratic and Republican tickets I seriously don't see it happening. Maybe Hillary could give in to her own party's pressure if things get really bad and the Democrats push for it, but Guliani would rather nuke Iran than cooperate. It's too bad because we could have access to ALL the remaining Middle East oil that we aren't getting or are barely getting access to. On top of that we could use Shiites and a few choice allies to keep the Middle East under wraps. It's not like Saudi Arabia stops the attacks that hit us where it hurts anyway (terrorism) and Turkey will never be the ally they once were anyway. At best they'd side with Europe against us and at worst they'll take a pan Turkic stance on all issues and seriously mess things up.

And after 9/11 they offered us peace and cooperation because we were attacked by the people they hate too and we went ahead and destroyed their two biggest enemies in the Middle East: Click Here. We went ahead and continued on with the rhetoric and embargoes anyway and refused cooperation. For Aileron: The reason Hamas and Hezbollah are so popular is because they offer a lot of social services that otherwise would NOT be offered and they attack a popular enemy. This is not missionary work as no one is converting their religion. The US sends financial and other support to organizations we support ALL THE TIME! Why is the US special? If anything Iran has more of a right in participating in Middle East politics than the US because it's actually part of the Middle East. I agree that Iran is a very oppressive country, but the only way to really defeat that is if the masses in Iran reject it and oust the theocracy. As long as we act as the antagonist and impoverish the people there they will unite against us. The funny thing is Iranians like America more than the French do and would love to be partners with us in the Middle East. There are countries with a state religion that are not oppressive, however, and while I agree Iran should be more tolerant towards other religious views I absolutely reject the notion that Iran should not have a vested interest in protecting Shiites and being a proponent of Shia Islam. If we become willing to ally with Iran then they absolutely cannot have nuclear weapons. We expect the same thing from countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. However as long as our only offer to Iran is annihilation they will never want to cooperate. We don't have to form a friendly alliance right away. All we need to do is work towards warming our relations with them and then see where things go from there. We might just become a neutral party with Iran, but then at least we still get the trading relations and thus the oil as well as help with any Shiite population if we cut a deal with them. Imagine if Shiites stopped attacking us in Iraq and all we had to focus on was a Sunni Arab insurgency that we could largely phase out by giving them local autonomy from the central authority in Baghdad and the possibility of an autonomous Sunni state. THAT is the solution to the quagmire in Iraq. Also think of what would happen to Hamas if Israel started offering a fair solution to the PLO and at the same time Iran cut it's support from Hamas. Poof no more Hamas or at the very least we'd force Hamas to be reasonable. Don't forget that Iran is a mostly Shiite non Arab state and thus has little forced interest in Palestine. Their interests are voluntary and thus like Turkey they aren't ethnically forced to be popularly the enemies of Israel.

Hamas is a Sunni organization for one. Iran is also allied with a rival Shia sect that controls Syria. The fact is that what Iran wants is respect. Remember Iran is basically the successor of the Persian Empire. THE PERSIAN EMPIRE PEOPLE!! They have the numbers and the religious influence required to be a major regional power and while the US at first helped them greatly and they wanted to cooperate with us because of it, we (Bush) basically slapped them in the face and now they're exerting their influence in any way they can. Hamas was elected democratically in a free and fair election so you can hardly say Hamas is just a puppet. The same goes for Hezbollah. The only reason they survive such strict opposition from the major powers is because they have massive support from their people. The point being that Palestinians themselves chose not to continue on the path that was started with the renewed cooperation between Israel and the PLO. It was completely Democratic as was the election of Ahmedinejad and we really need to acknowledge that. Palestinians didn't want a messed up solution where Israel keeps all the most fertile terrain in the West Bank and the water resources along with the city of Jerusalem that is their only real choice for a plausible capital. Lebanon wasn't headed towards jack !@#$%^&*. It's permanently locked in bitter sectarian tensions and nothing short of a Syrian occupation would change that. The Shiites represent Shiites, the Sunnis represent Sunnis, the Christians represent Christians and only the Druze represent Lebanese interests as a whole. Keep in mind the Druze pride themselves in loyalty of whatever state they're in and they only comprise 5% of the population. The point is that Lebanon is divided and even without Iran that division would still be there and you can't possibly expect Syria to stay out of Lebanese affairs seeing as the existence of Lebanon as separate from Syria is entirely a French colonial move created as a Christian majority state that will never be a Christian majority state and is, therefore, defunct. I agree Hezbollah's attacks on Israel were total !@#$%^&* done for the sake of Iran, but Shiites only have fellow Shiites to help them here. As for democracy being served here, Lebanon is run on a completely undemocratic system and if the system were based on true democracy then Hezbollah, along with half the Christians who support them would likely win. As for Iraq, what Iran is doing there is destabilizing and hurts our interests, but then again we're threatening them and they're just doing what they can to hurt us. Sunnis have a history of oppressing Shiites in Iraq and on top of that there are still suicide bombers killing 100 Shiites at a time. They have also bombed and virtually destroyed one of Shiite Islam's holiest sites. If someone bombed Mecca or Medina what would happen? How about the Vatican or the Wailing Wall? This is a sectarian battle and if Shiites didn't fight it Sunnis would kill them. I agree the US should stop the violence by creating greater local control and regions for the different groups to be safe, but that's something Bush would not be willing to do for some reason. We share a lot of the blame here. The Kurds already have their own control and look how great that's turning out? You've also had the region ethnically cleansed so much by now that regions would be plausible without facing too many people on the wrong side. The problem isn't Iran. The problem is false borders and incoherent US policies that have allowed ethnic and religious tensions to thrive.

Ok let's not turn this into an election debate. This is an issue of what Turkey does to Kurds not politics and let's not meddle up a clear right versus wrong issue with American politics. First off to Sever Turkey has a right to treat the largest portion of the Kurdish population like !@#$%^&*? Turkey just can't stand Kurds governing themselves because they always !@#$%^&*umed Kurds were just animals and how can animals govern themselves? If you think countries have a right to their own borders regardless of what they do to segments of their population then why does Turkey have a right to go into Iraq begging for an excuse to firebomb the North to try to destroy all the work Kurds have painstakingly done on the heels of a near annihilation from Saddam? The fact is that Iran actually treats Kurds better than Turkey. Iran has no quarrels about Kurdish culture. Kurds are allowed to be Kurds there, but as (mostly) Sunnis Iran distrusts them. They also have a lack of democratic representation rights because running an ethnic party is seen as anti-Iranian. Turkey on the other hand has denied Kurds even existed up until the 90s under strong European pressure. You see Turkey loves to deny things it doesn't like such as their steadfast denial of the Armenian genocide, a genocide that inspired Hitler. Anyway, To them Kurds should not exist. They should be Turks or else they're criminals. Up until recently speaking Kurdish would be prosecuted in Turkey. A female Kurdish politician in the Turkish Parliament said "may Turks and Kurds live in peace" in Kurdish and was condemned as a separatist and sent to prison. Today you can speak Kurdish, but anything that can be even slightly construed as "insulting Turkishness" such as what I found out having a swimming pool that looked too similar to a map of Kurdistan will be prosecuted. The Kurds don't want to live with Turkey because Turks are raised to despise Kurds who don't become Turks. Turkey is talking of incursions into Iraq because the PKK, a Kurdish separatist organization, has been doing to them what Iraqis have been doing to us and run back into the mountains of northern Iraq. The reason the Kurdish Regional Government doesn't try to stop them is that they are rightfully popular among Iraqi Kurds; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If they did not only would it be near impossible to dislodge a force that lives in difficult mountain terrain, but it would be the undoing of the Kurdistan Regional Government because it is democratic and the people would not be happy. Now you understand why things are the way they are here. Frankly ever since the end of the Cold War Turkey has gone from an anti-communist !@#$%^&*et to a meddling Middle Eastern liability. They would be a liability if we invaded Iran or Syria too. Their interests are going to continually run counter to ours so why are we still beating this dead horse we call an alliance? People make the argument that this would turn Turkey towards the Middle East, but what they've ignored is that the Middle East at best doesn't like Turkey and at worst hates Turkey. Turkey has a reputation stemming from the Ottoman Empire of being imperialist and countries that were formerly in the Ottoman Empire are wary of them. Iran hates what they stand for as well nor do they appreciate the role Turkey is itching to play of dislodging the Azeris, who are a rare example of how to treat a minority right, from Iran. I'm not sure how it happened, but I almost completely agree with Aileron here except for one point. You will never win this type of guerrilla war without winning over the people. As long as Turkey treats the Kurds like an inferior culture to be snuffed out and keep them impoverished the support for the guerrilla war will never end short of a genocide. The fact is the Kurds are the best ally in the Middle East today that Turkey once was during the Cold War. They are smack in the middle of it all and would be a very strong supporter of whatever US interests are simply as a matter of self preservation. They also are naturally inclined to be secularist whereas Turkey needs to force it on their people in order for it to last. That means a lot. The Kurds reject extremists in Islam because their oppressors are Muslims of various creeds. We could use the Kurds as a bargaining chip while at the same time aiding in their development. If Turkey wants to stop us all we need to do is cut off all aid to their military that we've been giving to prop it up and demolish their American maid air force. Then we don't need to occupy all of Turkey, simply the Kurdish part extending to a port in the Mediterranean from which we have permanent access to the heart of the Middle East. Keep in mind that only Turkey has a vital interest in stopping Kurdish independence. Syria and Iran have much smaller portions of Kurdistan and this we could conceivably make a deal with them. To Syria we can trade a poor province in the Northeast where they have the biggest trouble for the highly profitable city of Antioch that historically belongs to them and was stolen by Turkey. To Iran we can take the Sunni part of Kurdistan that they don't want anyway because Iran is a Shiite state and trade them the Shiite Iraq that loves Iran anyway. We shouldn't see Iran and Syria as enemies. In fact we should slowly work to flip our alliance from one fundamentalist and one secularist country (Saudi Arabia and Turkey) to another (Iran and Syria). The oil Saudi Arabia has is found in the Shiite northeast strip that belongs with Shiite Arabs in Mesopotamia anyway and on top of that Iran could exert influence over the oil rich and Shiite Azerbaijan too. I know most of you haven't had the patience to read up to here, but all I'm saying is American interests are not well served with a Cold War mentality and flipping our support to the other side would give us monumentally greater potential. It is morally justified in finally freeing the Kurds of foreign oppression, economically justified in the potential to have access to the vast majority of the oil in the Middle East found in Kurdistan, Shiite Arab lands, and the Caspian Sea, logistically justified in switching our support from the outskirts of the Middle East to it's very center, and militarily justified because flipping support from one side to another is called divide and conquer and that is the most powerful strategy ever invented.

Guliani getting "Man of the Year" for his photo ops is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard. I actually think Bush is better than Guliani because I actually believe he is sincere about his social convictions.

So? Ever heard of publicity stunts? Rudy Guliani did it on 9/11 why can't Stephen Colbert?

Heaven forbid someone doesn't define themselves as one or the other.

Ever think that maybe everyone is born bisexual and through raising most people reject people of their own sex, but some people, for reasons mostly determined early on go the opposite way or stay bisexual?

agreed

Fred Thomspon is also a boring candidate who just entered recently and has nothing of the funding Guliani has. He also gets his support from more conservatives and I've read articles talking about how Conservatives support Guliani as a pragmatic move hoping for the win in the long term. Are we really going to debate whether Republicans prefer a Conservative over a moderate? Remember how Bush won in 2000? He ran as a compassionate Conservative and lapped up the support. I'm sure the old line fiscal conservatives and moderate Republicans might want their own types, respectively, but the dominating powers in the GOP are the marriage of the conservative right and neo cons. Whether this will change is a matter of opinion, but it hardly seems to be able to change this quickly. Romney is a very conservative so people's worries are about his religion and not his stances whereas Guliani is perfect as a neo con. In the end Guliani would appoint conservative justices who would uphold conservative values and that's what will really matter for these issues anyway hence the pragmatic approach.