Aileron

Al Queda does not represent the rebels in Chechnya. (The spelling differs with whichever language you are using. Suffice to say there is no correct spelling.) However, I have little doubt that one of you will find something on Russia. Spain however is another matter. Al Queda doesn't really represent Iraq either. They attack out forces in Iraq strictly because it is convenient to do so, or out of enemy of an enemy. Islamic Fundimentalists and Baath party members have no idealogical common ground. (Also, by saying that you are admitting that there is a connection between Iraq and Al Queda.) Besides, anyone with any respect for Al Queda's cunning shouldn't trust a -*BAD WORD*- thing they say. Al Queda is too smart to tell the truth in the simple way, though they may tell the truth under the premise that we think they are lying. There is no real terrorism against Great Britain or Australia from Al Queda. The point was such an attack does not seem all that unlikely. If such an attack were to occur, under Monte's and Bacchus' logic it would require that one of those two countries somehow oppressed Al Queda first. Both of those countries do a whole lot of nothing in the War on Terror, yet the possibility of Al Queda attacking them doesn't seem to be that much of a jaw-dropper.

No, terrorism stems from Middle Eastern cultural decadence in the face of growing western cultural strength. The old Middle Eastern nations were greater and more progressive than any current faction. I'll try an easier approach. If terrorism springs from the US' own actions, what has Russia done to deserve their recent hijackings? What did Spain do to deserve the train attacks a few months ago? When they attack Great Britain or Australia, what then will you say your countries did to deserve those attacks? Terrorists are like a dying fish. The fundimentalist section of their culture is dying and is going to be replaced by a better more progressive version of their culture. Even now, groups like those Bacchus mentioned seek to reform Middle Eastern culture to its former glory. The fundimentalists know this, and it pains them to no end. What's worse is that they can't stop it. When a fish knows that they are about to die, they swim towards a predator and attacks that predator. The smaller fish knows death is inevitable and seeks the most painless way possible - a quick death by being eaten by a larger fish. Similarly, Al Queda seeks to attack virtually all the world's powers. They know that the fundimentalist sect of Islam is doomed beyond means to recover. Thus, they seek the most painless death they can get - a glorious but hopeless battle against all the world's powers put together. If they hated the US, their targets would be US, US, and US. But, their targets were US, Spain, and Russia. They seek to provoke the world's powers one by one. To make the fight more and more hopeless so that they could recieve more and more glory.

Was that reasoning carefull and thought-out enough, or should I come back tomorrow with a longer post?

Well, the US isn't the world's first superpower by a long shot, though it depends on your definition of the word superpower. Most people's definition would atleast include anchient Rome, who put the second "R" in arrogant and still lasted thousands of years. Do you honestly think we come to our decisions quickly or carelessly, without reference to the history of the world? I know atleast I have studied history and other cultures, and I agree with the current string of actions. Therefore I doubt the leadership is acting in a careless fashion. Compaire the current Middle Eastern cultures to the many great one throughout history. The greater Middle Eastern cultures practiced tolerence, made revolutionary strides for government (such as basic codes of law.), and were very open to other cultures. They set up universities and consolidated the sciences or their times. Their cities were centers of commerce and innovations. The people we are facing are in no way defenders of the cultural heritage. They are hijackers of their culture and their religion who use it as a ploy to defend their backwards line of thought. Not one of the great Middle Eastern nations was ruled by a warlord or dictator, though some were ruled by Emperors and Monarchs. "Jihad" by origional definitions meant AVOIDING civilian casualties, no matter how difficult the fight. I know facing our armed forces is difficult, but somebody who is truly righteous and brilliant could fight the good fight and win. Ironically, by imposing democracy on the Middle East, we are probably preserving more of their culture than we are destroying. It was after all the Middle East that created the very first roots of democracy. Their cultural heritage is that of being progressive, commercial, and tolerant. We are doing the opposite of taking away their culture, we are reinstating it. Besides, cultures are not moral goal. People are the moral goal. Also, even if we are wrong, please pardon our desire to continue our own existence. At very least we will get them to work with each other. At very least, if we piss all of them off against us, they will unite their many ideals. Democracy is not an ideal that is dependant on culture. The forms of governments that came before were universal. You could find Emperors as far west as the Aztecs and far east as Japan. If the monarchy and imperial models are unviversal, it is likely that democracy is too. I know you are axious to see the next great nation to arise and bring the US to her knees, but know this. That nation is not the middle east. The nation that takes the US down will be one of superior thought, one that looks to the future rather than clings to the past. Al Queda and the warlord system are nothing but dark-aged rulers who overlived their usefullness to the world. That is the true reason why they use suicide !@#$%^&*aults. They know the time for the oppresive ways of government that they represent is over.

Bush's stance on religion: Religion should not be eradicated from society. Nothing radical about that, unless you are a radical liberal who thinks religion has no place in our society. Economy: Trickle-Down Theory. Not really the best plan, but better than Kerry's plan of raising taxes and creating government programs to make up the difference. BTW, that's socialism. Environment: Alright, Bush sucks in that department. Stem Cells: Hey, Bush's party is against stem cells too. Its a controversial issue, and he just happens to be in disagreement with you. Besides, I don't see the point of stem cell research. Its kind of like tearing apart a brand new truck to get parts for some rusting-beat-up piece of junk made in the 70s. You are sacrificing something that could last quite a long time to get something else to last a little while longer. Take a sinking ship for example. If there aren't enough liferafts, you put the children, who have their life ahead of them, on the liferafts and leave the old men, who have lived a full life, to die. Amendment on gay marriage: Hey, two decades ago being gay was considered a mental disease. Besides, the president doesn't add amendments, so it doesn't matter who is elected here. No doubts about it though, if Canadians, British, French, Germans, and Australians voted, Bush would lose.

Bacchus, your criticism of the US only proves my point: We are too conservative for your tastes. Al Queda is not a group of Saudi Rebels or Lybian Social Fighters. Al Queda is group of fundimentalists who are everything you hate about American culture doubled. They wish to have the gap between rich and poor driven even larger, and to have their idiot mockery of the Muslim Religion mandatory for all who walk the face of the Earth. They claim to be defending their "culture". Infact, they are defending the system of oppression that gave individuals like Bin Laden their wealth. The groups you mentioned may be indeed defending their culture, but Al Queda is not. Welcome to the Middle East, a conflicting mess of small groups with different idealogies. You happened to visit a liberal sect. The US is at war with the highly fundamentalist sect down the street.

Dr. Worthless, that whole post can be summed up in one sentence: John Kerry is THE most liberal member of congress. There is no Senator more liberal than John Kerry. That explains why liberal Europe, Canada, and Australia love him. Seriously though, Kerry doesn't have a shot at winning. The best analogy would be "Pick a number between 1 and 100" The logical response in a two party system would be to say "50" or "51". That way, you have a 50/50 shot of winning. The Democrats said "99" by picking Kerry. He is in the top 1% of liberals in the country. I'd be willing to bet that Nadar is more conservative than Kerry. All the Republicans have to do in order to win is paint Bush out to be a "98". That can't quite be done, but lets just subs!@#$%^&*ute "as liberal as believeable". Bush is about a "48". They chose him to face the "62" Gore. The American public chose "54.9". The Republican can probably get Bush up to about "65" by November. That gives Bush about an % chance of winning, provided the number was chosen randomly. That isn't the best part. The best part is the odds of what number is chosen by the American public. Since the Repbulicans redistricted last, and due to a conservatice public opinion swing to fight the War on Terror, the American public is most likely to choose a number in the high 40s. In any case, they are not going to choose the "82" necessary for a Kerry victory. Simply put and analogies aside: You don't pick radicals of either leftist or rightist variety to run for president, and Kerry is a left-wing radical. The Democrats WANT Kerry to lose so that they can safely run Hillary Clinton in 2008.

The mistake Bacchus is making is simple. He is trying to map the middle eastern mind with the thought processes of westerns. THEY DON'T THINK LIKE US. You guys hate the United States because we are too conservative for your tastes. Al Queda hates us because we are too liberal for their tastes. You think our actions are right wing, but the actions of Al Queda are simply too far right for you to comprehend. You guys make the mistake of !@#$%^&*uming that terrorists are fellow liberals. They aren't - they are conservative fundimentalists. If Bin Laden subscribed to this topic, I would be about halfway between him and Bacchus. Simply put: Bacchus - However much you think you dissagree with my opinion, your disagrement between yourself and Al Queda is twice that. Monte - " " " " is three times that. In any case, the opinions of the liberal minded would be the opposite of what we need right now. Those actions would do a very good job of making Europe happy, but would make the Middle East even more pissed at us. You cannot please the right by moving left or by thinking in a leftist manner. You have to move right to please the right. Any plan that would bring peace to the US and Al Queda would have to be for the US to move right while Al Queda moves left. This plan would piss you guys off!! You already think the US is too far right, and this action would take us farther right. As for me, I'd like this plan at first. However, only after a short time, it would piss me off in such a way that I would AGREE WITH YOU TWO. There is a very good reason why we are approaching this situation with retaliation instead of a peace plan, and you guys should be thankfull for it. The US shifting far right to please Al Queda would have severe worldwide consequences. I guarentee, if the US made any move towards a truce or armistace in the War on Terror, Europe and Australia would rush in to pick up the slack. The exception ofcourse is the Palestinian terrorists. They are indeed left wing. However, that is Israel's concern at the moment, not ours. Besides, hatred is an emotion. By definition, emotions do not always have to be rational. Thus, it is faulty to assume that any hatred was gotten by logical means without proof. Look at the Nazi's treatment of the Jews. Did the jews do anything to deserve that level of hatred from the Nazis? Sometimes hatred is brought on by ones actions. Most of the time however, it is merely the result of selective mental conditioning.

I just thought about something regarding the protesters that surrounded the GOP convention in NY. As all of you know, the only thing standing in the way of the polic rounding them up and sending them to prison for 90 years is the first amendment, which grants all citizens the right to !@#$%^&*embly. What's odd is what they are protesting. They are protesting the GOP's right to !@#$%^&*emble. Maybe we should repeal the First Amendment and execute them for stupidity.

Well, with exception to Rumsfeld and Cheney, the rest of Bush's cabinet is rather moderate, and would make good speakers. What it comes down to is that fact that there is only so much time to hold a convention, they are too long already. Besides, if Bush is campaigning, somebody has to stay behind to run the country.

*falls off his chair in amazement, then falls back up." OMG, A NON-PESSIMIST IN THIS FORUM!!!

Actually, the Hussein as Evil part is a very good description. His son tortured people just for the fun of it. Maybe you guys don't view the US as good, but we are at very least nuetral. If our motive was WMDs and Iraqi freedom, we administered justice. If our motive was oil and profit, we administered poetic justice. Swarzenegger is more than a mere movie star. He is a former body builder, so he has personal strength and disipline. He is an immigrant, bringing in that section of the vote. He has a lot of good qualites that bring him above the level of mere movie star. Compare him to his equivolent from the left, Michael Moore. Moore does not have enough personal strength to get a haircut. He is not an immigrant, but is quick to judge the right on such issues. Swarzeneeger did much to help kids. Moore pointed his finger to the Right and said "go help the kids". Swarzenegger's movies, such as Kindergarden Cop and Last Action Hero, tend to be positive and cheerfull. Moore is always negative, pointing out how the world is doomed. Swarzenegger abused women and apologized for it. Moore probably NEVER GOT LAID IN HIS LIFE!!! Also, forgive the GOP for going for the moderate votes. The democrats picked their most liberal senator for president and he picked the fourth. Kerry is the liberal equivolent of Strom Thurmond, and has equal chances of success. There is no balance in the democratic ticket, and they are allowing the GOP easy access to the middle. The GOP is going to try to get the middle, because they know they can get it easily.

Monte, you just can't see how left-wing you are. Besides, the cons!@#$%^&*ution doesn't give citizens the right to own arms as much as deny the right of the government to take them away. Alright, you win, we are a culture. Call us the Gunownians. What is your justfication for oppressing the Gunownian culture? Just because our heritage is different than yours doesn't give you the right to tell us how to live. There are many cultures in the world, not just yours. By what right can you judge which cultures are right and which ones are wrong? Now, I'm going to perform the ritual sacfrifice to ours gods Winchester, Colt, Glock, and Springfield.

Its now time for...Ail's "I thought that was obvious" comment of the day. Look, all four of them were trying to recruit younger voters. You don't sent your early twenties year old daughter on to MTV to recruit geriatrics. That was Ail's "I thought that was obvious" comment of the day, sponsored in full by Trench Wars Incorporated - We own Subspace, and soon we will own you. Seriously, I honestly am more attracted to Kerry's daughters, but I'm still voting Bush. It pains me to see parties go through half hearted efforts to get certain groups of voters. The only serious case I see is the GOP's desire to pull in minority votes, (the GOP is putting minorities in big government positions.) although their efforts are still small at this point.

Monte, I live in the US. I would notice if there was a gun culture here. There isn't. Its a myth. Owning a gun doesn't instantly change your mindset or your culture.

Yeah, but Bush has TWO hot daughters.

Europe is WAY more urban than the US. Yeah, they have their rural areas too, but the Great Plains are friggin ridiculous. Let me start by saying that there is no such thing as a "gun culture". It is a term made up by the leftist media to make gun owners out to be strange. There are people who happen to own guns and people who don't. It takes more to define one's culture than the owning of a single piece of property. The weapon of choice for fanatics happens to be explosives. Outlawing guns won't help that. It isn't so much about the right for people to have guns, rather than the right of governments to deny them. Disarming the populace is the first thing any dictatorship does after seizing power. Dictators need to remove threats to themselves, and an armed populace is a threat to oppressive governments. Guns may not be good against tanks, but: A) They are better than rocks They are good enough to do quick raids, such as taking over a tank factory.

No programmers, build a bot for MY up and coming zone...I am all the way done with MY map. Actually, I'm kinda accepting that I have to learn ASSS on my own, but if would be willing to help, pm >ME<.

or, you could make the bot a terr or warbird and have it repel constantly.

nice, but... You need to do something about lame players laying mines next to the attach bot. I won't name names...Aileron. Who, me? Yes, you! I would never do something that lame! Yes, you would. I watched you do it. Cheater. Its perfectly legal! No it isn't! Show me where it says that you can't lay mines next to the attaching bot! .... .... .... .... -*BAD WORD*-. The point is, lame players can lay mines or bricks next to the bot, and players that attach to the bot can do nothing about it.

I say, change everything radically. With the rate I go through zones, I'll be able to pick up the new setts immeadiatley and own all of you for the first month.

Well, that's the difference between the US and a lot of European nations, we have a lot more rural areas than they do. I have no idea why Australia is taking their side. In any case, a better thing to do would be to leave it up to local governments. Let the city enact regulations, and the rural areas not have them. You didn't cite murder rates - you cited deaths by firearms. Well, I will admit that it does seem that guns helped against out of controll government in the 18th century more than today. However, maybe in the 22nd century, they may be needed greatly. Basically, when the government isn't running away, a failsafe against runaway governement doesn't seem that usefull, but some time in the future, the government may run away on us. If your regular brakes are working, why do you need an emergency brake? There are many nations around the world that are essentially run by warlords robbing the local peasants. If the peasants had guns, the warlords wouldn't be able to do this. The second amendment may not be usefull at this place and time, but what about the next?

yep. Here's my ideal tax plan: 1) Reduce the paperwork to a single page for a 1040 form, and cut frivolous deductions. Basically, make it simple, so people save money by not having to go to an accountant to have their taxes done. 2) Make an effort to keep taxes low for business and industry. Particularly, give them a rebate proportional to the money they are giving to their American employees. The more people they hire, the more money from taxes they get back. Neither candidate has anything close to what I want. However, I like Bush's plan better because his plan is more intelligent than Kerry's.

I said equal, not identical. Yeah, I know very well the mental differences, (until Sunday I currently live with my mother and three sisters.) but that leads to a post so long that you would be bored by the time you would reach my point. The point is that women can be combat trained practically as easy as men. They have obvious hormonal problems, but that can be overcome. The real problem is strength. The average healthy man is about 210 lbs. the average healthy woman about 120 lbs and the average infantryman's backpack about 100 lbs. The difference in physical training is the difference between training someone to carry half their body weight and all their body weight. Compared to that overcoming the hormones that dicate the female thought process is fairly simple.

1) Well balanced, slightly libertarian. That means conservative at the moment but is liable to change. 2) I'm mostly a clone of my father, a man who grew up a Democrat and is now a Republican. I was also influenced by my Catholic religion and the conservative area I grew up. I had my share of hardships, but am not here for a sob story. 3) Good and realistic national energy plan, abortion, good use of military forces, proper controll over government funds, but mostly I hate hasty conclusions made by individuals who are too like-minded.