Aileron

We had no choice but to ignore the UN - Chirac had a security council vote. We weren't getting UN support no matter what we did, because Chirac is clearly an anti-American radical. He is even too anti-American for France - his approval rating is a pathetic 35%. To be too anti-American for France is to be on par with terrorists themseslves. How could we persuade this guy, obviously a nutcase, to take our side? Even less radical European countries have no desire to help the US with this fight - they really want to sidestep it and make us do the majority of the fighting. The US could use allies, but we have the wrong ones. We need to get new allies - ones better suited and those with more of a stake in this fight. That is why we went into Iraq. Now, we have an ally that has an extreme stake in the War on Terror, and can train their armed forces to the specific purpose. Terrorists cannot destroy an entire country, even if they get a nuke. However, terrorist's supporters are willing to sacrifice only so much in order to support them. If every terrorist action brings loss of life and freedom to their native country - they will have problems rallying support. If this doesn't work, we may end up nuking them. The point is - sooner or later we would lose desire to be civilized - once that happens it would be the supporters, as well as a ton of innocents, who would suffer.

Good recovery, but not enough. So, you are saying that we shouldn't vote for Bush because Rumsfeld was a part of the Iraq/Iran war? The majority of Bush's cabinet have a whole lot of nothing to do with the Iraq/Iran war, or atleast as much as Kerry's cabinet (after it gets decided) would have. We need to vote for the future, not the past.

Tascar is right - you people are too much sometimes, especially Bacchus. You people are not trying to persuade, you are trying to judge. Why should Tascar want to spend his time to put himself through this - especially when the jury is biased to begin with. Look, Saddam's when came from wherever he could get them, and since we took Iraq's side in the Iraq/Iran war alot came from us. However, we are not part of the problem, because we thought that the weapons would be used on the Iranis, which at the time deserved it. We also didn't give Saddam WMDs, we gave them missles-which he converted into WMDs by changing the warheads. However, that bears no bearing on the current situation. Bush was elected after Hussein was in power, and how Hussein was created bears little relevency to the question as whether or not he should have been removed. This is what Tascar is talking about folks - this arguement is not meant to prove Bush is wrong, it is meant to prove that the United States is evil.

uggh, this could have been a good topic. I don't think there is a good way to compare the threat the Soviet Union posed to the threat terrorists pose. The threat of the Soviet Union was measured like all other nations in history - by the size and strength of their military and economy. The threat of terrorists is mostly dependant upon what we are and are not willing to do in order to stop it. Overall, I think terrorists are more of a problem. The Soviet Union ultimately could be persuaded to take a "live and let live" approach to the US' existence. Terrorists do not. The US and USSR were willing to send amb!@#$%^&*aders to each other, and could sit at a table and negotiate. It is impossible to imagine terrorist amb!@#$%^&*aders (they don't exist, but) negotiating with US amb!@#$%^&*aders. I wouldn't compare it with a bike and a truck - the US WILL win the War on Terror - the only variable is the cost that nations that sponser terrorism will suffer.

My only point of contestation is the last one. The American people is quickly beginning to not listen to the media, because they see how ridiculous it is. I remember that Swarzenegger had a ton of media attack on him, and every attack they made actually boosted his polls.

OMG, Unlimited managed to put "Illuminati" and "fact" in the same post without making more of a -*BAD WORD*- of himself!! (noteing that he is a -*BAD WORD*- to begin with) Seriously, if you believe that crap, you should vote for Bush. That way, you help fu(|< up their plans.

Sorry, democracy is much better than dictatorships and monarchies. Why? Because a dictator or a king cannot force the country to follow him by himself. They need either a supporting party or a group of nobles. Both cases require a large amount of racism and classism to operate. Yes, by itself a king isn't much worse than a president. However, in order for a politically relevent king to exist, 2/3rds of the population has to be serfs. That means most of the talents and skills of the country are waisted on essentially slave farm workers. Here's a challenge, name one case where a dictatorship or monarchy beat a democracy in a military conflict. It just doesn't happen, because democracies make better use of their populations. One example for my side would be the Mexican-American War. Both countries at that time were second-world, and their total economies were about equal. The US sent a national army. Thus, all states had to donate taxes and manpower. The leadership of this army was trained, and ranks were allotted by merit. The Mexican's however practically did not have a national army. The individual aristocrats, who held the strings to Santa Anna's power, could decide whether or not to support the defense of their country. If they actually did donate troops, the aristocrats themselves generaled the armies, ranks allotted by whoever had the most money. The Mexicans, if their military was in a democratic format, could have beaten the US twice over. However, the US marched on Mexico city with only light casualties. Why? Because the US was a democracy and Mexico was a dictatorship. Here's the big point though - the problems you may or may not with democracy - rigged elecations, bribes, race and classism, etc. are exactly that - problems. The less of these things exist - the better for the overall system. However the monarchy and dictatorship systems REQUIRE these evils to function. If you don't like democracy, it is most likely that you are a rich aristocrat who is racist and classist.

[OOC-I think I'll start where I left off, with a new plot] In a dark run-down warehouse on the outskirts of 17th parallel station, a few people waited in anticipation. Over the past month, they had converted the warehouse into a makeshift laboratory, and now were awaiting the element of their experiments. Suddenly, a transport ship landed. The port hatched open, and a crewman leaned out, only saying "We got them!" Minutes later, they were all standing around a central table. On it was stolen bionanobots from a lab in Tau Ceti IV. After programming the bots from a pre-fabricated disk, one member went over to a refrigeration device. Inside was a human brain, perfectly preserved. He took out the brain, and carried it over to the table, and set it among the bionanobots. The bots swarmed around the brain, and soon absorbed it. The m!@#$%^&* suddenly started moving. Then a voice came over the loudspeaker. "No, you fool! That will blow up the reactor! - oh where am I?" "Ailius?" the lab director said, "I am Dr. Farson. You have been dead for four years, and have been ressurrected in the form of this nanobot mass" "You ressurected me as this - blob?" "We programed the bots to respond to your thoughts. It should not be difficult to assume a humanoid shape." Indeed, the blob was aleady partway there. Ailius spent a minute in deep concentration, and the blob gradually took the shap of a human. Ailius was back.

Akai, the serious point of this forum is to debate. Debating in a place designated for the purpose is in no way stupid. Going into a forum designated for debate and saying that debating in a forum that is designated for debate is stupid, is stupid.

Some of these arguements are started because people think their country is worth the time - not a child like quality at all.

Well, in my opinion, governments should seek what is good, whether or not it is right. It is more the role of Religious and Charity organizations to pursue what is right.

You don't understand the point of this forum. The point of this forum seems to be a place where ignorant, arrogant, and poorly informed Europeans can bash US foreign policy for no other reason than to recover their self esteem from their own inep!@#$%^&*ude. They don't care about media coverage or what happens to Iraqi civilians - the just want to justify their belief that the US is evil.

You know, there hasn't been one story on the rebuilt hospitals, powerlines, and other infrastructure. Not to mention the progress in that department that exceeded what was there before we attacked. Also, they hardly say anything about the new government, except when some official gets !@#$%^&*asinated. You know, there pretty much is NO coverage of good news from a place where there is just about as much good news as bad news. I think you should stop whining about which piece of bad news is covered, because CCN is clearly biased to your side.

I will start buy affirming that there is a state of reverse descrimination in this country and that 3/4ths of the people in here are right - especially Dr. Worthless However, I would to point out a stupidity on the part of some white people. Remember that girl who kept trying to get into the Law School of Michigan University and kept getting turned down because she was right. She should have given up and tried Klu Klux College. I mean, what the University of Michgan does is wrong. They set up a brick wall based on race. However, what the girl did was stupid. When she ran into the wall, she should have stopped banging her head against it went around it. That won't solve the problem however. The problem stems from the NAACP. There reputation and role is obvious. The problem with the NAACP is that their interests are tied to that of their enemies. If a magic wand was waived so that racism would be gone today, the NAACP would become useless and be gone tomorrow. Thus, their recent actions have been devoted to create a new generation of racists to fight tomorrow. Thus, their affirmative action programs which will promote racism on the long term. Since all those of a minor races are lifted up in the future a black engineer will be less skilled than a white engineer, black docters less qualified than white doctors, etc. Racism will become what it never has been before - logical. For that reason more racists will be made, and the NAACP will have somebody to fight again.

I took a whole course on Latin American cultures. I don't know much about Hawaii, but I figure I know enough about Latin America that I know what I am talking about. Its true that there is an economic and political factor in Iraq. I think we can agree to dissagree on that point, because we are both right. I guess we can also use that case here. True, sugar production was an economic factor. However, the main reason for 90% of the US' actions in the Western Hemisphere was to eliminate all military and political compe!@#$%^&*ion. We took the Carribian from Spain to get Spain out of the Western Hemisphere. And we were successful I might add. The US is the only world power (except Canada, if you count Canada as a power) with territory in the western hemisphere. When the Soviet Union moved into Cuba, it was labeled a crisis, because it was political compe!@#$%^&*ion in this hemisphere.

*pulls dynamite stick out of pants* oh *puts that 'dynamite stick' back in pants and takes other one out* *lights fuse* *superglues it to Raem's back* *uses hooker for cover*

Don't blame the US for the situation Spain left you in. Our interest in the Carribian was pretty much to get Europeans out of the western hemisphere. All those cites can prove is that we are buying oil out of Iraq. You really can't prove motive, only guess by what is most valueble. It gets difficult when one item is intangeble, such as the value of political support. The way I judge it is by !@#$%^&*uming Iraq will become another Japan. Thus, I'm guessing Iraq will have the same economy and political relationship 50 years from now. I compare the amount of Oil we are getting out of Iraq with everything the US gets out of Japan. Its not a perfect guess, but you get the idea.

Exactly. The potential of the Middle East supporting us is much more valueble than the oil Iraq has. It IS the objective. The support and the presence of a 1st world democracy in the Middle East is much more valueble than the small amount of oil Iraq has. If this were Saudi Arabia, maybe you would be right, but given the smaller amount of Iraq's oil, the support would be more valueble. Since the support is more valueble, it is likely that the support is the objective. BTW, The US has been known to just give large amounts of money away just to help out smaller nations. Its stupid, but we do it sometimes. I know we didn't do that in Latin America, but we do just hand out money in a lot of cases.

(there is a huge flash of light and smoke as Aileron returns to this topic) *gets old time macine* *goes back it time just after kill creeps in* *sprays chloroform in kill's face* *takes kill's clothes off* *gets somebody to take a bunch of pictures of kill and make a magazine* *secretly exchanges the kill magazine for Savy's porn* *sneaks up behind Raem and uses him as a human shield against upcoming attacks*

I've read Machiavel, and studied Bismark and Richelieu. Good to see somebody else on this forum has. Virtuousness as you put it has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that the biggest benefit to the US would be turning Iraq into the next Japan, as opposed to another Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. There are lots of places to get oil - if the US really wanted oil it would have been easier to get in on the "Oil for Food" scandal, or pursue diplomatics with Russia. What we really want is a bit of political support in the Middle East. It is simply in our best interest to pull Iraq up to 1st world state. While it would cost us a little money, a 1st world muslim country supporting the US would greatly change the political climate in our favor. Basically, while nations typically seek self-interest, the US has more self-interest in helping Iraq than by exploiting them. No dictatorship can achieve a complete shutdown of thought and communication, !@#$%^&*uming a human population. Even in a dicatorship people have opinions. dictator is only one person. Since one person cannot threaten a nation alone, dictators need to please atleast a small portion of their population. No man is an island - not even a totalitarian dictator. If we change the political climate, the nations will change (over the long term).

Its wonderfull how all your arguements involve the word "might". We don't know what is going to happen. Be patient and wait until the 30th before passing judgement. No, the US doesn't even want to buy oil cheap from Iraq, it is in more of our interest that Iraq sell its oil at a high price. We need Iraqis to get rich. Hopefully a few decades from now, neighboring politicians will say. "Look, Iraq became a democracy and now they are rich. Maybe we should switch to a democracy." If the US took advantage of Iraq, they would stay poor, and this wouldn't happen. The US simply benefits more out of giving Iraq a real government and a fair shot at trade than we would get out of a puppet government.

Well, its clear that the US has more power in the UN than Iraq does. Honestly, it reflects the situation in the world; I didn't say the Iraqi view of the UN is right, I merely stated it. Bacchus, you shouldn't be talking about absent moral authority, the only one you yourself use is your own pathetic emotions, and occasionally the opinion of a very biased reporter. BTW, the 'moral' authority I was using was mere survival of the fittest. If something is weak and stupid, it is destroyed. International law is nice, but should not be subs!@#$%^&*uted for strength and brains, which Iraq was trying to do prior to our attack. If the only thing holding a nation together is international law, it is failing in several portions of the "Social Contract" described by Thomas Aquinas. Dav, thats a godd one, but I can defend it. Bush made different speeches to the US than he did the UN. As a matter of fact the motives the US went in for differed from those used with the UN. While WMDs were included in the US motive, it also was composed of several other things, spreading democracy and removing a dictatorship are some examples. WMDs are only morally necessary if the UN attacked, which they didn't. You speak of "reasons". However, they are divided into two parts, justification and motives. The former is to a moral end, and the latter to a physical end. Lets look at the motives of this war. Now in a list of possible motives, oil seems to be at the top of everyone's list. However, there is simply not enough of it in Iraq to turn a real profit. Look farther, and one would see the cultural and political significance of the country to its neighbors. The point is that if the political climate of Iraq would change, the political climate of her neighbors would change over the long term. The funny thing is that motive is also a good justification. With the War of Terrorism going on, that is precisely the cultural and political influence we need to exert on Iraq's neighbors. The best part is that this justification was announced everywhere but the UN. Bush claimed in his US speeches that the war was done to spread democracy and teach a lesson to dictators around the world. In other words, for the influence on Iraq's neighbors. The way it was announced, the UN's justification would be WMD's, the US' justification would be for the influence on Iraq's neighbors. Allies each had their own justification. Since the UN didn't attack, the justification of WMDs is unnecessary.

I like the weasel as it is...MINI SHIP POWAH!! Seriously, I'm sure that 90% of complaints about the weasel comed from jav pilots who for once in their life have to deal with a disadvantage. Its a paper rock scissors thing...the weasels have a disadvantage against the warbirds, who have a disadvantage to the javs, who are weak against weasels. The five other ships fit somewhere in there.

What you are saying Dav is that international law should be a subs!@#$%^&*ute for a military and sound political policy. That is a mindset we have to avoid. Iraq did not have the military might nor the political ideas necessary to survive. Thus, the government was destroyed and will be replaced. International law should not and more importantly cannot be used to prevent such nations from meeting their end. If the only thing preventing a nation from being removed as such is international law, international law should be ignored.

thanks *eats grilled Raem* *pays for grilled Raem* *leaves 20% tip* *leaves restaraunt*