When in my post did I say that the US is the only country thats right? What I'm saying is that the friggin' Dutch don't get to tell us how we should protect ourselves because they have never walked a day in our shoes. When was the last time they were attacked by terrorists? When was the last time they watched as other countries danced in the streets, burning their flag, as you were still pulling dead bodies from the rubble of a senseless attack.

Other countries aren't the new target of international terrorism, we are, and now those countries, many of which benefit from Saddam being in power, are trying to tell else what we can and can't do to defend ourselves. How does that make sense if you are an American?

My point is that Angrist shouldn't be commenting on things he knows nothing about. That is my point.

As for the UN, when was the last time they DIDN'T screw up? I seem to remember them tip toeing around Bosnia while thousands of Muslims were being systematically slaughtered in the worst act of genocide since the Holocaust until we stepped in, and folding like a card table once Saddam said "No, you can't check our weapons today. Nanny nanny boo boo."

Now we have a hostile nation that most likely has large amounts of biological weapons, if not nuclear weapons also, because we left our future in the hands of the United Nations.

A fanatic would feel a certain way while having no reason too. My feelings are based on the fact the the UN has failed repeatedly in matters of international interest only to have the US eventually come in and clean up the mess they made.

I believe that responsibility should be reserved for the responsible. The UN has proved themselves to be exactly the opposite.

I challenge you to refute the facts that my "fanaticism" is based on.

I'm not saying that that's why he got elected, just why he was able to run in the first place. Really, the only poverty-stricken president that this country has ever had is good old Abe Lincoln. And look at what a great president he was.

I disagree. Abe was just as racist as all of the others back in the day. He did disagree with slavery in the territories, which was the main issue, but he still believed in slavery in the south until the war forced him to think otherwise...Abe Lincoln was o.k, but he's always made out to be MUCH better than he really was. Now Teddy Roosevelt, that was a president.

Rough Riders... MOUNT UP!!!

Ok, I'm not even going to touch on your first comment, but he is not rich because of his Dad. George W. Bush IS rich. Look at his piror occupations, and what he has owned.

Re: Re: Here are a few great Bush quotes. I think it's a little sad that they are all real.
 

Shut the **** up. Your not even American. Yet you still act as if Bush is an asshole. You are just a dumbass who has no clue what is going on with us right now. This is a very terrible time for Americans, you have no idea.

Re: Re: Re: Here are a few great Bush quotes. I think it's a little sad that they are all real.
 

I know a number of Americans who think bush is being a big bully asshole... well that may be extreme, but they at least think he's not taking the right approach with Iraq... and they don't really like him and they never really did...

And how is it such a very terrible time for Americans? It's been a year since the terror attacks, we went in and did a great job with Afghanistan so far (at least it seems like it :unsure: ), nobody's pointing a gun at our heads, and if it ends up being a terrible time for Americans it would be because Bush moved us into it... Or something... :unsure:

At least from what I can tell it doesn't seem like a TERRIBLE TIME...

It's not one for me... At least not because of anything going on with like the country or war or something...

But yeah whatever... I think some people are going a little overboard on the whole situation, or how amazingly great the US is or something...

I'll probably just get yelled at by someone ;)

alright, i'm jumping into this kind of late, but here's my point of view:

first of all i listened to some parents i know debate over the whole thing with other parents i know from south africa. The south african people made a good point: terrorisim does happen all over the world. obviously it's not on such a big scale, but it does happen. Things like grenades being thrown into schools happens all the time where these people come from. So from an american prespective, the idea of terrorisim was so foregin before 9/11 that we really didn't understand it personally. then it happens to us, and on such a large scale, and everyone starts freaking out.

I don't mean to bash america or americans, not at all, but i don't think it's right that we should be so exclusive about it. it's like we demand everyone's pity and attention and we're using it to an unfair advantage. I do support a countries right to defend itself, but it would be arrogant, in my opinion, to try and go about this whole thing, this whole war on terrorisim, single handedly. And from what Strangler said about the UN f-cking up, that may be true in some cases, but honestly the US has poked its nose around in some stupid ways. Consider things like somolia (ya know, black hawk down) was that really a good idea? Hell, please tell me were veitnam got us. And when you think about it, part of the reason these terrorists hate us so much is because we poked around where we shouldn't have been poking. The russians invaded afghanistan, and we came in and got the support of the afgahns to rise up against the russians. Mission completed, the US just packed up and left, leaving most of the afgahn population in poverty. I would be a little pissed if someone said "help us fight this war, and we'll uhhhh.... BYE"

of course none of this gives reason to kill thousands of innocents, but i don't think the US is making a smart move in trying to take on international terrorism, without international support and agreement.

and strangler, you keep saying that nobody knows what they're talking about. what i've said here is simply what i have heard and learned. you keep making such generalized and drastic statements about the UN... well, how do you "know what you're talking about"?

I don't have to live in the States to know what's going on there. Perhaps this will surprise you, but we actually have a lot of world news on here. Whatever happens in Germany, Great Brittain, Africa OR the United States, we know it. Everybody here was watching the TV after 9/11. Everybody followed the American elections (so we know that Bush didn't even win, Gore had more votes), and we followed Bush reactions to the terrorism.

I'm noit saying that the US isn't good, I'm just saying that they're not as good as they pretend.
And you shouldn't keep bragging about how you 'saved our asses' in WW2. So you did, but like someone here said, if the US didn't exist, another country would have been in it's place that wouldn't have waited until 1943 (4 years after the war started) to come and help. Millions of innocent Jews would have been saved. But I don't have the feeling you really care about that, Strangler. No, you're a real American!

Yopu have the absolute BALLS to blame the HOLOCAUST on America? That is the lowest, most disgusting accusation I've ever heard, and you a abortion of a human being for making it.

But then again, it fits the bill considering the US has becomes the world's police force. Whenever something bad happens in the world, the rest of the world stands by and wonders "What will those God-awful Americans do about this? If they don't step in, its all their fault." Gee, makes sense to you I guess.

What other country would have stepped in during World War 2? Every other industrial power at the time was either neutral or a part of the Axis Powers at the time (namely Russia and Japan). So what fictional, delusional, outright silly country do you speak of? Oh wait, its We-do-everything-right-because-we-are-a-figment-of-someone's-wild-imaginationistan. I've heard of them, evidently they're never wrong because they do everyhing right.:rolleyes:

Guess what? Britain didn't step in to stop them either, nor did the Catholic church or anyone else for that matter untill millions were already dead. Oh, and where was Holland during the Holocaust. Twiddling their fingers? If you want to point fingers, point them at countries who were mere miles away, had full knowledge of what was going on, and did nothing.

And when they finally did, they relied on the US to bail them out.

Hey, but its all our fault, right? We are such an evil irresponsible nation. After all, we caused the HOLOCAUST. You sir, are scum.

Before you go making rediculous accusations, why don't you try and make a little sense and get a dose of reality instead of listening to what other people tell you and then mindlessly repeating it.

I'm not asking for any International pity or anything, I am merely expecting that we receive the respect that the US deserves instead of being the world's target for criticism because we actually DO SOMETHING when things go wrong in the world.

If true evil is to do nothing in the face of need, then I guess we are the most righteous nation in the world.

I don't generally double post, but I though this would shed some light on the situation for a lot of people. I received the follwijg from a friend of mine and all accounts are verified as fact:



Now, does anyone else think that the US should sit back and wait for everything to work itself out?

Didn't think so.

Uhh... ascoose me, where the hell did he say that? :confused:

I'm not quite sure about some other country coming into save the stuff in WW2 if there was no US though... but you can't really say they wouldn't... who knows, maybe knowing that there isn't that great US military power there, some other countries could have all done something... *shrugs* I hate WW2 stuff and research so I'm not quite up on all the facts... but whatever...

And you completely ignored my freind's post :-o Although I guess the topic has moved away from Iraq, and to taking what Angrist says the wrong way and the bashing his views...

Least it seems to me that you misunderstood that...

Him saying he was blaming the US for the holocaust would sound something like this...

"THE US CAUSED THE HOLOCAUST BECAUSE OF *some direct reason*"...

What it sounded like he was actually saying was that there was this big war going on and the US waited and waited and waited and waited and waited and then finally said "Ok we'll join in now" and it was too late, when they could have ended it earlier...

Or something :unsure:

And just to make a little comment, just because the country has done some good things in the past and all, it doesn't mean you have to like the way it's being run today...

What if someone was just like "The US is a good country and all, but seriously I think Bush and them are making some rrreeeaaaally stupid decisions nowadays..."

Would you still yell at them with your blind patriotism about how they're wrong/scum/whatever?

I don't even really like Angrist (hey, might as well be truthful here ;) ), but it just seemed like you took what he said the wrong way, so yeah :unsure:

Angrist basically said that the Holocaust happened because the US didn't step in earlier and stop it. You can play all the semantics you want, but thats what he said.

And my point has never been that we do everything right, my point has been that the only reason why we do things wrong is because we tend to be only country who tries to help. Its hard to do anything wrong, if you don't do anything. While in hindsight Vietnam was a very bad idea, in the political climate of the time it was fully supported when it first started.

DH, you keep accusing me of blind patriotism when I am one of the few posters on this thread who has actually cited history and fact to back up my statements while people who argue with me use strictly opinion, media propoganda and conjecture.

As for Iraq, check my last post before thinking that I have shied away from that subject. One year ago we claimed that any country that harbored terrorism was an enemy of the free world, and the rest of the free world agreed. Now a year later everyone is knuckling under to the false notion of a "civilized resolution".

I understand that other countries have been the targets of terrorism, but to compare a random car bomb or granade to the incineration and dismemberment of thousands is insulting to me. Not to mention that the next biggest victim of terrorism, Isreal, is also under the political microscope for their defense of their people. The US is not THE TARGET for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism now that it has been shown that it can be done.

The problem lies in ethnocentric thought. We think that because the Western world has a high value on peace and human life, that every culture does and reason will win in the end. The flaw in that argument is that the Middle East has a culture that is completely different from the Western World. They are essentially a thinly tied tribes held together with religious fanaticism and violence. Their constant warring with one another has left the oil-rich countries dominated by religious and military despots and oil-less countries left with multiple factions in a constant state of struggle. Many Arabs do not know what peace is. In an interview I watched with a member of an Afghani tribal warrior, he said hge enjoys fighting, because without the fighting there wouldn't be anything left but poverty and despair.

But we still all strive for the reasonable, peaceful resolution and men like Saddam Hussein use our humanitarian nature against us. He constantly tests our mettle by refusing to allow inspectors into his fascilities, and then just when he feels that international opinion is about to turn on him, he turns around a says:

"I have a change of heart. Come in a check them as much as you want." This, of course, is after he has had months to move any biological or nuclear weapons he has to safe locations. And we all fall for it.

Mark my words, if we continue to tip toe around international opinion and allow those who have no reason to fear a durty nuke being set off in their country, we will be attacked again. And this time I fear more will wind up dead.

Deathshand, like Al Gore, your "this isn't that bad" attitude will cause innocents to be killed.

Holy crap, this thread is still getting posts!? Someone's gotta put an end to this.

Well since I'm a dumbass and I hate getting into big debates about things like this, I didn't even read some parts of your post... ;)

But I decided to reply to this part...

First of all, a "Dirty Bomb" wouldn't even be a very big devistating thing... people hear the nuclear material part and they're like "Nuclear Material!? A NUKE!? HUGE EXPLOSION YADA YADA!" but a dirty bomb is just like a normal bomb laced with Nuclear Material... Sure it would kill people and most likely render a small area of wherever uninhabbitable for awhile (quite a long while), but it wouldn't be like a nuclear bomb, and it would in no way top Sept. 11th in death toll...

Now a normal nuclear bomb/device/thing is a different story... But I think that would be quite hard for them to get that in this country... :unsure:

But I dunno...

And yes we will be attacked again eventually in one way or another... Big or small... In the US or just US interests abroad... I think it's pretty much inevitable, even if we try to do something about it... Simply because there are sooo many terror cells in soooo many countries...

But whatever... I guess doing something is better than doing nothing in some situations, and yes having a "this isn't dangerous" attitude is bad in some cases, but having a "SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER YEEEEHAW I WANT A WAR W00T W00T!" attitude is too... What if you attack someone and then find out they weren't doing what you thought they were doing or whatever? Then chances are the US would think up some way to cover their asses... I'm not saying they're NOT up to something suspicious, I'm saying WHAT IF they're not... And of course you say WHAT IF they are, but saying what if they are is just as much a possibility as saying what if they aren't when nobody knows 100% for sure... And just as dangerous... don't do something and if it turns out he is up to no good, some place gets attacked and people die...

Attack them and have it turn out he wasn't doing what we thought he was doing, people die and chances are it'd give Arabs and Europeans (like Angrist ;) ) another reason to dislike Bush and stuff...

"But we still all strive for the reasonable, peaceful resolution and men like Saddam Hussein use our humanitarian nature against us. He constantly tests our mettle by refusing to allow inspectors into his fascilities"

I know this is a much smaller scale, but I constantly have people coming in and out of my room and it's quite annoying... Sometimes they could in and I'm like "I don't want anybody in here right now" Or say things like "Man I wish I had a working lock on my door"... Does this mean I'm doing something I shouldn't be doing? No, it means I don't want a bunch of people wandering in and out of MY room...

It's easy for us to just say "Well just let the damn inspectors in and all will be fine!", but Saddam might just have some big ego (or whatever it would be called) and is like "No! This is my country and I don't want weapons inspectors in!"...

Does it sound suspicious? Yes... Does it means he IS doing something suspicious? No...

And really, I think he most likely is... and I'm not necesarily against attacking Iraq... But I'm just looking at all different possibilities rather than "HE'S DEFINANTLY UP TO NO GOOD! LET'S GO IN AND TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY WHEN HE'S ALREADY LET WEAPONS INSPECTORS BACK IN AND IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF THE WORLD DOESN'T LIKE THE IDEA!"

And you'd probably argue that "Bush and them must have good proof and all that that Iraq is up to no good, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to push the idea of attacking Iraq so much"...

But if they had such amazingly good proof, why are a number of big countries still against the idea?

It seems like EVERYONE is very divided on the whole deal, and yet the people who want to attack are yelling and screaming that it's so damn obvious and we need to do it and all that... If it was so damn obvious, why are people so divided?

Bah I dunno, I hate this whole issue where people get so divided about things and bicker back and forth about it...

Whatever the US does, I just hope they do the right thing and don't make a mistake... Meaning if we attack Iraq, they better have really been up to no good, otherwise public opinion and stuff in various European countries and the middle east could go down (if it's not already low enough)...

I hate debating about serious topics :D

Edit: Oh, and I still don't think Angrist meant that the Holocaust was the US's fault, and it doesn't sound like that's "Just about what he said" to me...

Oh yes a dirty nuke would be the equivalent of having a rock thrown through our collective window. That makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:



We also thougth it would be quite hard for them to hijack our own planes and kill thousands of innocent people, so lets completely ignore the past and march on blindly into the future. Once again, that makes perfect sense.



Ah yes, so we should just sit around and wait for them to kill us. What a wonderful philosophy



If we had the shoot first ask questions later mentality, the entire Middle East would be a steaming radioctive crater right now. The fact is that Saddam is not complying with the conditions of his surrender. That is a big problem and needs to be resolved one way or another. It is obvious that the "reasonable" solution is not working.

Are you F**KING KIDDING ME? That is the stupidest comparison I have ever heard in my life. I don't even have to rebut that, it rebuts itself when you use common sense when reading it.



Saddam's ego or whether or not he is even up to no good is not the issue here. As I have stated repeatedly in my posts, HE HAS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HIS SURRENDER IN THE GULF WAR. That is reason enough to force him to comply. Excuse me is I hold little sympathy for Hussein's right to privacy. The man should be dead by now for his crimes against humanity.

The last time the international community allowed a hostile government to slide in terms of surrender, guess what happened? The Nazi war machine. As a part of the terms of surrender for Germany during World War One it was deemed that Germany could not have a standing army greater than 80,000 I believe (I'm not positive, but it was around that number maybe even less). When Germany annexed Austria they had a standing army of nearly 1,000,000 troops because the free world ignored Germany's blatant disregard for the terms of surrender.

This is not fiction, this is not a scarey bed time story that you tell to your kids to make sure they brush their teeth and say their prayers at night. This happened. There is a reason why there are terms of surrender. Don't think this couldn't happen again.

This will not fix itself. This will not just go away. That type of thinking has caused millions of people to die in the past, and if it does not change it will most likely happen again.

"Oh yes a dirty nuke would be the equivalent of having a rock thrown through our collective window. That makes perfect sense."

Wait.... are you saying Sept. 11th was like a rock being thrown at our collective window or something?

So I guess that would make a dirty bomb being like throwing a pebble at it and not even making a mark? ;o


"We also thougth it would be quite hard for them to hijack our own planes and kill thousands of innocent people"

We did? There's a difference between not even thinking they'd do something, and thinking they wouldn't be able to do something...


"Ah yes, so we should just sit around and wait for them to kill us. What a wonderful philosophy "

I never said that...

"Are you F**KING KIDDING ME? That is the stupidest comparison I have ever heard in my life. I don't even have to rebut that, it rebuts itself when you use common sense when reading it. "

Yes, it is quite stupid... I even pointed out that it was a much smaller scale, what I was saying... I was just trying to make a point that maybe he just doesn't want a bunch of people looking around his country, searching a bunch of places, etc... And I knew you'd say something like that... It would also be quite stupid if Saddam was not letting weapons inspectors in simply because he didn't want them in his country when he didn't have anything to hide, wouldn't it? It would make him look suspicious when all he had to do was let them in and get it over with... But who's to say that's not what he's doing? People do stupid things... I'm sure you've done stupid things before, havn't you?

I'm not saying that IS what he's doing, I'm saying WHAT IF... Which is basically all you're saying too... what if he does that, what if they attack us, what if this what if that, everything is just what if, which I guess is a big reason people are so divided on the issue...

But yeah whatever... I can't stand history lessons, so I think maybe I'll leave this discussion, since chances are even if someone could come up with a very good reason why we shouldn't attack or someone made you sound wrong, you'd just keep yelling about how you're right and blah blah america is good, america is god, america is never wrong, blah blah yada yada...

There's no use in arguing in favour of USA, everyone is always against the best anything, whether it be a sports team or a country. It's just jealousy. Bush could create a cure for cancer and save the world twenty times, but he'll still be an asshole according to people from "those" little countries, like Holland.

B-Bush...cr-create...a c-c-cure for...CANCER!? Heh...ha ha...hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* hahahahahahaha hahahahaha *gasp* hahaha! Oh, my side hurts so badly! Though, in all seriousness, I can actually see that happening... not! :stupid:

just a point...

although you all seem to have moved past the holocaust

and now the point:

um, a lot of people didn't know about the holocaust, or at least it's magnitude. i'm not a big history buff but i know that the americans came in to the war and *then* they started finding all the death camps. so you can't really say it's the american's fault, since they didn't know. yes, had they entered the war earlier they might have stopped the death camps earlier, but without them knowing about it, you can't blame them for "not stopping it".

point over.

you may continue the yelling.

Freakybob making an intelligent post? Heh...ha ha...hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* hahahahahahaha hahahahaha *gasp* hahaha! Oh, my side hurts so badly! Though, in all seriousness, I can actually see that happening... not! :stupid:

:lol:

haha

DH, you claim to have never said things, when I quote you showing that you did, and then procede to contradict yourself in you very next post to cover your butt. Amazing.

When it comes to terms of surrender, there are no WHAT IFs... you comply, or you are made to comply. Those are the rules. You can't make up new rules because he might be making Brownies instead of Mustard Gas. Final.

And this is why I don't even try too hard to debate things...

Cuz either way I sound like an idiot....

Cuz I am an idiot ;)

:-o

And what would you consider to be an intelligent post, Bond? I don't think there have been any in this thread. Because, frankly, there's nothing intelligent about a bunch of video game-loving kids having the same goddamn arguments over and over again. It get's old, folks. And c'mon, Bush creating a cure for cancer!? Just thinking about that makes my brain hurt (Future post from Bond: Yeah, FreakyBob, just trying to do simple addition makes your brain hurt :p). I feel pretty much the same way as DeathsHand. I don't care about politics and I don't feel like getting into stupid debates. So, I guess I should just stop posting in this thread, right.

Well, sorry if i was a little intense, but its a subject close to my heart. I lost 2 friends on 911, and another we couldn't locate until almost a week later. I have spent a lot of time researching why we need to take out Saddam and all other terrorist harboring countries because of my experience with this. The parallels are mind boggling when compared to post World War 1 Germany.

Saddam is a dangerous man, not just to America but his neighboring Arab countries as well. He has already committed genocide against the Kurds... what else does he have to do to be finally dealt with?

In the end it is just my opinion, but it is an opinion I am passionate about and have a lot of information on to support it.

I've read every single post in this Thread. and ONLY Strangler knows what he is talking about.

opinions opinions opinions

i think most of everyone posting here needs to make sure they understand what is opinion and what is rumor and what is fact.

and even the press is not always truthful

this is the last thing i am saying here.
i'm not going to read or post to this topic anymore either
cause it's true, this debate has boiled down to a meaningless nothing
especially when everyone's yelling "my opinions are the TRUTH"

and tommorow all my worries will go away ^-^

bye bye

Angel >>>
 

First off, coming from someone who's added next to nothing to this thread (although nothing really bad either like FreakyBob, so I don't mind), you're quick to judge everyone else.

Second, who the **** are you? I know you didn't sneak in 1000 posts without me seeing. And I have no clue what your old name was (assuming you got it changed).

Oh no, we've driven him to suicide. :eek:

ok ok so maybe i shouldn't have said "most everyone here"
i retract that statement.

but my point is that sometimes some people (in general) need to see the difference between opinion and fact

and that what they here and see and read
is not always true.
or it may be weighted in some way to instill certain emotions.

and i know i'm a little punk ass newbie gettin all up in your faces,
so you all are like "shut up rookie! fork over yer lunch money!" *gives wedgie*

[by the way, i'm DeathsHand's friend... in real life.... and i post here sometimes, generally to the annoyance or apathy of everyone else]

which is why i'm not gonna bother this topic any more

and suicide? no.
quite the opposite
@_@ @_@ @_@

OneWingedAngel's e-mail is Pezking2@hotmail.com... I know I have him in my MSN list, just can't remember who he is... :hmm:

I never said the US caused the holocaust. I just pointed out that it took 4 years of violent war before the States acted. Just to say that you shouldn't keep bragging about how you 'save our asses'.

And Bush will neve find the cure for cancer, because he's spending so much money on his military force. ;)
No really, it's rediculous how much money EVERY COUNTRY spends on warfare. I wish they'd do something about those deceases and food shortage. Make food not bombs.

And if you wonder what Holland did during the second World War, we were invaded by Germany, although we were neutral. A lot of people were killed because they didn't wanna work in German factories to make weapons. A lot died in the 'hunger winter', because we couldn't trade or produce food because of the Nazis. We did our job with underground resistences, like sabotaging trains, stealing food for Jews-under-cover, passing information to the Alliance...

But I don't give a !@#$%^&* about what my country did. I don't care if I lived in France, United States or even Germany.

It's just too bad that you're not allowed to comment on the United States if you don't live there yourself. :unsure:

Once again you show your ignorance. Pearl Harbor happened in 1941. Thst only 1 year after the WWII started. Just because we weren't in Europe doesn't mean we weren't involved in the war. Also, you talk as if we were obligated to step in. The US was under no such obligation to do so. I'm not bragging so much as stating fact. So what would be better, the US hopping over the pond and sacrificing thousands of American lives to help countries that had no impact on those soldiers lives in one of the bloodiest assaults in world history, or the US not helping out at all?



And as soon as every other country does the same, I'm sure the US will hop right on board. Remember, the US doesn't have a long history of starting warfare, just a long on of ending it (except in stupid wars like Vietnam where the powers that be felt that their political position was more valuable than actually winning).

I don't mind you commenting as long as what you say is accurate. Your posts so far have been filled with nothing but ignorance and conjecture as to "what might have happened". You have not rebutted one single fact I have listed or any of the historical parallels I have presented.

I highly recommend that you become educated on subject matter before speaking about it. "It is better the say nothing and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

As for drolldurham, you claim that everything said has been opinion. Well then what about all of the fatcs I have posted on this thread. Did you even bother to read them, or did you just decide to ignore them aand post whtever you were going to say anyway? Thats what I thought.

I did NOT start that 'what if...' thing, an American did.

And I know my history, I know it took years before America actually joined the Alliance.

1) You did post a What if... involving the Utopian Nation that would have saved the world if America never existed.

2) Then if you know your history, you also know that America was knee deep in the Japanese and during the time they were not officially a part of the Alliance and we were STILL sending pilots and millions of dollars on supplies and euipment to the Alliance while we were fighting in the Pacific AND even before Pearl Harbor.

Got anything else Professor?

Damn liberals. Bush need to increase his defense budget! War has been, and always will be the only way to solve major conflicts. No explanations for now, no time.

Gekko, add to that the fact the the US loans or grants million of dollars aand thousands of pounds of surplus food around to world to feed third world nations. I already mentioned that, BTW, but Angrist doesn't like to recognize posted facts that contradict is idealistic nonsense.

*cough* NeonNightCloud *cough* :sneaky:

You all have a nice day now.

*applies shades*

:cool:

*flash of light*

So yeah, uhh, the U.S. is tired of of everyone expecting them to act alone in times of other's needs and stuff...

*slips out*

there is one thing with Bush that is pissing me off. Like Angrist said, it's ridiculus how much countries spend on warfare. Bush is spending all of our surplus just on Bin Laden and Terrorism. He thinks terrorism is our only concern right now but we have other problems as well.

It's mind-boggling how much money he is wasting.