If the election was held today...

[Arwin]

who cares if the pope the king the communist the bulgars the liberals the misfits the dopes the gangsters the moores the bimbos the pedophiles the french the indians the midgets the fat dudes the ugly chicks the spanish the arabs the martians and the rest of the world are against /for/ lukewarm/want money ? its the United States thats acting to protect the United States and its interest , if it helps everyone else by removing a bastard or two or three ..hey send cash. We here in the US elect people to represent us they discussed it ande decided that Saddam and the taliban must go..so they are gone , if we dont like it or the way they did it we will remove them. The day we have to worry about the rest of the world helping us take out a tin pot dictator and a bunch of misogynistic fundementalist is the day we change the name of our country to France or something..like Vichy . You just do not get it ..the planes hit here our people and our guest died we will bring the culprits and whomever will support them or aid them no matter where in the world or how deep a hole they hide in . Saddam was an enemy he is no longer . The Taliban supported and aided Osama ..they are no longer...do you see a trend yet ?

If you think like that, I wonder how you could possibly blame the Osama crew for 9/11. At this point, you and he are completely and utterly the same. I hadn't thought this of you, to be honest. But then again, it's not so far from supporting the death penalty.

 

[Danoff]

I think Osama hated bushes parents or something.

Osama (and many others) hate the infidels that don't follow thier religion. I'm pretty sure that includes you.

But as bureaucratic as it may seem, a majority in an international council should be required to give legitimacy to an invasion of a sovereign country.

Not necessary. An international council could approve an illigitimate reason for invading while a single nation could invade for a totally legitimate cause.

The US was part of the council that passed the resolutions. The council decided not to act (for many years) as those resolutions were broken (even though the councile agreed that they had been borken) - the US decided to act. I'd call it legitimate.

Heres another perspective. If the terrorists want John Kerry, and they do get John Kerry, then they just might stop driving planes into buildings and blowing up bombs in the U.S.. I also think that Bush has done enough damage to the U.S economy. He wastes money on unnecessary things like wars. If Gore was president, 9/11 might have never happened. So my vote definitely goes Kerry.

Allowing terrorists to influence an election (not that that's what would have happened if Kerry were elected) will not quell their anger. The sign of weakness will provoke additional attacks and control.

HOW IS THE US SAFER NOW THAT SADAM IS OUT?

The terrorists are concentrating on disrupting events in Iraq rather than killing US civilians. In addition, we are fostering democracy in the region which may pay off hugely in the long run if we take the time to do it correctly now. Also, other countries who would put no faith in US diplomacy and defy our sanctions have and will take notice.

It's not a hard question to answer and don't act like it's one everyone has been avoiding.

 

[High-Test]

bush. atleast he has a shadow of a plan.

 

[ledhed]

so no one wanted the US to do anything but spend money to keep Saddam in the bottle. For ten years we had to pay to station an army and a navy and an air force to enforce the UN ...when after ten years we decide to do something constructive some countries balk at it...Why didn't they just send their armys to guard the Gulf and controll Saddam and enforce the UN..is it because they couldn't ? The fact that the US is the only single nation with a military capable of doing that job then actually works against it. Maybe they would feel more secure if they spent some money on thier own armed forces, instead of relying on the hired help.

 

[High-Test]

Well said ledhed. They wanted us to put a little pressure on saddam, so that's what we did. we wen't in and took him out. (of a hole)
The UN also knew about the companies that saddam hand picked for the oil for food program, the ones that were corrupt and gave him lots of money for guns and palaces. They also said that most of the fraudulent companies weren't american. In fact, most of them were foreign. The UN says we have no reason to be in there, but they knowingly let this abuse of the oil for food program go on. they even found documents where it said that Kofi Annan was aware of it.

 

[rjensen11]

I think I just read the post of the year.

So let me get this straight.

Leave the terrorist alone and they will leave us alone.
If Gore had become president, 9/11 wouldn't have happend.
💡

I just can't believe any one would believe what you posted.

Dude, when'd you become a moderator? And here I am, a lowly regular user....

The terrorists are concentrating on disrupting events in Iraq rather than killing US civilians. In addition, we are fostering democracy in the region which may pay off hugely in the long run if we take the time to do it correctly now. Also, other countries who would put no faith in US diplomacy and defy our sanctions have and will take notice.

That's using the same brain power as saying that since we were fighting Charlie over in 'Nam, that America was safer, because we were fighting communism over there....

 

[Carl.]

The terrorists are concentrating on disrupting events in Iraq rather than killing US civilians.

I really don't think that's the same breed of terrorists that planned 9/11. You seem to underestimate your ennemy.

I had a very sad "premonition" a few years ago... I was playing flight simulator on my PC, and because I was bored of simply flying over some landscape, I was finding flight paths downton Chicago in the Cesna, or trying to pass between the WTC two towers with the Learjet and the Boeing. Obviously I missed a few times before I got it right, and that made me wonder that this would be more efficient as a method for terrorists instead of bombing the basement as they tried in the past (Perhaps I was reading Tom Clancy at the time). The kind of thought you shake your head and quickly try to forget. I just hope I'm not right on what I think the next one could be.

That's the main reason I have objections on how things were done in Iraq, even if getting rid of Saddam is a good thing. Instead of solving, or reducing the terrorist issue, we're begging to escalate the conflict to the next level.

 

[Danoff]

I really don't think that's the same breed of terrorists that planned 9/11. You seem to underestimate your ennemy.

Things are not as they seem to you then. I think I overestimate my enemy at this point... and I think it is a combination of groups who are bothering us in Iraq.

That's using the same brain power as saying that since we were fighting Charlie over in 'Nam, that America was safer, because we were fighting communism over there....

...actually...

not in the way you intended but this is true. Fighting in 'nam did make America safer.

 

[rjensen11]

I really don't think that's the same breed of terrorists that planned 9/11. You seem to underestimate your ennemy.

I had a very sad "premonition" a few years ago... I was playing flight simulator on my PC, and because I was bored of simply flying over some landscape, I was finding flight paths downton Chicago in the Cesna, or trying to pass between the WTC two towers with the Learjet and the Boeing. Obviously I missed a few times before I got it right, and that made me wonder that this would be more efficient as a method for terrorists instead of bombing the basement as they tried in the past (Perhaps I was reading Tom Clancy at the time). The kind of thought you shake your head and quickly try to forget. I just hope I'm not right on what I think the next one could be.

That's the main reason I have objections on how things were done in Iraq, even if getting rid of Saddam is a good thing. Instead of solving, or reducing the terrorist issue, we're begging to escalate the conflict to the next level.

Know what's fun? Trying to land on top of the Sears Tower! It takes some practice, but it's worth it!

 

[Pistachio]

Things are not as they seem to you then. I think I overestimate my enemy at this point... and I think it is a combination of groups who are bothering us in Iraq.

The vast majority of which are Iraqi citizens.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/iraq/iraqiarabresponsetousinvasion.html

 

[Carl.]

Know what's fun? Trying to land on top of the Sears Tower! It takes some practice, but it's worth it!

...Are you serious? You stall the plane just above the top? You sir have way too much free time on your hands! I used to land in stadiums though, same for me.

 

[rjensen11]

...Are you serious? You stall the plane just above the top? You sir have way too much free time on your hands! I used to land in stadiums though, same for me.

This was back in the day with programs like the original MS Flight Sim for either DOS or Win3.1, I forget which, I think it was for DOS. Anyway, before joysticks had throttle bars on them, and all they had was the stick and the two buttons... Oh, those were the days.... I think we (My brother, my dad, and I) did that on MS FS '98 as well.... Basically, get the smallest plane you can find and land it on the roof. It's even trickier when you don't stall it....

 

[Solid Fro]

You sir have way too much free time on your hands!

He really does have too much free time on his hands.