Print

[melon]

I dony think america is like the roman empire, although no army ever marched on rome.

[jbp20717]

QUOTE (melon @ May 14 2004, 09:03 AM)

I dony think america is like the roman empire, although no army ever marched on rome.

Actually Rome was sacked by "barbarians" (who may have been considered the terrorists of the time ) and the Huns managed to gain strongholds in the north of Italy, even founding Venice.

[67thRaptorBull]

[moistness]

QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ May 14 2004, 09:36 PM)

pretty much all of our forces our overseas,

  Are you sure of that?

[67thRaptorBull]

[BloodyMary]

QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ May 14 2004, 05:02 PM)

well, lets see, we have 130,000 troops in iraq (forces = troops, not planes or missiles or ne of that crap) now how many troops do we have? at the most 200,000...... and then someone like china has well over 2 million

Actually you are very wrong.. we have over 1 million men and women serving this country in the armed forces (army, navy, marines and national guard)... so refigure you figures... we are well protected in the home land... admittedly china has a larger number of people in its military, however, the US military technology and might is far superior to China or any other nation for that matter...

[moistness]

QUOTE (BloodyMary @ May 15 2004, 12:54 AM)

Actually you are very wrong.. we have over 1 million men and women serving this country in the armed forces (army, navy, marines and national guard)... so refigure you figures... we are well protected in the home land... admittedly china has a larger number of people in its military, however, the US military technology and might is far superior to China or any other nation for that matter...

Thank fuck for that!! I was wondering why if nearly your entire army was in there the towelheads were not crying like girls and surrendering!

[BloodyMary]

QUOTE (moistness @ May 14 2004, 08:44 PM)

Thank fuck for that!! I was wondering why if nearly your entire army was in there the towelheads were not crying like girls and surrendering!

Actually many upon many of Iraqi military (I'm not calling them towelheads) did cry like girls and surrender.  The ones that are still fighting now are more like soldiers then most of the Iraqi military ever was...

[BloodyMary]

QUOTE (HeLiuM @ May 15 2004, 12:40 PM)

W Bush  seems rather content on following up on his fathers plans, who's to say Jeb won't run in 4 years and do the same?  I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to run if you're related to the president, but in this case it has the same effect as bush having more than 2 terms.

Um.. yeah... it's not the same as what I was talking about...
Number 1... Bush can be voted out of office... and number 2... even if his brother does run... he will not necessarily be elected... actually... if Bush is reelected... then so be it... I mean really... who in America really believes that John Kerry would do a better job then Bush... I'm no die hard Bush fan... but given the choice between Bush and John Kerry, the choice is obvious...

[HeLiuM]

QUOTE (BloodyMary @ May 15 2004, 08:39 PM)

Um.. yeah... it's not the same as what I was talking about... Number 1... Bush can be voted out of office... and number 2... even if his brother does run... he will not necessarily be elected... actually... if Bush is reelected... then so be it... I mean really... who in America really believes that John Kerry would do a better job then Bush... I'm no die hard Bush fan... but given the choice between Bush and John Kerry, the choice is obvious...

I'm confident Kerry won't wage a firestorm war against the middle east, so for me the answer is indeed obvious.

You said you would beleive if Bush tried to pass a law changing the amount of terms he could run..  He could still fail to be elected for the rest of those terms.  My statement was the same.

[koldfuzion]

QUOTE (HeLiuM @ May 16 2004, 12:34 AM)

I'm confident Kerry won't wage a firestorm war against the middle east, so for me the answer is indeed obvious. You said you would beleive if Bush tried to pass a law changing the amount of terms he could run..  He could still fail to be elected for the rest of those terms.  My statement was the same.

no he wont.  he wont be the backbone of the nation at all.  Instead we will probably go into isolation again, until WWIII.

Not saying isolation is a bad thing, I've often though it would be hilarious to hear the people that are now calling us Imperialists ask us to come join thier fight again.  It took pearl harbor last time.  Since Pearl Harbor, and now NYC, maybe we will have the resilience to keep to ourselves and tell everyone else to fight thier own wars.

Isolationism is what this country needs.  Let someone else take the lead in the world and leave us alone,  we can wait till the enemy is close to OUR shores to take him out.

BTW,  Hitler battled for the skies near the end of the war.  Not to fight the allies but to bomb his own people.  If GW starts bombing us soon, im gonna be hella pissed.

[Colonel32]

QUOTE

Isolationism is what this country needs.

Do you know what isolationism is?

It would cause a depression in the United States - good idea that will teach them  


I absolutly hate Kerry moreso than Bush but I honestly think his approach to the war on terror would be much more beneficial to the United States than the current guns blazing with us or against us "plan".

Modern Liberals would have lost the cold war but conservatives ARE losing the war on terror. Both wars need different approaches and in this situation the United States needs to follow the European approach to terrorism since they have experience and have actually beat it.

Currently the United States is using Israel for a role model on how to fight terror and Israel are the ones who can't get rid of it. Terrorism has been defeated all over the world before and in every instance it was when the "victims" looked in the mirror and brought something new to the table.

You can't negotiate with terrorists but you have to listen

[koldfuzion]

QUOTE

Modern Liberals would have lost the cold war but conservatives ARE losing the war on terror. Both wars need different approaches and in this situation the United States needs to follow the European approach to terrorism since they have experience and have actually beat it.

Tell that to the victims of Spains train bombings.  Since when was Europe free of all terrorists?  If they truely id beat it.. by all means, give us some pointers.

QUOTE

Currently the United States is using Israel for a role model on how to fight terror and Israel are the ones who can't get rid of it.

Israel are the only ones with terrorism?   The blasts in bali, spain, us embassies, nyc, and more than I want to list are all located in Israel?  Last I checked, no nation could say they didnt have terrorists on thier lands.

QUOTE

Terrorism has been defeated all over the world before and in every instance it was when the "victims" looked in the mirror and brought something new to the table.

OMFG,  its about what victims see in the mirror!  The blood, tears and fear must paint a very pretty picture to provide them the plans to weed out terrorism.

QUOTE

You can't negotiate with terrorists but you have to listen.

Terrorists dont give a damn if you listen or not.  their goal is to strike fear in innocent people and governments, not settle a family arguement.  I guess we should support them, provide our checkbooks, our children to use as suicide bombers, open our borders and let them all in so we can have a nice little fireside chat over a sip of bourbon.  

[Colonel32]

[moistness]

QUOTE (HeLiuM @ May 15 2004, 06:40 PM)

on a side note, not all americans are like moist. really.

I'm not american!


And my "towelhead" remark was not supposed to be a blanket one, merely aimed at the extremists that think the entire western world are the devil etc.!