Let's Have an Intelligent Chat, Shall we?

Those are alot of strong allegations and personal judgements for people you have never met...

Wot?
The vested interest that the US had/has is...oil.
The US armed Iraq against Iran and then....the rest is history as they say.
Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.
Yre 2nd paragraph is a joke! tell that to the Brit soldiers killed in so called 'friendly fire' or to those killed in the Balkans., or to those killed during WW2 by 'friendly fire. My old man was in WW2 & he told me that the Brits were as scared of the US Air Corps as they were of the Germans.
Sure the US saved our bacon in WW2 though, I give you some credit & thanks

no sir thats called revenge...not philosophy, and often justice is another name for revenge.

All too often people forget that WE WERE ATTACKED for no good reason, hello... that seems like an invitation for war to me, plus we are rehabilitating the country, not leaving it in ruins, and there are political reasons for every countries action, including America's. People are mute to that fact, it seems. However the democrats have just as much vested interest in big coprorations doing well as the republicans, and also have to have the big money to run campaigns, come from the same rich families, etc. They are not like "us," not any more than the republicans are, and anyone who is fooled by the angle they are playing needs more brain cells to operate off of.

And Brin, who are you addressing?

In one thread someone asked which celebrity you'd like to fight most, I chose Jennifer Lopez. On reflection I forgot about political celebrities and I would like to change my vote for Michael Moore.

If any one person has done more harm to the security of a nation... no, western civilisation as a whole, by scaremongering and liberal propoganda whilst turning into a fatcat (in more ways than one) in the process it is he.

No one annoys me more.

Oh, I agree with a lot of what has just been said (before the last entry)... though interesting and amusing figures, Violaxcore. ;)

But I must add that when corporations begin to have more say in the political process and more rights than the everyday citizen, there's a problem. And that (BIG) problem lies in Democrats and Republicans alike.

And Bret... really? Done more to harm the security of western civilization as a whole? Are you really giving Michael Moore _that_ much credit? I can't fathom that. Though he's definitely managed to make a serious buck in all this.

I think politicians, corporate screw-over-whomever-you-need-to-make-a-buck mentality (have you read the Enron trial transcripts?!), and the media all probably have done more to harm the security of western civilization than Michael Moore. It's getting pretty damn hard to sort out the truth from fiction, though.

But that's just me. I'm apparently not actually a moderate but a liberal around here.... ;)

Break it down and look at the bare bones. What does scaremongering do? It gets the people paranoid, confused and angry. This in turn gets the media all blustered because they play to the public.

The whole 9/11 thing could have been dealt with a lot more competently and safely had it not been Moore and people like him.

Afghanistan could have been invaded with clarity and better security without reporters following and reporting troop movements, effectively giving the Taliban a head start with the one thing that makes an army effective: the secrecy of intelligence.

So yes I credit Moore with plenty. But I do admit it is more the system and not Moore himself that vexes me. Still, I'd like to go toe to toe with him anyway. (In round two I'd take on J-lo too... she needs a good smack.)

I think that we should stop fighting and slandering our own country and come up with some solution for the situation we are currently in. We cannot change the decisions we hvae made and it is a fact that most of the people who voted for Kerry were just ANTI BUSH votes. Kerry was a weak candidate and made a bad pick for vice president (Edwards). If the democrats had picked a good candidate that was more on the conservative side of democratic they would have won hands down.

But that is a total military outlook. Anything that puts my mates in more danger than necessary is an insult to them.

It's bad enough that they are there in the first place, but to be spit on by the liberal media is a needless and sorry kick in the balls.

I have only heard good things about McCain, but I am in the dark... I need to look into his story more.

I agree.

The media is hugely out of line.

There is freedom of speech, but there is helping and hurting. The country is getting ripped down from the outside, we dont need it torn up from the inside.

We got attacked, and that may have been what the whole world was wanting to see, to prove that America could get kicked in the ass like they all could, but the thing is that it stems from jealousy and ego.

Any other country would have gone to war if they had the resources, but none of them did. America was between a rock and a hard place and they had to do something.

Plus we could go all the way back to Clinton saying that the democrats could have kicked Osamas & Sadams asses a long time ago. We can point fingers all we want... but its not going to change the situation TODAY

I admittedly would have voted for McCain.

The intelligence left the conversation a while back....

Can we move on now, guys?

By the way I think that sexist commentary should be put into the "F you" section of the forum.

Please refrain from making gender judgements, or go to the "who's better, boys or girls" thread and have fun debating 14 year olds. This thread has "intelligent" in the title. Lets stick to that...

Aw man i missed it....

Donald, you make me laugh Mr Man, because you are everything i don't like about pro Bush, pro War supporters...you are the FoxNews watching bovine Ex hired killer who actually believes that inbred little idiot Bush when he gets up on stage and LIES through his teeth about "the threat to America..the terror...and how we still live in a dangerous world"

YEAH THANKS TO YOU YOU REBOUND!....are you a fundamentalist christian as well?..that would be the icing on the cake!....woo hoo..."my brothers my sister"..

And the fact you are proud to be sexist, and proud of your government for lying speaks volumes. Yeah, rednecks are generally the first ones to sign up and fight...because lets face it, they are so poorly educated they don't know any better...poor things.

With the end of your generation, and perhaps the one to follow it, your old fashioned way of thinking will mostly die out, and not a moment too soon.

And then what happens when your apathy for the basic defence of man and home is needed most?

With the end of his generation goes self respect, dignity, vigilance and discipline. The world will be a truly messed up place, ripe for one terrorist to drop in and change your world for you.

Old fashioned thinking is keeping the western world together by a thread. Old fashioned thinking is strengthening the Middle East, Africa and Asia. North Korea is a warning that they are catching on to it already. When they realise they can be what we are in a whole old way they'll be the new super powers and they won't mess about threatening the use of force. The first thing we'll know about it is when we are blinded by that brightest of lights.

So what if Don is sexist? It's genetics. It's man, masculine. At least he doesn't hide it. Wanting to die a Gusher is just the same, Kevin, admit it.
And the Redneck in him shows you up for your lack of values, faith in your brother man. At least Don is prepared to stand up and fight.
The world is dangerous. The world is now and forever will be dangerous whilst the attitude of "Pfeh... not on my doorstep, out of sight out of mind. It was 3 years ago... get over it." reigns.

If you believe the world isn't dangerous, sign up and see the see the world behind the news. Or better yet just buy a ticket and knock on Al Zaquari's door.

So sit back and enjoy your life of happiness and ignorant bliss as you blast the people who stand up and defend your life with theirs. When they are gone you'll be all alone walking a radioactive wasteland wondering what the hell happened.

Vigilance, determination and strength.

Bret, don't give me the party line on whats holding the world together, of course they want you to believe that, that the only thing that will save us is a hard headed attitude towards terror, which of course suits them and allows them to do pretty much whatever they want., i'm not the one who is apathetic, you and Don are, because despite your claims of being logical and standing up for the rights of the world, you are swallowing whole the nonsense of a corrupt government...you are not thinking clearly and we are going to paying dearly for it just as we did on september 11th.

So you think i have a lack of faith in my fellow human beings? Well maybe i do, but i'll tell you something...i'd never sign up for a job that meant i'd have to kill them, that is lack of faith to me...demeaning someone because of their gender is lack of faith to me....

Don't talk to me of the Nuclear threat, Hiroshima anyone?....yeah, what goes around comes around they say....

Maybe you should have faith in other ways to change the world that do not envolve killing people...and stop defending war as a positive way of making the world a better place.

IT HAS NEVER WORKED LONG TERM IN THE PAST!

Thats the party line, huh? Well, considering I'm not a part of that party I find that amusing. If you want to loosen up on terrorism fine, do it. You can clean up afterwards.

I am well aware of the problems inheirent in our government, pissed off royally with the cabinet too. The again I'm a conservative so what do you expect? We'll see a change in about 20 years when the blues finally pull their fingers out though.

Lack of faith: I think I have plenty of faith in man. So much so that I risked my own neck to protect our fellow countrymen from domestic insurgency and terrorism. When you fight the fight, you'll know what I mean.

I never said war was positive, I just said it has to be done, like it or lump it. If we don't don't do it, it'll be done to us anyway. That's the way it works and will do until the world is on an even keel.

Nuclear threat: Yeah, we've learned from it, developing countries haven't. There's only one way they will learn it though.

The war in Iraq is over, occupation is upon us. The war on terror will never be over. It's far from a positive thing but someone has to watch the gate lest the war becomes genocide. That means watching both sides of the coin with equal vigilance.

Just because I'm defending Bush it doesn't mean I agree whole heartedly with him.

(this is the best debate I've had in AGES... keep going)

Don:

My comment was strictly to get the conversation back on track, not to personally attack anyone and if I thought you were being overly chauvinistic I would have bawled you out for it, you are coming from a mentality that you labeled YOURSELF as red neck, I was not the one who began to label anyone.

As for the conversation in general:

People can dwell all they want on what we SHOULD have done, however we don’t have a crystal ball, nor can we turn back time.

That having been said, people who are patriotic are not necessarily pro Bush, nor are they pro war. They are supporters of the freedom that we have taken for granted, mainly because we are largely sheltered from the rest of the world’s hardships. People who are not willing to lay their life down on the line for those things are the ones who tend to be more educated, actually like Kevin said. That is a fact. The southern mentality and the "good ol' boy"/ red neck attitude is a death sentence for any young man when the principles of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are defaced and the country that they love is threatened. The more educated, or even more "East coast (attitude)" people tend to be somewhat disconnected emotionally from the country and have a mild political-type attitude, because, lets face it, they don’t have to die, they know that the red necks will be the blood laid down for the political bulldozer. Then we have Bret, who is probably the typical West coast “stand for humanity and the right thing, but lets not rush into anything and do something stupid” outlook.

These are generalizations, obviously, not every person will feel the same way. However principle can sometimes equate to stupidity when it comes to lives and how much they are worth. Some people are seen as disposable by the country and some are not, the middle and lower class young men are much more disposable and much more stupid (in general) and are easily ployed into going to war for the constitutions sake or any reason whatsoever than the upper class or highly educated demographic of the same age group and gender. The politicians and other powers that be in the US are the ring leaders and drivers of that passion, however they would not send themselves to war, nor their sons. They will drive other people to die for their political cause. This is like the senate figuring out the social security issue when they have the "Golden fleece retirement plan" instated for themselves, and arent going to touch it for our sakes because they draw the same pay from the moment they step into their positions until they day that they die, and they get to dictate how much money the tax payers are going to line their pockets with, but thats another post entirely. Same concept, however.

Blinding passion and fellowship of the country and its leaders will lead to death, the people who know that will let the ones who are willing to die for principle, true or false, or even rights and protected freedoms do so, while they stay home and hear the death tolls on the news. This does not mean that they don’t stand by the country, but they are the ones with the conservatively and political viewpoints and care more about political and economic stance in the world than the ties of humanity and general service.

No matter how much the people of Iraq or other nations suffered many people would not have wanted us to go in because "it was not our war." It was humanities war, and the UN should have gone with us. The US should not have forged this ourselves, and we dug our own political grave, but other countries were waiting (praying, wishing, and hoping) that we would fall into that trap and do something that could be labeled wrong for pure jealousy and hatred of America, but the bottom line is that America has done more good for the world than any other country and we are the number one hyper power, as previously established and agreed upon.

Its not the middle eastern nations that we need to worry about nearly as much as N. Korea or other Asian nations, they are a far bigger threat and they wont mess around when they want something. They are not terrorists; they are power hungry and political established countries with huge resources and tons of lives to lay down on the line. America's political position in the world is highly coveted, and the slander that is coming at us from all directions outside of the country is based upon that fact and getting us out of the position that we have been in ever since there were not 3 balanced super powers in the world. The slander from inside the country is coming from the liberal media landslide that has foolishly followed the rest of the world’s views, but for the wrong reasons. The US could have been far more graceful in their approach to the war then they were, but had they not encountered so much resistance from inside and outside the country they probably could have handled it better.

I support my country regardless, but as of now America is between a rock and a hard place, and we will get a swift kick in the ass by the rest of the world for making the mistakes we have made, but I suppose we had to learn somehow.

I don’t think that the democrats could have done it better; I think people like to point fingers when the rope isn’t around their neck, but someone else’s.

And Clinton could have eliminated many of these problems while ago, if we are going to play the finger pointing game.

Well said, K.

Are you sure you're not in your mid twenties and practicing law?

I think we have plenty to be worried about from the Middle East, probably more so than Asia because of one thing; unpredictability.

You just don't know when the next crazy scheme is going to come from Iran, Lebanon or Jordan (please God don't let it be Jordan, because that will be nukes) or even the UAE. attatched to this you have two or three African nations, notably Egypt and Lybia who can make life hell in the Med.

Nukes, chemical and biological weapons all on the black market, mass suicide attacks and so on can destabilise everything that has already been fought so hard for in such a short time. Combined with the liberal media and you get a smelting pot with a heavily corroded base.

I agree with you that the middle east could be a problem and is tempermental, but not nearly as tempermental as Asia, and like you said, Asia is highly unpredictable. The middle eastern nations are so busy fighting each other that they dont really want to take on America, but if they wanted to for a good reason they absolutely could make life very difficult for us.

The toes we stepped on yesterday are connected to the asses that we will be kissing today, that being said, we have some major brown nosing to do, and will continue to step on more toes and kiss more ass for many years to come. These are tempermental times, and everyone is waiting for America to stumble and make a mistake, giving them a good reason to come down on us hard. The media should recognze this and not bring more unnecessary fuel to the worlds fire.

Yeah but the worlds fire sells papers and ups the viewing count.

God bless Rupert.

I actually said that Asia is fairly predictable. (Stemming from SunTzu.) We know where we stand with them, it's a case of keeping a good political relationship going and things should be fine for a while to come.

well, a mutated virile small pox strain can do that now by itself and leave the city.. the country intact for new ownership.

It's a ways off yet, but an anti-matter weapon could be very, very small indeed.

I'd be more wary of dirty bombs and biologicals for now though.

Biological weapons would be the worst case scenario. At least if we were bombed we would either be dead or not dead, not an epidemic of disease spreading throughout the country or the world. A plague-type situationw ould be far worse than just getting New York nuked, or anywhere else.

I know nukes are big, dont get me wrong. Biological warfare is scarier than bombs, I think anyway.

We know Asia could bomb our asses, and we know relations are relatively incohesive, so we tread carefully and just know not to bother each other. They will get us anyway, its just time.

Terrorist attacks are inevitable, and we are no safer now than before 9/11.

If we have no warning we are toast, and if someone really wanted to bomb us or biologically poison us, they would just do it.

We have a false sense of security that is eery.

While we're _not_ pointing fingers and just looking at facts, let us go back to the 80s and 90s when the Reagan and Bush administrations were arming and training a variety of groups and the Iraq military (yes, Saddam Hussein was in charge of Iraq at the time) itself so they could grow up by the 2000s to be fully trained, fully armed terrorists against the US and other nations. By the way, that includes people like Osama Bin Laden.

This problem had a genesis that is not at all simple to identify, and will be decades in the solution. Just goes to show you that even the simplest, seemingly most positive acts (for example, helping the Afghans fight the Soviet Union's occupation, or Iraq fight their war against Iran) at one moment has possibly terrible repercussions in the future.

And regarding Kevin bringing up peaceful approaches, well, he has a damn good point. Aggression and violence begets only aggression and violence. (Seems like Jesus mentioned something like that, too....)

As long as we continue to up the ante of violence when faced with it, so too will our opposition up their own violence.

Until we become a completely peaceful race, we will need warriors. But it doesn't mean that we can't choose better in how and when we apply those warriors so as to maximize the effect in the present while minimizing the negative effects in the future.

Agreed,

But as of now warriors are a necessity

And I know that bombs induce deformation and creates a big mess, but the mass populus from the nucleus of the explosion is either dead or alive, not slowly rotting and spreading some disease that has no name yet and no cure.

Ok, peaceful methods. I for one would like nothing more than a peaceful solution to Iraq, the Middle East, the South and Central American Drugs trade/Cartels, Northern Ireland, the Tamil Tigers, Al Queda, every civil war in Africa, the whole works.

But... and though it's a crying shame to say it there is always a 'But...'

How do you invoke a peace process when only one side is willing to use peaceful methods?

I don’t think we should arm these nations against other nations unless we have control of the nuclear facilities.

If they already know that we are allied with certain nations and will defend them then no one will be screwed with. It is stupid of us to turn weapons over to anyone’s control when they could be used against us, which is the problem we are having now.

As sad as this is, empowering other nations dispowers ours. It would be far smarter for us to stop playing judge and savior to the world and just swear to defend our allied nations (like people know we would) and not give our "allies" anything that could be used against us. We can be the protector, but we don’t need to ultimately sell ourselves down the river. It’s our asses on the line anyway, and we cannot be fair when the rest of the world is unfair and unpredictable.

America is held up to standards that other nations would never come close to, and we have expectations to be fair and do everything that is "right" when other nations are secretly manipulating and acting behind the scenes, yet even Americans don’t seem to understand that dealing with all these other corrupted nations put us at risk when we are supposed to be clean in everything we do.

I love that America tries to do the right thing and fight for humanity, but just like the "peaceful solution to war" issue, we cannot act peacefully and in total moral and ethical integrity when other countries are unwilling to do so.

Things are dirty, and we are not allowed to be, other countries get upset when we do something that is not to the utmost standards, yet we are dealing with unpredictable, power hungry, and death hungry world leaders and nations that would like nothing more than to blow all of us up, and if America falls, the whole world will become a very unsafe place all of the sudden. Not that it is not now, but things will jump to paramedic and nasty proportions very quickly, and no one is safe. A world war could bring us down, because so many nations are ready and willing to take America out of power. The smart nations know that it is better to keep America in power because we are dependable and reliable, as well as protective, but the nations who we already have in cohesive relations with would obviously be more comfortable if the world was ran differently.

After World War One the Brits were given a League Of Nations mandate to 'attempt' to bring 'the rule of law' in Palestine. Of course we messed it up & the world is picking up the bits now.
We never "marched" in to the place we reluctantly accepted the mandate. Note: Preident Wilson after putting together the 14 points decided to keep the US out of the League. So I'm begged to pose the question what did the US actually do post WW! to ensure peace? To date the US acts as the world's Policeman.
Evenin' All!

Does anyone remember how Ghandi and his followers peacefully repelled the british army without the use of violence?

There you go, a peaceful solution to a violent agressor.

Sweet.

I love listening to you tough guys talk about the history of war and government conflict and actions as if all the information you have is 100% factual. I mean, unless you were there firsthand, everything you know about these matters is subject to political filtering, propaganda, religious dogma and personal interpretation etc.

You only have to look at the news in America to see what i'm talking about...the facts these days seem hugely varied from channel to channel and person to person...go figure.

Actually Kevin, that was my pre requisite to any opinions I have posted.

We know nothing for certain and we dont know the inner working of polical structure throughout the world, nor all of the reasons behind the war. Everything we do is strategic and has political concerns involved, we arent stupid enough to only go in for the sake of principle. We know when to fold a bad hand. Its just easier to get people to lay down their lives for principles than politics, because the people who care about politics and are politically minded arent willing to die, they know they can get other yanks to do it for them. We probably know a fraction of what has actually gone on, and with mud slinging from other countries and within the workings of ours (democrats vs. republicans for example), it is impossible to tell.

And Ghandi and his followers were not running the world and werent a political group. If all of these countries knew we would do nothing but be peaceful our asses would be toast by now. Nukes are the only thing that is keeping us where we are.

Me? or Kevin?

I'm assuming Kevin.

We can all read all the history in the world, none of it is first hand fact and it is all from press. If the answers were as simple as we think they are other world leaders would have figured it out. Its all political and religious, especially with the middle east. There is alot of money at stake, as well as power. We can know what the actions were, for instance "Someone bombed someone on April 28," but we dont know exactly WHY the action was taken, so we therefor cannot say that it was WRONG to bomb them.

Donny, i pay about as much attention to the American Media System as i do to the British one, i said this already, so i don't appreciate you saying my views have been filled by it's nonsense.

You may feel that all your reading on certain subjects enables you to utter forth enlightened opinions, but don't you find that the more you read, the less you actaully know because the increase in knowledge only highlights the complexity of any given situation?

You and I are but ants under clouds, and though we may look up and guess in awe at why they move the way they do, we can never really know...the best we can do it get on with our lives and do everything in our little personal power to make the world a better place.

I've read plently auld yin, trying to figure out the clouds, now i read about ants, and i'm better off for it.

Thanks for the info Don, veeeeeery interesting Mr Bond.

lol.

Ill note that.

Everything is so perceptualized these days that the truth is now only relevent to the label or party attached. Documented fact without personal opinions interjected are rare commodities now, and that is sad, but it is the world we live in.

However I am not nearly as concerned about the individual histories of these countries as much as American action, recent, because as we have previously established history cannot change.

We have discussed the history ad naseum, but any forecasts or opinions on the future?

Ok, so we're in Iraq.. we should adopt Ghandi's philosphy and defend the public by peaceful protest?

Ghandi's philosphy is fine if it is your own land. When you're peace keeping the aggressor itself it becomes a different ball game.

Let's invade Iran and get them to cease all nuclear activity by sitting in the streets.

I think not.

As a race we wage war. it is in our genes. Suppress and kill our common enemy.

Next time you are burgled try Ghandi's ideal and see where it gets you.

Also, history is written by the winners. You'll never have all the facts, I'll never have all the facts but I'll happily defend the facts I have experienced and KNOW to be true.

(apologies for that being broken into three sections. Chelsea just lost and I can't see properly for the tears *winks*)

Don't the US support the state of Israel? ( Jewish money heavily invested in the motherland)
If so then they too are shooting Arabs. Yep its in ALL the west interests to have peace in the Mid East so as to keep the oil flowin.'Road Map' my Arse.
Sure love the way that the west support the cruel and corrupt hse of Saudi-why?? OIL of course.... AND we sell them arms to.