peace can only be maintained with superior fire power

[russell35]

well i may not be as much of a critical thinker as all of you. but here goes.


id like to hear everyones opinoins on george bush/goverment/sadam, etc and there race for more weapons. i dont know much on this subject which is why i want an honest opinoin. i think that this will eventually be the cause for the end of the world. too many contries with nukes. and no one seems to be getting closer to disarming them. mabey when bush is out of office he can get back to his yayo, and leave america to a leader who, once he gets fooled once.....he uh....cant get fooled agian.


war..HU...what it is good for..absolutly nothing.

and im not anti-war...im not pro-war i will probably eventually join the army. not because im pro-war. but because im a drop out with no choice. im somewhere in the middle. i usually let everyone speak there mind about war..and just nod my head..because my opinoin usually gets on peoples nerves.

[DracIV]

I believe that the current trends are actually signals of complete peace. Currently the unified and unifying world powers are becoming essentially inseperable allies (i.e. can't be enemies) and we are slowly shutting down and remolding all the petty dictatorships and renegade little countries that could pose a threat. In time, I believe at this rate we will have a world with about a dozen unified countries and complete peace, with maybe a bit of bickering, but no killing.

[jazzmosis]

War is not a step towards peace - only opression. Look at what happened in WW1 - Yugoslavian dictatorship started the war, Italy and Germany joined, Russia joined (dropped out in 1917 due to political change), but who got saddled with the blame? Germany, who in retrospect was only bandwagoning.

The "peace"/baggage Germany carried + Hitler ultimately lead to WW2. Once again, 4 million people died. More or less, 2-3 million of them were innocent that just were forced into the war. All over 1 man's belief.

Now America starts threatening countries. The latest on the list was Iran, Syria, Venezuela. Creating democracy by being a borderline fascist does NOT inspire peace. Look at Iraq. Do you consider that peace? If so, take a vacation there. It's "peace", and there's a "democracy" there. But where would you rather vacation, Canada or Iraq?

War does NOT create peace, it only furthers opression of cultures and society. There's other ways to achieve peace, we're (humanity) just far too up our own asses to see them.

[Tasselfoot]

Jazz man..... PLEASE don't forget about the 6 million + people who were toasted crispy in death camps. They were all innocent and casualties of WW2.

Also, russell, welcome to CT. Good suggestion for you: proofread your posts before posting. People will bitch at you here for multiple spelling and grammar errors.

Lastly, I agree mostly with Drac. There are only a few countries that we have to worry about, mostly North Korea, when it comes to nukes. The South American countries don't have the technology. The rest of the world is loosely aligned together. Organizations like NATO and even the UN have really worked to unify the world.

[jazzmosis]

I didn't forget about them, I just didn't know the number... so I didn't say anything.

[russell35]

well ill let everyone know right away...when i post expect many punctuation or grammer errors. it doesnt really bother me..if you want to get OCD about it. dont read my posts.

hella off topic but what is it called when you base your opinoin only on what you hear from someone? with out knowing the facts first..and just beliving them.

[Tasselfoot]

well ill let everyone know right away...when i post expect many punctuation or grammer errors. it doesnt really bother me..if you want to get OCD about it. dont read my posts.

It bothers everyone in CT. So, respect the forum community and fix your spelling and grammar errors when posting in CT. Otherwise, you will piss alot of people off, get little to no respect, and be flamed. The english language is important to us. Thanks.

[russell35]

i understand that i shouldnt butcher the english language. but i figure as long as you can read it and i get my message through then my task is complete. im just used to talking on chats or messenger. but in the future i will reread my posts and make any necessary corrections.

and whats the deal with the locked thread? why did it get locked so early? did i break a rule or something? let me know so i dont do it agian.

[Tasselfoot]

It isn't critical thinking. Doesn't belong. I'll unlock the HH thread and move it, and change the title.

[trillobyite]

.
Now America starts threatening countries. The latest on the list was Iran, Syria, Venezuela. Creating democracy by being a borderline fascist does NOT inspire peace. Look at Iraq. Do you consider that peace? If so, take a vacation there. It's "peace", and there's a "democracy" there. But where would you rather vacation, Canada or Iraq?

War does NOT create peace, it only furthers opression of cultures and society. There's other ways to achieve peace, we're (humanity) just far too up our own asses to see them.

Threatening countries...yeah, it is threatening potentially dangerous countries, not innocent and totally harmless nations like Poland. Iran has been known to be building nuclear weapons and based on corruption level in its government, it would be wise to take the precaution. Syria has been involved in a huge mess, not only with the assasination of the Lebanese Prime minister Hariri (and subsequent protests) but there are rumors that nuclear weapons might have been transferred there. Also, considering renegade forces like the Hezbollah hold quite an influence in the region, this is worry some. And Iraq is obviously not going to poof into a random state of peace out of nowhere, at least not with the foreign imported terrorists (who kill muslims as well) that rally to Zarqawi, who not only met with Bin Laden but even STATED that the "evil of democracy" must be combatted. Iraq is currently in a state of slow stabilization, and though there is a fair deal of corruption and scandals, it is inevitable.

War does not create peace, true, but war is a product of history and human nature. You can't look at it as something that can be prevented. What war CAN do is bring temporary peace, and freedom. Just like that famous poster said "Besides ending Fascism, communism, slavery, and nazism...war has never solved a thing!" Now war is the only way to end radical Islamic terrorism. Yeah, humanity will never find the way to end war. Therefore there is no point in trying to stop it.

[jazzmosis]

Imposing your style of government (eg: Iraq) is in itself, a form of Fascism. I don't mean to offend, but the evidence to mounting: Bush's leadership style and his regime (if you will), is so far right it's bordering fascist.

I've said this before, but if America REALLY wanted to promote peace, they'd start in the country that REALLY needs it right now: Sudan.

[DracIV]

Jazzmosis, that fascism is completely subjective or misinformed. Did you know that no government style was ever imposed on the Iraqis by the United States? Did you know that the recent election that the news was all talking about was an election to elect people to choose a government. The assumption is that Iraq will choose a form of democracy, but we are leaving it all up to Iraq. Nothing is being imposed. So get your facts straight before you make highly offensive accusations against our government. Rationality will conquer the world and make peace some day, whether that means the destruction of all humanity or a final harmony.

[QreepyBORIS]

Yeah! We did not know that the Shi'ites would win! We have no way of making them our political puppet!

Oh, please.



Anyway, I think a whole lot more than 4 million soldiers died in WWII. The Russian blitz toward Berlin was like acting as a giant meat shield to absorb all of Germany's force. It killed EASILY a million Russian soldiers. Almost everyone was a casualty.

[DracIV]

According to availible statistics:
Total Deaths/MIA in WWII = 14,566,111
Total Civilians Dead in Holocaust = ~11 million

[pfff]

i think it depends on what kind of war, after watching a 2 minute flash movie, it changed my mind about all nuclear warfare. Beware, this movie shows the effects of nuclear things (lol i dont know the name) on humans, do not watch if you have a weak stomach or have fear of nuclear weapons. Also, this might freak you out a little if you watch it, but youve been warned. http://www.jokaroo.com/ecards/funny/depleteduranium.html

So now how do you feel about nuclear war?

[trillobyite]

Yeah! We did not know that the Shi'ites would win! We have no way of making them our political puppet!

Oh, please.


Come on....you honestly think the American government should have the resposibility of "taming" dissenting Sunnis? They rallied behind Zarqawi, they decided to fight against voters, THEY brought their fate upon themselves. When the Shiites are the group that supports the U.S. more, naturally it is their duty to play the part in the new government. "Political puppet" would be the right term if America covertly installed the government specifically to cause a particular group of Muslims to have American ambitions fulfilled by the use of them. But the Shiites, themselves, chose to fight against the Zarqawi supporters who would commit homicide bombings just to kill voters.

Pfft: The term "nuclear war" might as well be referred to as "apocalypse". Nuclear war should never, ever, be allowed to take hold.

[navyseal101]

Woah..that was freaky PFFF. Only a mother could love those faces ehh? (lol)

I think we shouldn't worry about nuclear weapons because nobody is going to use them. Korea made it very clear that they intend to have them just for defensive purposes. Terrorists can have them too, because they don't have the technology to launch them. You can't just throw a nuke across the ocean and hit the U.S. You need highly advanced satillite technology. Considering osama is running around from cave to cave, I don't think he has this material avalible to him.

And just to put a perspective on this hole thing, America should be the first one on the list for disarment because we have enough nukes to blow up the world 10 times over. In the history of the planet, we are the only people that have used nukes anyway.

[QreepyBORIS]

i think it depends on what kind of war, after watching a 2 minute flash movie, it changed my mind about all nuclear warfare. Beware, this movie shows the effects of nuclear things (lol i dont know the name) on humans, do not watch if you have a weak stomach or have fear of nuclear weapons. Also, this might freak you out a little if you watch it, but youve been warned. http://www.jokaroo.com/ecards/funny/depleteduranium.html

So now how do you feel about nuclear war?

That site's reputation is spurious at best.

Especially since you'll notice that none of the pictures are of Arab people affected by the radiation. =/

And that I don't think DU is very hard at all.

And a whole slew of other things.



And trillobyte, I did NOT say that we should have the responsibility of taming the Shi'ites. And I find it unfortunate how easy it is for the US to bend the wills of their secular leaders, as well.

[trillobyite]

Woah..that was freaky PFFF. Only a mother could love those faces ehh? (lol)

I think we shouldn't worry about nuclear weapons because nobody is going to use them. Korea made it very clear that they intend to have them just for defensive purposes. Terrorists can have them too, because they don't have the technology to launch them. You can't just throw a nuke across the ocean and hit the U.S. You need highly advanced satillite technology. Considering osama is running around from cave to cave, I don't think he has this material avalible to him.

And just to put a perspective on this hole thing, America should be the first one on the list for disarment because we have enough nukes to blow up the world 10 times over. In the history of the planet, we are the only people that have used nukes anyway.

There are much more terrorist leaders than Osama, and they have the ability to get money from corrupt Arab governments (usually stealing UN aid). Their obtaining of such technology is a possibility, and it must be prevented. The U.S. cannot allow them to use it.

America used nukes back in World War II. There was no knowledge of radiation after-effects, and the horrific destruction of the bomb had reached proportions beyond the calculation of American scientists. Furthermore, the reason the bomb was used was because U.S. soldiers were suffering such incredibly massive casualities on the pacific front that the bomb would be the only solution to the immediate end of the war, and an end to what probably would have been even more deaths than what the bomb brought.

Qreepy: You stated that the shiites' sole purpose was as a political tool of the U.S. I was explaining that it was primarily free will.

[pfff]

Yeah! We did not know that the Shi'ites would win! We have no way of making them our political puppet!

Oh, please.


Come on....you honestly think the American government should have the resposibility of "taming" dissenting Sunnis? They rallied behind Zarqawi, they decided to fight against voters, THEY brought their fate upon themselves. When the Shiites are the group that supports the U.S. more, naturally it is their duty to play the part in the new government. "Political puppet" would be the right term if America covertly installed the government specifically to cause a particular group of Muslims to have American ambitions fulfilled by the use of them. But the Shiites, themselves, chose to fight against the Zarqawi supporters who would commit homicide bombings just to kill voters.

Pfft: The term "nuclear war" might as well be referred to as "apocalypse". Nuclear war should never, ever, be allowed to take hold.

actualy you know when we bombed japan? atomic bombs are nuclear

:EDIT: woops, sorry, i missed ur last post, nvm :mrgreen:

[navyseal101]

OMG....there is some crazy s h i t on this site. Thanks for the website PFFF, I love how they make the anti-bush videos so dramatic with the backround music and the screches and stuff. I don't think I'll get any sleep now though. lol

[themanwithsauce]

America used nukes back in World War II. There was no knowledge of radiation after-effects, and the horrific destruction of the bomb had reached proportions beyond the calculation of American scientists. Furthermore, the reason the bomb was used was because U.S. soldiers were suffering such incredibly massive casualities on the pacific front that the bomb would be the only solution to the immediate end of the war, and an end to what probably would have been even more deaths than what the bomb brought.


A little known test performed after WWII- the U.S. detonated an atomic warhead in the desert with its own troops nearby. Purposely trying to see what happens to soldiers that survive the initial blast. Out of the 2,500 that were tested on in 1950 (I think), only three were alive
in 1985.

And as far as a nuclear war goes- as of now, fear kept us and russia from launching nukes at each other but against these small terrorist groups with nothing to lose, one nuke will set off a chain reaction that will kill us all.

[trillobyite]

America used nukes back in World War II. There was no knowledge of radiation after-effects, and the horrific destruction of the bomb had reached proportions beyond the calculation of American scientists. Furthermore, the reason the bomb was used was because U.S. soldiers were suffering such incredibly massive casualities on the pacific front that the bomb would be the only solution to the immediate end of the war, and an end to what probably would have been even more deaths than what the bomb brought.


A little known test performed after WWII- the U.S. detonated an atomic warhead in the desert with its own troops nearby. Purposely trying to see what happens to soldiers that survive the initial blast. Out of the 2,500 that were tested on in 1950 (I think), only three were alive
in 1985.

And as far as a nuclear war goes- as of now, fear kept us and russia from launching nukes at each other but against these small terrorist groups with nothing to lose, one nuke will set off a chain reaction that will kill us all.

But that experiment proves exactly what I am saying, not until after the bombs were fired at Japan was the knowledge of radiation after-effects obtained. Though it is disgusting that the troops were sacrificed like that.

One nuke fired by the U.S. will lead to fury by every terrorist, every terrorist sympathizer, every liberal, and even a portion of conservatives. It also will not end anything, because new guerilla groups can always reassemble. The age we live in is an age where conventional warfare has become practically extinct.

One nuke fired by the terrorists will bring hope into more terrorists, who will use the incident as a precedent to methods of gaining technology and money to fire more nukes, and a chain reaction will be set off. The world cannot allow that to happen, and "the pleasure" of using a nuke to destroy terrorists is non-existent. The only way terrorists can be repelled is (imo)
A. A total overhaul of military tactics: That includes a need for genuine, fully operating missile defense systems as well as special combat platoons given professional training for urban warfare, repelling guerilla attacks, and mental training to be able to shoot at that young woman (or stop her in the least harmful way) who has the ability to kill a whole squad of men (I know I sound sadistic but the "basic morals" of our day have to be put aside in some of these extremely special cases. The prime example is Saddam's child soldiers).
B. Total dissolving of corruption within Middle Eastern governments. This operation can be done covertly, though the CIA would probably not be an effective intelligence agency to fully carry this out. The U.S. will have to look to all its allies for a unification and plan of operation (Prime example is the Israeli Mossad). There should be an end to propoganda administered by the Saddams of the world, and a hefty aid program intended ONLY to aid (this must be ensured; so many times had the money for aid been stolen to buy weaponry) that should be carried out by a group whose agenda is to carry out specifically those orders. The U.N's increasing rates of corruption show that they are not the best people to rely on for such a program.

[Mindfields]

crazy s h i t

Don't write that. Especially not in Critical Thinking, where you critically think, instead of critically curse.

Nuclear war is stupid. I mean, look at the relationship between America and Japan now: Honda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Suzuki, Samsung, etc.
It's almost as if they forgot about what we did and decided to sell crap to us.

[QreepyBORIS]

Qreepy: You stated that the shiites' sole purpose was as a political tool of the U.S. I was explaining that it was primarily free will.

Oh, they voted by free will alright, but the people we let them put on the ballot were US sympathizers. Well, much more than that, we could probably control many of the interim president's actions, if not almost all of them!

Sure, the Shi'ites voted another Shi'ite into office. But the person they voted in was basically one of ours.




And I thought of more really simple proof that the Depleted Uranium stuff is crap, but I don't feel like posting it unless someone says they are interested.

[trillobyite]

Qreepy: You stated that the shiites' sole purpose was as a political tool of the U.S. I was explaining that it was primarily free will.

Oh, they voted by free will alright, but the people we let them put on the ballot were US sympathizers. Well, much more than that, we could probably control many of the interim president's actions, if not almost all of them!

Sure, the Shi'ites voted another Shi'ite into office. But the person they voted in was basically one of ours.

Even some of the Sunnis are beginning to protest against these insurgents. Their persistance of killing any Muslim who even slightly supports democracy is astounding. The turn against the Saddam supporters by the common Iraqi populace was not forced by America; it is becoming apparent that their own free will, instinct, and plain open eyes show them that these "freedom fighters" are nothing more than bloodthirsty killers.

[MythamX]

To all of you democrats reading this, don't critisize me because of my political view. Some of my best friends (Alden) are democrat/liberals, and that's never mattered to me. I think it's important to have both sides of an arguement expressed in CT topics, so that people can actually learn something about both views. Well, in most cases I find it best to just place the post, 'No comment.' on topics dealing with things as such, as not to gain/lose any favor by fellow players who disagree with my point of view. However, I also think it's important to share my point of view, so people can agree or argue, hence; Critical Thinking. So here goes:

I'm republican. I honestly think that Iraq would go into some intense mayhem without our troops keeping citizens in line, especially with the election going on. Iraq is our ally, and that's why we're still there, to protect, not invade.

[trillobyite]

To all of you democrats reading this, don't critisize me because of my political view. Some of my best friends (Alden) are democrat/liberals, and that's never mattered to me. I think it's important to have both sides of an arguement expressed in CT topics, so that people can actually learn something about both views. Well, in most cases I find it best to just place the post, 'No comment.' on topics dealing with things as such, as not to gain/lose any favor by fellow players who disagree with my point of view. However, I also think it's important to share my point of view, so people can agree or argue, hence; Critical Thinking. So here goes:

I'm republican. I honestly think that Iraq would go into some intense mayhem without our troops keeping citizens in line, especially with the election going on. Iraq is our ally, and that's why we're still there, to protect, not invade.

I agree. Pulling out the troops in the current circumstances would lead to death, anarchy, and pure chaos. Yeah, I mourn for those dead soldiers, but to think that their current deployment in Iraq is in vain would be defiling their memory. They have to stabilize the country, and they cannot pull out midway.

[t_montana]

Just to let y'all know,I'm IN Iraq right now ,serving in the Army. It's sooooooooooo not about us right now , it's ridiculous.They are having enough problems enacting their political transitions that the provincial council approved, and getting the people who are in effect, not in command any more to leave. The coalition forces are here to observe at this point . I'm in the middle of a potentilly very hostile environment,and you don't see the coalition running around telling people where to go and what to do. It's up to the Iraqi police and National Guard, and we're letting them handle it themselves as much as possible.

[Mindfields]

[quote="MythamX"] Some of my best friends (Alden) are democrat/liberals, and that's never mattered to me.quote]

Eyh! I'm not a liberal!
Conservative Independent to the grave, yo.

[alainbryden]

Mindfields, you cannot hide from avatar! It want's you to want it. It needs you to need it.

http://img235.exs.cx/img235/9602/mindfields1hx.jpg

[trillobyite]

Just to let y'all know,I'm IN Iraq right now ,serving in the Army. It's sooooooooooo not about us right now , it's ridiculous.They are having enough problems enacting their political transitions that the provincial council approved, and getting the people who are in effect, not in command any more to leave. The coalition forces are here to observe at this point . I'm in the middle of a potentilly very hostile environment,and you don't see the coalition running around telling people where to go and what to do. It's up to the Iraqi police and National Guard, and we're letting them handle it themselves as much as possible.

Thanks for being living proof :wink:

But honestly, if you talk to most of the U.S. soldiers in Iraq you'll see that America isn't playing a huge part in the common lives of Iraqi civilians. The soldiers are there to maintain a strong hold, as a way to provide protection or against the terrorists.

[MythamX]

I concur. If we were there to do anything else but keep their lives going smoothly during the election, what with the bombings and all, we would have done it by now. Overall, in no way is America trying to do anything but help, and we're doing a damned good job. As long as our troops (looks at t montana) are in there, Iraq is a much safer place. Oh, and T, I highly respect you as a U.S. soldier, and wish you the best in Iraq.

[Shetage]

what about nobody having any power whatsoever....(besides their own strength?)...would this result in anarchy or complete peace?

(anarchy because there would be no true leader)

[jewpinthethird]

what about nobody having any power whatsoever....(besides their own strength?)...would this result in anarchy or complete peace?

(anarchy because there would be no true leader)

Why did you even bother asking a question if you were just going to answer it?

[Shetage]

would this result in anarchy or complete peace?

that is the question

[alainbryden]

You missed the part where we were carrying on a topic.

[MythamX]

It's people like Shetage that make Critical Thinking into 'Special' Thinking. And yes, you did answer your own question. Now someone post a topic to carry on this thread before it gets killed, I'm really enjoying it. I honestly can't think of one, and would rather reply than start a topic.

[trillobyite]

Gladly mytham.

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - As more people lose loved ones to the relentless violence, Iraqis are becoming increasingly angry at insurgents, even staging public demonstrations condemning militants.

advertisement

While it is impossible to precisely gauge public opinion, it is clear many Iraqis have grown tired of two years of insecurity, and some are directing their wrath at those behind the bombings and attacks.

“I demand that they be put in the zoo along with the other scavengers, because that is where they belong,” said Bassam Yassin, who lost his brother to an insurgent attack in Mosul. He spoke Wednesday after relatives of victims protested outside a police station in the northern city.

Iraq’s majority Shiite Arabs and ethnic Kurds have long criticized the largely Sunni Arab insurgency, portraying the militants as terrorists, loyalists of the Saddam Hussein regime and foreign fighters.

Public criticism from Sunnis
But the insurgents are now also being criticized publicly by prominent Sunnis, including opponents of the U.S. presence.

“The real resistance should only target the occupiers, and no normal person should consider dozens of dead people to be some kind of collateral damage while you are trying to kill somebody else,” cleric Ahmed Abdul-Ghafur told worshippers Friday at Um al-Qura, the main Sunni mosque in Baghdad. “Everybody should speak out against such inhumane acts.”

The growing anger was underlined this week in Hillah, a predominantly Shiite Muslim city south of Baghdad where a suicide car bombing on Monday killed 125 people — the deadliest single attack since Saddam’s ouster.

It touched a nerve in Hillah. More than 2,000 people chanting “No to terrorism!” demonstrated Tuesday outside the clinic where the bomber drove into a crowd of Iraqi police and army recruits, setting off an explosion that also killed civilians at a nearby market.

On Friday, hostility to the insurgency apparently boiled over into bloodshed in Wihda, 25 miles south of Baghdad. Townsmen attacked militants thought to be planning a raid on the town and killed seven, police Capt. Hamadi al-Zubeidy reported.

Anti-insurgency TV campaign
Anger against insurgents is being fed, in part, by a government television campaign. Last week, U.S.-financed Al-Iraqiya TV aired a series of reports showing men describing themselves as insurgents calmly talking about how they had beheaded dozens of people, kidnapped others for ransom and raped women and girls before killing them.

“People are realizing that the captured insurgents are not superheroes. They are timid people who kill for money and they have nothing to do with jihad,” said Karim Humadi, head of programming for Al-Iraqiya.

Insurgents have attacked Nineveh TV, Al-Iraqiya’s affiliate in Mosul, where most of the purported confessions were taped.

Last week, gunmen kidnapped one of the Mosul station’s anchorwomen, shot her four times in the head and dumped her near her home. The victim, Raiedah Mohammed Wageh Wazan, had called the insurgents “terrorists” on air.

The anger over deaths caused by insurgents does not always translate into acceptance of U.S. troops, who are still widely blamed for the chaos in Iraq. And many people support the insurgents, arguing they are fighting a just war to rid the country of U.S.-led troops who invaded in 2003.

Little acceptance of U.S. troops
“The Iraqi people are brave and won’t accept any foreigner on their soil. They will fight the occupation troops until force them to leave Iraq,” said Haitham Abdul Razak, who was a captain in Saddam’s army, which was disbanded by U.S. authorities.

Although American military deaths in Iraq passed 1,500 this week, they do not approach the toll among Iraqi civilians and their security forces. Bombings and other attacks killed more than 300 Iraqis just in February.

Groups like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaida in Iraq have made no secret that they hope attacks aimed at Iraq’s Shiite majority will provoke Shiites into a sectarian war with Sunni Arabs, who make up the core of the insurgency.

They hope such a war will mobilize the Sunni Arab community, thought to comprise 15 percent to 20 percent of Iraq’s 26 million people but who dominated under Saddam’s regime.

Yet the insurgents’ tactics are increasingly denounced by prominent Sunnis like Abdul-Ghafur, a cleric with the influential Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars, believed to have ties to insurgents.

“This is not the right way to drive the occupation out ... killing Iraqis is not the way to liberation,” he told worshippers. “We call upon those who have power over these groups to stop massacring Iraqis.”"


Summary: Even the anti-American Iraqis hate the insurgency. I don't see how anyone can defed these vile terrorists who are also killing Muslims and call them "freedom fighters".

[MythamX]

Because, sadly, instead of actual education, most of the Iraqi people have been schooled to hate America. They have been raised to hate us, and they don't plan to change their minds any time soon, no matter what greatly inspiring show of the freedom and liberty we stand for that our troops illustrate. However, the new generation of Iraqis are being born into a new country, with a free government, and an end to the evil of tyranny.

This is America's goal, and we're not pulling out of Iraq until it is a reality. In fact, I'm sure many of our troops are reluctant to be in Iraq, but we aren't giving them a handicap, more of a jump-start. America is still sending supplies to fund their schooling and help those who need it. The Iraqi children are going to grow up in a land where they can be free and educated, offered jobs of great importance, and even become government officials to help their nation reach its upmost potential.

So, yes, there are people who think America is evil, and terrorists are wonderful. But this does not change the fact that we are going to give up helping the country of Iraq become untainted.

[hatakikakashi]

I'm not saying that we have the right to do what we did in Iraq. Whether or not it was the right thing to do I don't care, I'm glad we did. I know that we are just that much more secure now that he is no longer in power.

Even if Sadam didn't have WMD, he wanted us to think that he did. He didn't let the inpectors do their job on purpose so that we couldn't prove that he didn't. I think he wanted us to be afraid of him and what he could do to us. He ruled his people with fear and wanted everyone to think that he was powerful, I think 9/11 was the worst thing to happen for Sadam Insane.

What's more important to you your own personal safety or being politically correct.

I see it kind of like this. You at school(the world) with dozens of other people (countries) and some asshole(Iraq) is trying to get you to think that he's got a gun. Your pretty popular and lot's of people like you, because you try to be nice and help other people, but lot's of people hate you too because you can't mind your own damn business. So anyway youv'e fought this guy before for picking on a freind of yours who sells you... oil . You know he's a wuss and can't fight so your pretty sure he's got a gun and want's to kill you. You ask some neutral people to go find out if he really has a gun but he won't let them. So what do you do then?

I'd just kick the guys ass then say whoops. I guess you didn't have a gun after all. Sorry,but that's what you get for screwing with me. Then the guy goes to the hospital and your having to pay the medical bill. Now everyone hates you because they say you shouldn't have done that he didn't have a gun and you had no right.

[FlashStinger]

Not to step on toes, But i think Saddam thought he had WMD. Do you think he honestly went to the facilities, no, that puts him in a very public, very unsafe place, very much unlike Saddam. On the other hand, you have the scientists and other researchers trying to make these weapons. Are you, knowing Saddams reputation of punishment, (i.e. Rape of you{if applicable} your mom and sisters, public stoning, flogging, draining of half the blood in your body until you die, and other types of torture), going to tell him that you do not have the WMD that he has been funding you for? I think not, you tell Saddam Huessein whatever he wants to hear, and maybe you live. You tell him what he doesn't want to hear, and you can just as easily put your head between your knees and kiss your butt goodbye. Saddam, in my opinion, believed full well that he had WMD, and therefore, so did we. To Saddam, The US, and the rest of the world, he had the weapons, and they were just in hiding. Now that we go in, we find that they don't exist, oh well, it is still a humanitarian relief. Do you remember what their life was like before we came in? This is a real step in peace, and I as a bush hater, can say this is one thing he has done right. Bringing a chance at peace to a part of the world that hasn't experianced it since the neolithic revolution.

As for North Korea, the president of North Korea (can't remember how to spell his name), may be a psychopathic lunatic, but he isn't stupid. The man has maximum of 2 nuclear weapons, he is not going to use them. He is going to hold onto them like a baby with a blanket. He KNOWS that the United States code of conduct in war is to not use nuclear weapons, unless they have been used on us first. Were not going to touch him and he knows it. If he uses them, whats he got left??? Nothing. The countries that should worry are Japan and South Korea and China. He has threated them, and accepted bribes to make sure they don't get bombed. He is in it for the money, and his own protection. No one is going to use his weapons against another country, because if you attack a country in the UN with nuclear arms, you can say your last prayers cause there isn't a whole deep enough for you to hide.

Back to the topic of this thread. Using the military is not the way for world peace, but neither is disarment. Sure it would be nice to get all the weapons out of this world, but it won't happen. Humans are naturally violent, how do you think we beat out are predicessors, sitting down and asking if they wanted to live, no, we killed them. We learned to survive, and we killed anything that would prevent our survival. There is no way weapons will be gone, and all forms of organised government needs some type of military. Hey, even Canada has a military. The point is, it should never be used, only a way to waste money ;) It is to keep drugs out of the borders, and protect it's borders from invaders that shouldn't be using their army. If a country uses their army, the rest of the world should be able to unite and end the conflict. This is a means of peace, but it won't happen at the rate things are going now. Why go for world peace? give every communitry peace, and you give world peace. Too many people try to fix the big problem, without looking at the small things that lead up to the problem. Each community has it's own weakness that if improved, would make world peace. Hey, it's a dream, but a far fetched one at that.

[FlashStinger]

FYI: the new president of Iraq is Kurdish, not Sunni or Shi'ite