What would the US response be if Al Queda

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yup, why on Earth did we expect a place where a democracy has never in History existed would embrace one?

This is probably one of the lamest arguments ever made against bringing democracy to Iraq. How many democratic govts stood within the borders of the United States before the United States was formed?

See what a silly argument it is?

How democratic was it for a long part if its life?

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yup, why on Earth did we expect a place where a democracy has never in History existed would embrace one?

This is probably one of the lamest arguments ever made against bringing democracy to Iraq. How many democratic govts stood within the borders of the United States before the United States was formed?

See what a silly argument it is?

How many democratic goverments existed on the planet before the United States was formed?

Edit:

Or how many governments have been changed to democracy by brute force?

 

[Genx87]

You're lumping "terrorism" as if it were something more than a simple tactic. It isn't - it's just a tactic to be used when the small are fighting the larger.

What we care about ISN'T terrorism - it's Muslim fundamentalism. There are many, many brands of terrorists - but it's the Muslim fundamentalists that are the real threat. Forget the tactic - study Muslim fundmentalism (realizing that if it is thwarted at terrorism it will branch off to other tactics, such as rampantly propogating it's population within countries that oppose it).

I figured since we are talking about the Middle East, Saddam, AQ that the term "terrorism" was the same as Islamic Fundamentalism. I guess not.

I have no problem with it spewing its filth provided it doesnt go around attacking political structure and its civilians. Once it stops killing people and just offends them, then we can lump them in with the Pat Robertsons of the world and dimiss them.

Islamic fundmentalism isn't growing because of a lack of political expression - it's growing right now, in countries where the Muslim people have votes, economic freedom, and communities, such as France, UK, and Belgium. Islamic fundamentalism is growing because of differing, irreconcileable world views, in which the Muslim fundamentalist realizes that the modern world is 180degrees out of step with the Koran's teachings - not on everything, but on enough to make him angry. These people, rather than adjust an aging document, would rather adjust the world - in any way, shape or form they can. Giving democracy can ONLY help that if the fundamentalists manage to elect enough representatives to change a country from a modern country back to a theocracy. PERIOD. And if they lose at the polls, well then they'll take it back to the streets - ours or theirs.

One of the main findings for the causes of Islamic terrorism by the 9-11 commission was lack of political expression. A lot of the issues you see in Europe have more to do with immigration. Elements of these whackjobs are making it into Europe and planting the framework for a larger operation decades down the road.

And I don't drop conspiracy theories randomly - I mention them because SO many Republicans (Scowcroft, Powell initially, etc.) all were against invading Iraq on anti-terrorism reasons. They weren't scared of war - they were against fighting the WRONG war at the WRONG time. So if all of those Repubicans knew the score, esp. Scowcroft, then why invade? It just has to be something else...because too many infuential Republicans KNEW that Saddam was not responsible for 9/11.

And what does Haliburton, Bush gettingback for attempted assasination of his father and the other crap you said have to do with Powell having reservations against the invasion?
When you interject things like that, it makes it hard to take the conversation serious.

btw Bush and the administration never once linked Saddam with 9-11. This is a lie that the left has pushed for the past few years. They have said Saddam was part of the overall problem in the region and helped fund terrorism abroad. Two totally different situations.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yup, why on Earth did we expect a place where a democracy has never in History existed would embrace one?

This is probably one of the lamest arguments ever made against bringing democracy to Iraq. How many democratic govts stood within the borders of the United States before the United States was formed?

See what a silly argument it is?

How democratic was it for a long part if its life?

You dont think we are a representative democracy anymore?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yup, why on Earth did we expect a place where a democracy has never in History existed would embrace one?

This is probably one of the lamest arguments ever made against bringing democracy to Iraq. How many democratic govts stood within the borders of the United States before the United States was formed?

See what a silly argument it is?

How many democratic goverments existed on the planet before the United States was formed?

Edit:

Or how many governments have been changed to democracy by brute force?

That is irrelevent as your argument is since these people have never had a democratic govt, they can never have one.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yup, why on Earth did we expect a place where a democracy has never in History existed would embrace one?

This is probably one of the lamest arguments ever made against bringing democracy to Iraq. How many democratic govts stood within the borders of the United States before the United States was formed?

See what a silly argument it is?

How democratic was it for a long part if its life?

You dont think we are a representative democracy anymore?

Oops, it really does sound like that the way I wrote it..... Get rid of the "its life" part

But what I meant to say is that we weren't very democratic for a long part of our life.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yup, why on Earth did we expect a place where a democracy has never in History existed would embrace one?

This is probably one of the lamest arguments ever made against bringing democracy to Iraq. How many democratic govts stood within the borders of the United States before the United States was formed?

See what a silly argument it is?

How democratic was it for a long part if its life?

You dont think we are a representative democracy anymore?

Personally I think it is very corrupt. There are spots here and there where it still works like it should, but largely our politicians gain support through two or three ultimately meaningless issues and then are bought out on the rest by big business.
People will vote for a party based on something like the legality of abortion, but never consider the influence and control big business exters on our legislatos, republican or democrat

I guess its our own fault at the same time because we are not vigilant enough to maintain our democracy

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Let me guess, a unified front for 18 months, then opportunists start planting those seeds of doubt and we go back to fighting internally like children.

It's like Scotland on a grander scale, isn't it?

Jason

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

Rowing with your oars in the sand, and several sandwiches short of a picnic I see.

You don't have a clue about what the worlds about, do you ?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

France? Wow, sometimes I think you have some good ideas, then you want to nuke the country that gave us the Statue of Liberty. :thumbsdown:

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: smashp
we will blame Bill Clinton

No, I'll blame George W. Bush for his complete and utter FAILURE to secure our borders, police internally to get rid of Illegal Aliens and his constant rhetorical BVLLSHIT about how great we do on border security. It's a fvcking SHAM and he damn well knows it, because the truth is that he's an open-borders "let's give amnesty to everyone!" kind of guy.

Second worst president *evah*.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

Rowing with your oars in the sand, and several sandwiches short of a picnic I see.

You don't have a clue about what the worlds about, do you ?

Certainly I do, and the fact that we like to sit here and delude ourselves that people who strap bombs to themselves and detonate in public cafe's are anything short of SAVAGES is absolutely disgusting to me.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

France? Wow, sometimes I think you have some good ideas, then you want to nuke the country that gave us the Statue of Liberty. :thumbsdown:

Hey, the statue's all well and good, but it's clear enough that the country's been loaded with a bunch of Muslims who, for all we know, may be sleepers for future attacks against Europe or even the US. France is an important part of history, particularly the history of Liberty, and the US owes France a huge debt for their support during the Revolutionary war, but times have changed.

Jason

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Genx87

How many democratic goverments existed on the planet before the United States was formed?

Edit:

Or how many governments have been changed to democracy by brute force?

That is irrelevent as your argument is since these people have never had a democratic govt, they can never have one.

[/quote]


I never said they couldn't have one, I just thought it was stupid to try to enforce one. And even with us trying their not going to get one. It's going to mirror Irans not ours.

 

[nfamous]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

France? Wow, sometimes I think you have some good ideas, then you want to nuke the country that gave us the Statue of Liberty. :thumbsdown:

Hey, the statue's all well and good, but it's clear enough that the country's been loaded with a bunch of Muslims who, for all we know, may be sleepers for future attacks against Europe or even the US. France is an important part of history, particularly the history of Liberty, and the US owes France a huge debt for their support during the Revolutionary war, but times have changed.

Jason

I think the ww1/ww2 thing may have paid that off with interest.....

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

Rowing with your oars in the sand, and several sandwiches short of a picnic I see.

You don't have a clue about what the worlds about, do you ?

Certainly I do, and the fact that we like to sit here and delude ourselves that people who strap bombs to themselves and detonate in public cafe's are anything short of SAVAGES is absolutely disgusting to me.

Jason

I'm looking at your willingness to launch a worldwide nuclear holocost because of your personal petty bitterness.

The US constitutes 3% of the worlds population, and by consuming 60% of the worlds resources.
You think that we have the right to destroy 97% of the world - when less than 1/10th of 1% even poses a remote threat.

Nixon himself wasn't even that paranoid.

Wish I could show you some frames I have seen

Kwajalein /Trinity

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

You killed my baby, now I'll kill your whole extended family, neighbors, and anyone unfortunate enough to live in the same country as you. Oh, and anyone else that happens to get caught up in the mess. Sound logic.

Originally posted by: azazyel
I never said they couldn't have one, I just thought it was stupid to try to enforce one. And even with us trying their not going to get one. It's going to mirror Irans not ours.

The beauty of democracy is that it can't be enforced. The people can vote in some other form of government if they so choose, thereby repealing their own democracy.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Hey, the statue's all well and good, but it's clear enough that the country's been loaded with a bunch of Muslims who, for all we know, may be sleepers for future attacks against Europe or even the US.

Wouldn't surprise me if they were planting sleepers there. And they most likely are doing so in all major nations/cities.

But here's the thing. Terrorists, as they operate today, aren't limited by borders. They can operate in any country. Heck, they have even operated in the US and most likely still have cells there. Just like in most other major nations.

This is why attacking nations to fight terrorists or terrorism is about the most retarded thing one can do. It doesn't stop them, as they could just setup shop in another country. And as with Iraq, they'll most likely get new recruits in the country that was attacked.

 

[Braznor]

If the U.S is hit by a bigger attack then 9/11, then my best bet that it would turn isolationist. The developed world no longer has the stomach for large scale wars. Pearl Harbour happened in different times, war losses nowadays are unacceptable. When dead war heros moms demand explanations from the govt, explanations for their sons deaths in the battlefield, the war has already been lost in your minds.

It would simply try to wrap up its current conflicts with minimum losses and try not to get embroiled into future ones.

Maybe a 100% ban on muslim immigration and deportation of all current immigrants would be in order. Europe, Israel and Taiwan would be left to fend for themselves. China could emerge as a winner of the scenario, until the Islamists target her that is.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Braznor
If the U.S is hit by a bigger attack then 9/11, then my best bet that it would turn isolationist. The developed world no longer has the stomach for large scale wars. Pearl Harbour happened in different times, war losses nowadays are unacceptable. When dead war heros moms demand explanations from the govt, explanations for their sons deaths in the battlefield, the war has already been lost in your minds.

It would simply try to wrap up its current conflicts with minimum losses and try not to get embroiled into future ones.

Maybe a 100% ban on muslim immigration and deportation of all current immigrants would be in order. Europe, Israel and Taiwan would be left to fend for themselves. China could emerge as a winner of the scenario, until the Islamists target her that is.

I'm not sure if your post is serious or not, because it is kind of all over the place.

I mean, you say Pearl Harbor happened in a different time and now war losses are unacceptable in the same sentence, yet the last time I checked, we won that war. Hell, that was the time when our veterans came back there were parades.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Strk
I'm not sure if your post is serious or not, because it is kind of all over the place.

I mean, you say Pearl Harbor happened in a different time and now war losses are unacceptable in the same sentence, yet the last time I checked, we won that war. Hell, that was the time when our veterans came back there were parades.

Uh, I think that was his point: that that kind of war couldn't be carried out today, because we don't have the stomache for it.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

Rowing with your oars in the sand, and several sandwiches short of a picnic I see.

You don't have a clue about what the worlds about, do you ?

Certainly I do, and the fact that we like to sit here and delude ourselves that people who strap bombs to themselves and detonate in public cafe's are anything short of SAVAGES is absolutely disgusting to me.

Jason

I'm looking at your willingness to launch a worldwide nuclear holocost because of your personal petty bitterness.

The US constitutes 3% of the worlds population, and by consuming 60% of the worlds resources.
You think that we have the right to destroy 97% of the world - when less than 1/10th of 1% even poses a remote threat.

Nixon himself wasn't even that paranoid.

Wish I could show you some frames I have seen

Kwajalein /Trinity

You're an exagerator and a half, aren't you? 97% of the planet? Please, do try and be somewhat realistic, OK? The middle east, while pretty large, doesn't amount to anything remotely near 97% of the planet. And honestly, if they all die, too bad. For christ sakes, you've got a handful of countries whose sole desire is to oppress and abuse their people, who get into pissing matches over who's prophet has the right angle on the invisible man in the sky and subsequently strap high explosives to themselves and board passenger busses. Honestly, if we lost the whole of their "civilization" (and I use the term VERY loosely), what have you lost? Very damn little. If that means we have to find an alternative to oil, FINE, so be it. Oil's a bad idea anyway, no matter how you slice it.

I agree that the MAJORITY of the middle eastern people don't pose a threat, but the portion of them who DO pose a threat are SO dangerous, SO radical and SO cowardly that they won't even fight a war without doing so in the streets of neighborhoods where children play or without bombing people for having the GALL to try and VOTE to select their own government representatives. If it takes the destruction of that region in order to bring some semblance of sense and peace to the world, so be it. The terrorist fanatics are clearly INSANE, there is no possibility of REASONING with them.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

You killed my baby, now I'll kill your whole extended family, neighbors, and anyone unfortunate enough to live in the same country as you. Oh, and anyone else that happens to get caught up in the mess. Sound logic.

Originally posted by: azazyel
I never said they couldn't have one, I just thought it was stupid to try to enforce one. And even with us trying their not going to get one. It's going to mirror Irans not ours.

The beauty of democracy is that it can't be enforced. The people can vote in some other form of government if they so choose, thereby repealing their own democracy.

Nonsense. Voting yourself into slavery is NOT an option, feature or function of Democracy, except in the minds of those who don't understand it and haven't bothered to study the concept of Democracy, of Natural Rights or of Liberty. One cannot vote oneself out of the right to free speech, and one most certainly can't vote away the rights of OTHERS.

If it takes killing a huge swath of the middle eastern world to get the point across, so be it.

Jason

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd back a nuclear strike against Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan and France as an adequate first step, personally. Middle Eastern Muslims, at least the extremists, are SAVAGES. It's unfortunate that they work tirelessly to bring more death and destruction to their fellow Muslims, but if that's the way they want to play it, fine, let's play.

Jason

You killed my baby, now I'll kill your whole extended family, neighbors, and anyone unfortunate enough to live in the same country as you. Oh, and anyone else that happens to get caught up in the mess. Sound logic.

Originally posted by: azazyel
I never said they couldn't have one, I just thought it was stupid to try to enforce one. And even with us trying their not going to get one. It's going to mirror Irans not ours.

The beauty of democracy is that it can't be enforced. The people can vote in some other form of government if they so choose, thereby repealing their own democracy.

Nonsense. Voting yourself into slavery is NOT an option, feature or function of Democracy, except in the minds of those who don't understand it and haven't bothered to study the concept of Democracy, of Natural Rights or of Liberty. One cannot vote oneself out of the right to free speech, and one most certainly can't vote away the rights of OTHERS.

If it takes killing a huge swath of the middle eastern world to get the point across, so be it.

Jason

And mass murder millions of innocent people?

What makes you think other countries with nukes will just stand by and watch? If they see America use nukes on the mid east, they will think they are next and will immediately attack the U.S to ensure their safety.

Think outside the box for once.