General Chat / Decision 2004(for USA anyway..)

The problem is how the US reacts to these terrorists. Yes, terrorism is bad and should be stopped, but America is just making it worse by acting like they own the world and can do whatever they want (like invading another nation more or less unprovoked). Don't mix up small groups of extremist terrorists with nations, religions, cultures or such.

If France or Germany was attacked it would not be their troops defending them, probably even if they crawl into the fetal position. It would be American troops defending these nations and pursuing their attackers. You can defend ever the attacks all you want as Americans being one sided. Byt he fact is these terrorists are scum bags that i would rather see as a smoldering pile of body parts.

Here you make a strange jump in your reasoning. You can't really defend against terrorism with lots of troops, that's the whole point of terrorism. By the way, Germany or France can defend themselves very well... Where did you get that from?
Anyway, attacking other nations is not the best way to make the terrorists "smoldering piles of body parts". An overwhelming majority of the smoldering body part piles in Iraq after the war used to be completely innocent civilians, or soldiers who probably didn't want to be in the war.
This, and of course the whole arrogant attitude of forcing your way of life upon someone else, not caring about international unions and laws, justifying it with lies, and then acting as if you have done the world a huge favour is a great way to create terrorism and hate.
Violence only creates more violence. Instead of just wanting to kill every possible terrorist, look at the reasons behind the terrorism. And don't just say "Well, they're evil twisted Islamic fundamentalists that want to take over the world and do evil stuff", because the world is not black and white like that. I'm sure a few terrorists want this, but I believe most terrorists are just desperate, probably pretty indoctrinated, filled with frustration and hate, because of things like the Iraqi war or the Israel/Palestine conflict, just for example. Everyone's a potential terrorist, I think, depending on the situation.

Also, it's scary that Bush got re-elected, just for the symbolism of it.

he gets it from WW II, If I was a leader of a nation, and LazyBoy was of another and he was thinking like that, i wouldn't ask for his help or his aid, not if its going to have tags added on to em' nor would i ask help if were getting invaded, i'd ask his allies before i asked that asshole for help. to think that way i think is arrogant.

It took FOX a long time to give Cali to Kerry, but it took other networks forever to give Ohio to Bush.

Why?

Because the Kerry camp called the other major news networks and told them not to report Ohio after they saw Fox did.

And your basis for this is...?

Yes, I am curious too as to from whence this knowledge comes to you.

http://www.rushlimba...ctor.guest.html

Sorry I can't find a "more credible" source.

Edit: well, here's the NYT link. http://www.nytimes.c...gn/04kerry.html

Germany or France can defend themselves very well...

Germany can't have a military, neither can Japan since WWII. They use a police force, and, if needed, the U.S.

You can defend ever the attacks all you want as Americans being one sided. Byt he fact is these terrorists are scum bags that i would rather see as a smoldering pile of body parts. These are the type of people that invade a school and kill CHILDREN. How can anybody with a conscience support these types of acts. The school may have happened in Russia, but these fuckers all come from the same school thought. They do not want to get along with others. They want an Islamic fundamentalist world that is a sick and twisted perversion of what anybody should seek. People bitch all the fucking time about Born Again, Evengelical Christians, well at leats they pass out flyers and not shrapnel.

Terrorists just "do not want to get along with others"? That is arrogant, oversimplified bullshit. You can generalize and de-humanize terrorism and the motives behind terrorism, but the only thing you accomplish is a means to justify bringing the age-old "infidels" to "justice". (Funny how things haven't changed much since the first crusades almost 1000 years ago. ) In reality, it's not as though terrorists, in a spur-of-the-moment thing, decide they want to fly planes into buildings. Obviously you would not be risking your life for a worthless cause, but one that you feel to be especially important. And we all know how important it is to not get along with others.

I'm not really sure why I'm posting, because it really just comes down to the fact that all of this is relative; it's seen how either side wants to see it, not how it actually is. Both sides are EQUALLY wrong, even though neither wants to claim responsibility. If you're willing to call the fundamentalist Islamic way a sick perversion, I'd be willing to challenge that the Christian way is perverted in much the same way - if only because you aren't able or willing to see from the other or outside perspective. That very type of dangerous and haphazard attitude is what leads to this entire conflict. Stop being so one-sided.

Japan and Germany DO have armies now, see... American's are still stuck in WW II thinking, here

http://www.cia.gov/c...a.html#Military

the Japanese recently sent 1,000 men for ONLY humanitarian help, 1,000 is not a lot but the army has just been aloud to grow since early 2001. not to mention the war is very controversial for many Japanese people.

http://www.cia.gov/c...m.html#Military

miliatary man power for the Germany is 20 million
for Japan its 29 million

military expedenture's is for Germany : 35 billion which i think is quite good for a country that big and for as passive and peaceful it is.
Japan's 42 billion dollers.

compare this to America its nothing ofcourse but it puts up a better fight then Iraq could of to begin with in 2003.

To clarify what i was saying in my last reply to Lazyboy. Is their is reason behind the madness, their is reason behind it. what John said makes perfect sense, people whether religious or not don't just get up on day and decide to blow themselves up. I'm part of this faith just to add, to you i guess i'm just as much a could-be terrorist as someone i've never met in Iraq. I'm telling you your wrong, I'm not so passive as to say I wouldn't do anything if they started genocide on Muslims because we had a President who now acted on HIS fears of Muslims.
I don't agree with the terrorist view of how it should be, and i don't agree with how Americans want to do things in the Middle East, both sides to me are in a moment of history bigger then just the ideological nations of Capatalism with Facisim or Communism, we are at a moment of history where America is the hypacrites (sp) of the war, just as the enemy is, and that the enemy is so much more versatile then a nation, not to mention it has quite possibly to bring us down. rather then do the "No negotiation" route, negionating actually does a lot of good in this world, in this time of age then back when the Romans were fending off the Huns with Gold. Arab extremist lose the largest part of their support if we stop a double sword policy in the region, you cannot destroy it all together, but you can decrease it peacefully. to think the terrorist don't want peace is idiotic. ofcourse they do any normal human being wants to be home with their wives and kids, to see their kids grow. this is what brought the Irish crisis with the UK (I don't know that conflict so any UK or Irish folk here can call on me if i'm wrong just so we get that clear) the British wouldn't accept an Irish state, and wanted to keep and continue it to be a Protestant state where most of the people were Catholic, today America is crossed on whether calling the Irish Repulican Army a terrorist group or an actual resistance. In the end the British were forced to the table after SO many of their children (both Catholic and Protestant) were killed off in a bloody war of one side being arrogant to control a nation the refused its will, and a nation that had been basically been raped by their British controllers and had REASON to resist.

I'll be back with more....

Germany can't have a military, neither can Japan since WWII. They use a police force, and, if needed, the U.S.

Oh. My. God.

Yeah, never learned about that in my history class.

...Christ, my country is doomed.

...same shit...different day...

...and for tomorrow...

My thinking in the US having to defend France and Germany is not based on WWII. It is based on how much the US is left to do. Bosia would be an example. That was done under NATO but the bulk it all had to be done by the United States. Military man power does not mean what it used to.

The reason Muslims are considered terrorists by default int his contry is because only one small group has come out and rejected the actions and beliefs of the terrorists. If only a small group is out right rejecting these terrorists then most people will assume that they are the minority and the terrorists are the majority.

The IRA was a resistance group that lost its purpose back in the 1920s. Today they are a terrorist group. During World War I when the IRA was formed Sinn Fein came to power in southern Ireland and declared secession from England. England did what ever nation does when a terrority wishes to leave, tell them "hell no". Northern Ireland wanted to stay. Today the IRA uses terrorist means to try and force Northern Ireland to join the rest of Ireland.

I'd like to show you something

http://story.news.ya...ez795mnm_photo0
http://story.news.ya...px1e2m8u_photo0

African Union troops 100%, American troops 0%

It IS possible not to have the U.S. everywhere.
Military Manpower, what does it mean? it means how many troops in the military. Please don't tell me if you think the Japanese and Germans are are not trained. historically they have always been prideful of their armed forces just as us. Not ot mention just as orginized as the U.S. despite the fact they may not have as much technological weaponry. If you said you thought the Iranian army was disorginized i'd believe you.

in my point of view the ground forces in Bosnia were not just mostly U.S. troops but also French, German and other European nations.

When you LazyBoy say in this country only a small group comes out rejecting terrorism. I REJECT terrorist means. their are 6 million arabs most of whom' are Muslim,

http://usinfo.state....ubs/muslimlife/

Muslim's all together don't care about the politics of the Middle East, at least that is what i find with most Muslims in America. When McVie (sp) committed the Oklahoma bombing, not a whole lot of white people were thought of as Pro-Life nut cases, neither was the fact not a whole lot of people came out protesting against what he did. At least not hte people were pro-life.

What your saying to me is it seems because Muslim's are the minority, we should be considered dangerous is no different then what Americans stereotypically think of Mexicans and Blacks as thieves, and drug traffickers, not to mention wife beaters.

America is really good at saying they are the land for free to the world and its people, then really make it seems that the those of whom who are the minority are obscured of general sterotypes. For the longest time i wouldn't accept it, until i actually sat down and listened for people talking like that in joke's and the act it when around these people. I've seen a woman walking in the street with her friends, and saw her grab tighter to her purse as she passed two black guys. just so happened the woman was white - the majority.

At the end of the day, i guess it is fine. but if their was a black mass murderer, and a white mass muderer who do you think is going to get more sympathy and less Media coverage?

P.S. if you have the thought cross your mind "Why dosent he just leave the country if he dosent like it so much" Well i plan to, Spain or France is where i might go.

The reason Muslims are considered terrorists by default int his contry is because only one small group has come out and rejected the actions and beliefs of the terrorists. If only a small group is out right rejecting these terrorists then most people will assume that they are the minority and the terrorists are the majority.

That statment is very fallatial.

I consider muslims, especially around here, as kind and generally much better people than most other people... But that's prolly cause they're all doctors and such, and the most the whites are trailor trash and sleeze bags, that or hicks. Man, I hate south east Missouri.

Not so weak now huh? http://story.news.ya...cat=Ivory_Coast

looks to be like the Panama Invasion the U.S. conducted on Panama.

Yeah, never learned about that in my history class.

...Christ, my country is doomed.

It is when you only learn American "history". History repeats itself as they say.

Prick.

Oh, and your country has been doomed for a long while.

Yeah, never learned about that in my history class.

...Christ, my country is doomed.

It is when you only learn American "history". History repeats itself as they say.

Prick.

Oh, and your country has been doomed for a long while.

I am on your side, remember?

When I said "I never learned about that in history class," I was referring to Myskyplnt's incorrect statement.

Military manpower means nothing today otherwise the Liberation Army would be considered the greatest. Did I say European or japanese forces were disorganized? No.

In regards to Bosnia you are doing what that guy from the EU said about the Olympics. Europe is multiple nations. Bosnian forces may have had European forces but the US forces were still the bulk from any single nation.

There is a difference between what I said about Muslims and your statement on McVeigh. Did I ever say "Kill all the Muslims because they are terrorists!"? No. I said there has been no large, vocal group that has rejected the ideas and means of the Islamic terrorists. There is a very large, vocal group of whites who are pro-choice and thus did not get labeled with McVeigh. The populus lacks eveidence of a massive uproar from Muslims in this country against the terrorists. The majority of Muslims may bery well just not give a rats ass even but the people don't see that. And as one who propagates democracy you should be very much aware of public ignorance.

And have fun in Europe selling your rights away.

The populus lacks eveidence of a massive uproar from Muslims in this country against the terrorists. The majority of Muslims may bery well just not give a rats ass even but the people don't see that. And as one who propagates democracy you should be very much aware of public ignorance.

Why do you assume that any silence on the matter is condoning it? You argue that they 'very well may give a rats ass' - well maybe that's what the silence means? I'd assume that silence means 'I don't give a rats ass', rather than 'I condone this and want you to know that I do'.

And, uh, i'm not exactly sure how i'm selling my rights away at this moment in time. I mean, i'm not living in a country where people like me are having their rights slowly decreased. But that's not the issue here, right. I'm on the other side of the Atlantic, so nothing I say really matters anyway. I'm sure everything will be fine.