The U.S...

[Perseus]

OK, well this is supposed to be a rant and to inform people.. But, i have a feeling this might get moved to ROTW because this will possibly turn into a debate.. but til then...

Well, as many people know, N. Korea is test launching their missiles over the U.S.(if you didn't know that, now y'know); well, the thing about that is, we can could possibly go to war with N. Korea if Japan attacks them, since we are allies w/ Japan. ANd, if we do go to war, there will be a huge monsterous ripple of so many countries entering this war to the point it could possibly end up being WWIII.

Now, since the U.S has Obama as president, we have a smaller military force and are more vunerable to attacks because democrats always weaken the national defenses.. guess what. The Taliban is planning another terroist attack against the U.S and we(the U.S.) have a smaller national defense because of OBAMA, so major things will go down because of having a smaller defense and smaller army..

You see, France, Germany, and another European country are mad at OBAMA because of how he is spending so much money on the U.S. and not paying off our debt to them.. Well, you see children(sorry had to say that :P)that is not a good thing,espcially if we get attacked because we no longer have an ally.

The reason why I bolded Obama is because he is not doing good for the U.S. Now, dont get me wrong, I respect him, but we do not need a president who is going aroudn trying to amke peace with coutnries that hate us because there will never be world peace. Never. Our army is not that big to fight in a massive war, and dont get the idea I want this to happen because I dont.. Im just saying how Obama is not a good president.

OK, to the war in Iraq. Well, for all you people that think its about oil, you are so terribly mistaken that if you aregue with me I will dispwn you so bad.. Well, why America got involved is because Sadam Hussein was doing what Hitler was doing, killing off people who he did not see as a perfect muslim(yes, I know Hitler didn't do that); well, look what happened in WWII when we stayed neutral for 3 years, I think, correct me if Im wrong. The U.S. does not want another mass genocide to happen.

Well, those are bablings to this forum and if I have any info. wrong at all please correct me because I want the facts not what I think... Well.... yeah..

[Underground_Network]

Pretty sure it was WWI where we stayed neutral for several years, but we may have done the same in WWII (pretty sure we didn't though, as I think we were in it at the beginning [when it was actually considered WWII]). But yes, I could be wrong there...

I don't disagree with you, but I think we could have worse than Obama... I mean, we're all going to die eventually. Death from above at least sounds more fun than death from old age...

[Perseus]

LOl, well it does....
BUt, umm, yeah when WWII started we stayed out of til major things started happening.
We were neutral for both wars, I could start saying why we joined in WWi, but most people probally know that.

[Sapphire]

You see, France, Germany, and another European country are mad at OBAMA because of how he is spending so much money on the U.S. and not paying off our debt to them.. Well, you see children(sorry had to say that :P)that is not a good thing,espcially if we get attacked because we no longer have an ally.I think you are underestimating how far reaching the current economic crisis is. If the US paid off some of its debts (not all because the latest figure I saw was an astronomical amount) then it would help prevent some countries going into a complete meltdown.

If the US and Japan are allies then you technically have a minimum of two because the UK and the US have been allies for a long time.

The reason why I bolded Obama is because he is not doing good for the U.S. Now, dont get me wrong, I respect him, but we do not need a president who is going aroudn trying to amke peace with coutnries that hate us because there will never be world peace. Never. Our army is not that big to fight in a massive war, and dont get the idea I want this to happen because I dont.. Im just saying how Obama is not a good president.The money that is currently being pumped into the Iraq war and the Afghan war would be much more beneficial if it was being pumped into the US instead. Ever think of that?

Pretty sure it was WWI where we stayed neutral for several years, but we may have done the same in WWII (pretty sure we didn't though, as I think we were in it at the beginning [when it was actually considered WWII]). But yes, I could be wrong there...
The US waited at least 2 (maybe even 3) years until they joined both World Wars. When each war last 4 years, it is a significant period of time that they waited to get involved.

DaTrooper - It was clear that major things had been happening for years before the US joined the war

[Perseus]

I said there would be a massive ripple is because N. Korea is allies with China and Russia. We are allies with Japan and Great Britain, but there would be more countries if another war did break out..

And, no I did not think of that, thanks for telling me that.

[Bobby]

Agree with you 100%. This is exactly why I saw it as foolish for us to elect a democrat. We are not in a time where we can afford to be vulnerable.

[Φρανκομβριτ]

wow, where do I start?
9/11 was a conspericy? Naw, that'll come later.
Saddam Heussein? Sure
Why did the U.S. stand by for so long and let them do this before standing up and going "Ok, it's not right now". Possibly because oil deposits were draning?
There are NO WMD's. Sorry, but there aren't.
It's not your war to fight. Let it go for fucks sake.
Now 9/11. There is no possible way a sane person could believe that 2 planes created a fire so ot it melted STEEL. I'm not even going to get in to the little details, yo can PM me if you want to hear them.

You also believe that paying back foreign debt is more important than stimulating the economy in a depression? Do you have ANY idea of how bad things would have got if AIG folded? Obama is trying to get the U.S. back on it's feet, and out of your multi-trillion dollar debt, but it doesn't come over night.

WWIII will happen eventually, but seriously? North Korea? That's a lot fucking easier than germany.

[Oblivion]

This is quite one sided, hardly fact.


Well, as many people know, N. Korea is test launching their missiles over the U.S.(if you didn't know that, now y'know); well, the thing about that is, we can could possibly go to war with N. Korea if Japan attacks them, since we are allies w/ Japan. ANd, if we do go to war, there will be a huge monsterous ripple of so many countries entering this war to the point it could possibly end up being WWIII.

...

You see, France, Germany, and another European country are mad at OBAMA because of how he is spending so much money on the U.S. and not paying off our debt to them.. Well, you see children(sorry had to say that )that is not a good thing,espcially if we get attacked because we no longer have an ally.

So... what are you saying in the first part? Stop being allies with Japan? Even if there were a war, it would be nowhere near as large as a world war. Japan and the US alone could easily defeat North Korea; even if we had problems, we have Britain, France (who wouldn't abandon us for 'owed debts'), Australia, Canada, etc. on our side.
The part about missiles was completely irrelevant to the WWIII part, and I suppose it was put in to install fear, and make us think "Oh no! Missles, Japan, and WWIII all in one sentence!".

The second part... Wow.
You do understand that a national debt is the amount you owe other countries... right? I mean we can hardly owe ourselves.
Obama is currently stimulating the economy so we can start producing again, and demolish the debt.

Even if we did enter another war, I doubt Germany and France would drop us because we owe money. Right now in the world, everyone owes money. Every ally you can get is beneficial.

[rivermaya]

Actually, national debt is what the country owes and not necessarily to other countries, it could be from other banks or even individual when the government sells bonds and other treasuries.

No, you can't owe yourself, you can owe your government and vice versa.
==

Decreasing military spending is not gonna weaken the already over budgeted defense department. That money can be better used to help the citizens with real problems and not problems that may or may not arise.

Engaging in war to bring in peace is stupid because even if you win, the remaining citizens or even other nations sympathetic to their cause will just harbor hate for you.

America thinks that it is the protector of the world, which is fine but the least it should do is make a better job at protecting the people inside its borders.

[Perseus]

OK, I was just saying how the other countries were mad at Obama; obvioulsy, our economy is more important than pying off foreign debt.

Ok, the whole Korea thing, i said if there was to be something I said there would be a massive ripple of countries in it. NOt just those 6.

Iraq was not about oil, actually learn something and dont be so naive.

Shattered, I never said stop being allies with Japan. I said that we would help them if Korea started attacking them.

I also never emntioned there were WOMDs in Iraq.

My rant was to show how a democrat is not the best candiate for president right now.

[Φρανκομβριτ]

OK, I was just saying how the other countries were mad at Obama; obvioulsy, our economy is more important than pying off foreign debt.

Ok, the whole Korea thing, i said if there was to be something I said there would be a massive ripple of countries in it. NOt just those 6.

Iraq was not about oil, actually learn something and dont be so naive.

Shattered, I never said stop being allies with Japan. I said that we would help them if Korea started attacking them.

I also never emntioned there were WOMDs in Iraq.

My rant was to show how a democrat is not the best candiate for president right now.

Please explain your points farther. Why do you think it wasn't about oil? And I have learned a great deal, not just biased information you get ;)

I know you never mentioned WMD's, however your former president, who by the sounds of it you supported very much, was convinced of it.

A republican would be increasing spending on military, national debt would be getting higher, buisnesses would be going under, and you'd be digging yourselves in to an even deeper hole


Request transfer to debate :arrow:

[Sapphire]

Actually, Merkel (Chancellor of Germany) and Sarkozy (President of France) came away from the G20 summit with really positive things to say. I'm not sure when or where you heard about them being angry with Obama, but things seem to have been sorted now.

I think that you have to give Obama a chance. He proved to have some good ideas at the G20 and was a key player in getting some countries to agree on topics where neither seemed willing to negotiate. If the application of the agreements made at the G20 work, it surely would be proof that your mistrust in him isn't completely justified.

[Oblivion]

OK, I was just saying how the other countries were mad at Obama; obvioulsy, our economy is more important than pying off foreign debt.

So Obama is doing his job... Right? If the second is more important, and that's what Obama is doing, why even mention it?

Ok, the whole Korea thing, i said if there was to be something I said there would be a massive ripple of countries in it. NOt just those 6.

Ok... So what other countries would be involved? Maybe South Korea?

Iraq was not about oil, actually learn something and dont be so naive.

Well, I love how you go to personal insults rather than support with facts. It was technically because of 'weapons of mass destruction' that were supposedly there. They turned out not to be there, but the war continues. Which most people interpret as 'We want your oil cheaper, so we'll make up a way to go to war with you!'

Shattered, I never said stop being allies with Japan. I said that we would help them if Korea started attacking them.

So what is your solution? Or are you just saying Obama is doing sucky, but you don't know how to do better?

I also never emntioned there were WOMDs in Iraq.

My rant was to show how a democrat is not the best candiate for president right now.

You didn't show that at all...
And look how well a republican did before that?
Oh and what happened before him? Clinton lowered the national budget excellently, after Mr. W. Bush's father messed it up.
*filler*

[Sugaree]

WWIII will happen eventually, but seriously? North Korea? That's a lot fucking easier than germany.

Wow, how mixed up is that? North Korea WILL use the power of nuclear arms if needed, and they will not hesitate to do so because there leader is an insane fuckhead.

Germany was a great power and WWI and WWII. What makes you think that North Korea is nothing compared to Germany almost 60 years ago? Germany didn't have nuclear arms, but Communist Russia did. North Korea is a Communist country, and they have nuclear weapons and will not be in fear of using them against us. I personally don't approve of them launching a test missle that comes very close to the U.S., not at all am I ok with that. To be honest, I was scared shitless when I heard that.

If we get launched into a nuclear war, just remember, that North Korea is at a better advantage than us. We may not even come out of the war alive.

[Φρανκομβριτ]

Wow, how mixed up is that? North Korea WILL use the power of nuclear arms if needed, and they will not hesitate to do so because there leader is an insane fuckhead.

Germany was a great power and WWI and WWII. What makes you think that North Korea is nothing compared to Germany almost 60 years ago? Germany didn't have nuclear arms, but Communist Russia did. North Korea is a Communist country, and they have nuclear weapons and will not be in fear of using them against us. I personally don't approve of them launching a test missle that comes very close to the U.S., not at all am I ok with that. To be honest, I was scared shitless when I heard that.

If we get launched into a nuclear war, just remember, that North Korea is at a better advantage than us. We may not even come out of the war alive.

I'm not saying it's nothing compared to germany, I'm saying we took Germany with all their alys. Let's face it, North Korea is low on them, and if they resorted to chemical warfare it would be the last thing they'd do.

[Oblivion]

The only mention of NK in the thread is that if Japan attacks them, we'll of course back up our ally and go with them. If they use nuclear weapons, well that will be sucky, won't it?

The thing is, the US really can't do anything, unless we are going to take over NK before they have the chance. Which is unlikely. I don't understand why we are debating this; it's up to NK and Japan to either war or not war, which only involves us if there is a war, which is not our business to control, nor is it even possible to control!

[Perseus]

Wow, how mixed up is that? North Korea WILL use the power of nuclear arms if needed, and they will not hesitate to do so because there leader is an insane fuckhead.

Germany was a great power and WWI and WWII. What makes you think that North Korea is nothing compared to Germany almost 60 years ago? Germany didn't have nuclear arms, but Communist Russia did. North Korea is a Communist country, and they have nuclear weapons and will not be in fear of using them against us. I personally don't approve of them launching a test missle that comes very close to the U.S., not at all am I ok with that. To be honest, I was scared shitless when I heard that.

If we get launched into a nuclear war, just remember, that North Korea is at a better advantage than us. We may not even come out of the war alive.

Thank you WOTS on seeing my opinion... you're like the only person besides Bobby.

What do you mean North Korea will be easy? Vietnam kicked the U.S' ass when we were just there for "policing". What makes you think North Korea doesn't have a good army? Just because a country is small does not make it have an easy army just to demolish.. Also, China and Russia are allies with North Korea, if we ever go to war with them, it will not be easy to win, even with France, Canada, the Uk, Germany, Australia, and Japan and etc...

Can a mod move this to ROTW?

[theOperaGhost]

Can a mod move this to ROTW?

Done.

[Underground_Network]

North Korea is not a huge threat (though that's not to say they're no threat at all). There are places that you've never heard of that are a lot more threatening to us than them. That and we could easily defeat them without nuclear warfare being involved... Another thing to keep in mind is that nukes don't move at the speed of light... And unless the NK's have some variation of the Davey Crockett portable nuclear missile launcher, we have nothing to be afraid of tbh...

EDIT: To add, if we were to attack North Korea we would have to be PROVOKED (with Obama being president and all) and if that were to happen, we would most likely be aided by various European allies, and trust me when I say this would be nothing like the Iraqi War or Vietnam. There would be bloodshed and it wouldn't be a cakewalk, but it would be nothing like WWI or WWII. North Korea is a threat, and a moderate one at that, but there are countries that, if they were to turn against the U.S., I would be MUCH MUCH more afraid of. That and if Africa or the Middle East every gets truly organized, the United States (and other countries) could be fucked beyond belief. Armageddon is not necessarily a fantasy... It could sooner than later become reality in the form of WWIII.

[Sapphire]

Germany was a great power and WWI and WWII. What makes you think that North Korea is nothing compared to Germany almost 60 years ago? Germany didn't have nuclear arms, but Communist Russia did. North Korea is a Communist country, and they have nuclear weapons and will not be in fear of using them against us. I personally don't approve of them launching a test missle that comes very close to the U.S., not at all am I ok with that. To be honest, I was scared shitless when I heard that.

If we get launched into a nuclear war, just remember, that North Korea is at a better advantage than us. We may not even come out of the war alive.The closest the world has come to nuclear war was in the '60s with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The reason it didn't happen then is the same reason it hasn't happened since. People are scared about the prospect of using these weapons. I think people, not just you, need to actually look at it objectively. You haven't nuked anyone and no one has nuked you because everyone is scared about using them.

I'm not saying it's nothing compared to germany, I'm saying we took Germany with all their alys. Let's face it, North Korea is low on them, and if they resorted to chemical warfare it would be the last thing they'd do.Germany only had allies during WW1. By the time WW2 began, they had merged with Austria and gained land by occupying it. They didn't have any allies in that era.

The thing is, the US really can't do anything, unless we are going to take over NK before they have the chance. Which is unlikely. I don't understand why we are debating this; it's up to NK and Japan to either war or not war, which only involves us if there is a war, which is not our business to control, nor is it even possible to control!
QFT

[dyslexiaa]

Addressing a lot of stuff at once.


Well, as many people know, N. Korea is test launching their missiles over the U.S.(if you didn't know that, now y'know); well, the thing about that is, we can could possibly go to war with N. Korea if Japan attacks them, since we are allies w/ Japan. ANd, if we do go to war, there will be a huge monsterous ripple of so many countries entering this war to the point it could possibly end up being WWIII.

Nobody is really hostile toward Japan and it's pretty well accepted that the N. Korean government is batshit crazy. Nobody is going to side with North Korea and Korea doesn't have the balls to hit a US city.

Now, since the U.S has Obama as president, we have a smaller military force and are more vunerable to attacks because democrats always weaken the national defenses.. guess what. The Taliban is planning another terroist attack against the U.S and we(the U.S.) have a smaller national defense because of OBAMA, so major things will go down because of having a smaller defense and smaller army..

What does having a small military have to do with terrorist attacks? You know them military is in IRAQ, right? Not New York. If a terrorist is going to attack and they plan well enough, we're just fucked. All the defenses Bush put up didn't do anything. I've heard of tests where people would sneak knives and other weapons through airports. Making people go through tons of meaningless security isn't saving us.

(Protip: We gave the Taliban their guns.)

You see, France, Germany, and another European country are mad at OBAMA because of how he is spending so much money on the U.S. and not paying off our debt to them.. Well, you see children(sorry had to say that :P)that is not a good thing,espcially if we get attacked because we no longer have an ally.

They disapprove of the US spending money, but if it came down to a war situation, there is no way that they wouldn't help us. France is always complaining, but we helped in both World Wars and in Vietnam. Germany can't have a military, so that's pretty much all I have to say. A lot of the European countries don't have much of a military to offer individually.

And to be honest, if the **** hits the fan, we have the best air force and navy. There won't be a US invasion. Israel and Britain have our backs 100% and they hold arguably the strongest militaries in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, respectively.

The reason why I bolded Obama is because he is not doing good for the U.S. Now, dont get me wrong, I respect him, but we do not need a president who is going aroudn trying to amke peace with coutnries that hate us because there will never be world peace. Never. Our army is not that big to fight in a massive war, and dont get the idea I want this to happen because I dont.. Im just saying how Obama is not a good president.

Making peace = bad president
repairing relations = bad president

Whaddup Hannity Jr.?

OK, to the war in Iraq. Well, for all you people that think its about oil, you are so terribly mistaken that if you aregue with me I will dispwn you so bad.. Well, why America got involved is because Sadam Hussein was doing what Hitler was doing, killing off people who he did not see as a perfect muslim(yes, I know Hitler didn't do that); well, look what happened in WWII when we stayed neutral for 3 years, I think, correct me if Im wrong. The U.S. does not want another mass genocide to happen.

America gave Saddam the weapons to kill everyone anyways. Reagan funded both sides of the Iran/Iraq War, which is mad cool because that turned out friggin' great. We gave Iran and Iraq these weapons to throw at each other and they turned on us. If you really look into it, everyone we use for our military gain turns their guns on us.

There's genocide in Africa every day and no one gives a shit. George W. Bush probably had motivation because Hussein had an assassination plan for his father. After the towers were hit, he was looking for someone to place the blame on. Saddam was a bad dude, don't get me wrong. A dude worth $845 billion dollars and 5,000 lives? I really think not.

Iraq was not about oil, actually learn something and dont be so naive.

I wish it was about oil, because all the other reason for Iraq have been disproven, are stupid, or aren't worth all the people dying over there.

My rant was to show how a democrat is not the best candiate for president right now.

Grandpa McCain and Psycho Palin wouldn't be handling this any better..

Wow, how mixed up is that? North Korea WILL use the power of nuclear arms if needed, and they will not hesitate to do so because there leader is an insane fuckhead.

I'm pretty sure no country has the balls to use nukes, especially one that would be absolutely annihilated by a full-scale US nuclear attack. Russia or China, maybe. North Korea would be blown off the face of the Earth by giving the US the green light to nuke.

North Korea is a threat, and a moderate one at that

I think you're doubting the capability of a US-EU-whoever Coalition. In conventional warfare, we blew Iraq off the map in a really short amount of time. The insurgency kills us. Head-to-head, we easily have a better air force and navy. We could probably siege them into surrender.

That and if Africa or the Middle East every gets truly organized, the United States (and other countries) could be fucked beyond belief.

The Middle East and Africa have so far to go and have so many differences that it would take hundreds of years for them to be considered a threat.

[Perseus]

Dyslexia, we(the U.S.) have a presence in Africa and all the genocides, not a big one since we are fighting a war on terror in like 3 countries, and we have troops stationed all over the freaking world.
Also, North Korea is a threat because they are allies with China and Russia, if they nukes us and we nuke them back, tons of nukes will be heading towards the U.S. from other communist countries. Obvioulsy, we have a satelite that can(supposedly) shoot down a nuke, but it has never been tested, so no one knows.

So, you are saying that muslims lives are not worth our time?
There will never be world peace because of greed and other things; I dont why Obama thinks there will when half of the Earth hates us (ok, that's probally an exaggeration).

[Antares]

OK, well this is supposed to be a rant and to inform people.. But, i have a feeling this might get moved to ROTW because this will possibly turn into a debate.. but til then...

Well, as many people know, N. Korea is test launching their missiles over the U.S.(if you didn't know that, now y'know); well, the thing about that is, we can could possibly go to war with N. Korea if Japan attacks them, since we are allies w/ Japan. ANd, if we do go to war, there will be a huge monsterous ripple of so many countries entering this war to the point it could possibly end up being WWIII.

Now, since the U.S has Obama as president, we have a smaller military force and are more vunerable to attacks because democrats always weaken the national defenses.. guess what. The Taliban is planning another terroist attack against the U.S and we(the U.S.) have a smaller national defense because of OBAMA, so major things will go down because of having a smaller defense and smaller army..

You see, France, Germany, and another European country are mad at OBAMA because of how he is spending so much money on the U.S. and not paying off our debt to them.. Well, you see children(sorry had to say that :P)that is not a good thing,espcially if we get attacked because we no longer have an ally.

The reason why I bolded Obama is because he is not doing good for the U.S. Now, dont get me wrong, I respect him, but we do not need a president who is going aroudn trying to amke peace with coutnries that hate us because there will never be world peace. Never. Our army is not that big to fight in a massive war, and dont get the idea I want this to happen because I dont.. Im just saying how Obama is not a good president.

OK, to the war in Iraq. Well, for all you people that think its about oil, you are so terribly mistaken that if you aregue with me I will dispwn you so bad.. Well, why America got involved is because Sadam Hussein was doing what Hitler was doing, killing off people who he did not see as a perfect muslim(yes, I know Hitler didn't do that); well, look what happened in WWII when we stayed neutral for 3 years, I think, correct me if Im wrong. The U.S. does not want another mass genocide to happen.

Well, those are bablings to this forum and if I have any info. wrong at all please correct me because I want the facts not what I think... Well.... yeah..

Hokay. Wow. Ookay, umm first, I don't think that N. Korea will be doing anything stupid because they know they face nuclear annihlation if they do. Also, its kinda stupid since our nuclear defense system is in Alaska...so we should be able to intercept/be notified of anything. So I am not concerned. It is true that democrats seem to be less...militarial. Which is bad to some extent. I miss Bush for that reason, he wasn't afraid to use force, he just didn't use it at the right times and was really stupid.
Anyways, I agree that we are more vulnerable to attacks especially with his first...4 or so Exec. Orders.
And okay, are you kidding me!? Obama isn't helping??? Obama is working his ass off to get our country back to the way it was before Bush fucked it up. Last time I checked, other countries approval ratings of the US have went up since he got in office. We are viewed better without Bush. So no matter what, Obama is a step up. Also, you can't say if hes a good president because hes only been in office for...like 3 months. Give the guy a break. AND a chance! Things don't happen right away.

If the War in Iraq was really about that then why didn't Bush just come out and say it? yea, its not REALLY about that. Something happened, that Bush didn't like. Sure, there may have been some minor thing with genocide but...yea, that wasn't it.

UMM! And no. The United States did NOT go into WWII because of Hitler. In fact, they barely cared. They ignored those reports. They went in because of the Japenense, and Pearl Harbor. So youre corrected.

[Perseus]

I know why we went into WWII..

And also, it is not Bush's fault for the recession. The stockamrket goes in cycles and the banks were lending out too much money and most of the people couldn't pay back their loans. I hate when people blame everything on Bush. People are so naive..

[Oblivion]

So, you are saying that muslims lives are not worth our time?
There will never be world peace because of greed and other things; I dont why Obama thinks there will when half of the Earth hates us (ok, that's probally an exaggeration).

You completely contradict yourself, and have yet to answer my post.

You contradict yourself because you say "So, you are saying that muslims lives are not worth our time?" then continue to say "There will never be world peace because of greed and other things"
This means you support trying to make peace, but also think it's impossible?
So in your opinion, why are we fighting, if "There will never be world peace because of greed and other things"?

Finally, most of the world quite likes Obama and his family, and what he will do for the country.
Even ones who don't like him much like him a lot better than Bush, or McCain.

From http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/World-Citizens-Prefer-Obama-McCain-More-Than-3to1.aspx:

World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1


Editor's update: Gallup Polls just completed in China, Armenia, and Bolivia have now been added to this report, and overall findings have been adjusted to reflect the results. The global survey now represents nearly three-quarters of the world's population, with China's high percentage of "don't know" responses slightly reducing the margin by which world citizens prefer Barack Obama to John McCain.

Gallup Polls conducted in 73 countries from May to October 2008 reveal widespread international support for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain in the U.S. presidential election. Among these nations, representing nearly three-quarters of the world's population, 24% of citizens say they would personally rather see Obama elected president of the United States, compared with just 7% who say the same about McCain. At the same time, 69% of world citizens surveyed did not have an opinion.

World citizens are more divided over whether the outcome of the U.S. election makes a difference to their country, with 26% saying it does and 22% saying it does not. Moreover, 52% of those surveyed did not have an opinion.


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/u3trhzaq1uqmupdhwltnyg.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/_rhs6tnbhk-ac3fmjg0efq.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dk5hy-tguush-th8d5dgkg.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sgu-wu6cpee5faij4vneyq.gif

[Antares]

I know why we went into WWII..

And also, it is not Bush's fault for the recession. The stockamrket goes in cycles and the banks were lending out too much money and most of the people couldn't pay back their loans. I hate when people blame everything on Bush. People are so naive..

Well, if you knew then you wouldn't have posted that. and also, I have never said that Bush was the fault for the recession.
Bush tried to help, he just didn't dive into it as much as he should because he thought the same thing.


Saffire, Germany DID have allies in WW2. The major ones were Japan and Italy. Italy eventually gave up and Japan surrendered after Germany's surrender.

[Perseus]

Im saying that I dont think that innocent people should die. Im saying that world peace is hard to achieve.

[dyslexiaa]

Dyslexia, we(the U.S.) have a presence in Africa and all the genocides, not a big one since we are fighting a war on terror in like 3 countries, and we have troops stationed all over the freaking world.

Just for the record, a war on terror isn't winnable. You can't win a war against an ideology with bullets, soldiers and tanks. We're wasting money in Iraq that could be put toward our own issues.

Also, North Korea is a threat because they are allies with China and Russia, if they nukes us and we nuke them back, tons of nukes will be heading towards the U.S. from other communist countries. Obvioulsy, we have a satelite that can(supposedly) shoot down a nuke, but it has never been tested, so no one knows.

I covered the nuke thing. It's incredibly unlikely with the effectiveness of conventional bombing. Once you send over a nuke unprovoked, you take worldwide blame for the nuclear holocaust that ensues. That is a heavy burden on anybody.

China and the US are dependent on each other to the point where neither will fight each other. We buy their ****, they take our money. We fight, they have tons of **** and no money, we have tons of money and no ****. While relations are a little shifty, they're certainly not hostile.

Russia is big and has nukes, but they have they're own issues. I'm not worried.

So, you are saying that muslims lives are not worth our time?
There will never be world peace because of greed and other things; I dont why Obama thinks there will when half of the Earth hates us (ok, that's probally an exaggeration).

Don't even try to put words in my mouth.

I don't see how trying to improve relations with countries makes Obama a bad president. Maybe we should start another war and kill off another 5,000 sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and friends, eh? The world seemed pretty supportive of that, right? The world hates us because we are the greedy ones.

[Oblivion]

You really gotta stop calling people naïve when you actually show no evidence, whatsoever.
And I'm still confused as to why my posts go unanswered.

"Having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous" -www.Dictionary.com (naïve)

[The Batman]

The guy has only been president for 3 months it's like he's been doing it for years.

[Perseus]

I never said starting a war is what we need to do. Obama just thinks that by talking to countries that hate us will win them over. Venezuala, for example, wants to nuke us and I see why Obama wants good relations with them, but honestly, if they want to nuke us, they probally dont want to be our friend. But, im not saying he shouldn't try, nukes are pretty intimidating...

[Antares]

I never said starting a war is what we need to do. Obama just thinks that by talking to countries that hate us will win them over. Venezuala, for example, wants to nuke us and I see why Obama wants good relations with them, but honestly, if they want to nuke us, they probally dont want to be our friend. But, im not saying he shouldn't try, nukes are pretty intimidating...

Nukes aren't intimidating when we can blow any country in the world off of the damn face of the Earth.

The government doesn't care, the public is just scared.
All the senators and president have bunkers and they will be saved. Its jsut the people and the historical accounts of what happens when there is a nuclear attack.

What do you propose we do instead? Start a war with them. Obviously TALKING TO COUNTRIES solve problems. When the leaders MEET our leaders (for the first time might I add, because Obama JUST got in office and this like his first trip abroad as president) they talk about lots of things, and not just things like the economy. They talk about a lot and we certainly don't hear about it. You keep saying talking doesn't help but I want to know what else you propose doing????

Also, I am going to reinforce the fact that, I have no present concern about North Korea. Sure, Russia may be an ally of theirs, and I am a bit concerned about Russia, They will act with force. China, they wont. Because they LOVE us because we give them money, and they know that if they piss us off, there will be embargos up the whoo hah which stops their income which cripples them. We can survive without China. North Korea know that if they piss us off, they won't get help from China and therefore most of the free world.

[Perseus]

OK, you're right about China because they basically own us...

I am not against him talking to other countries; I just dont think he will able to achieve much trying to talk to them wont really do muhc good, but there is no other reason...

[Sapphire]

They disapprove of the US spending money, but if it came down to a war situation, there is no way that they wouldn't help us. France is always complaining, but we helped in both World Wars and in Vietnam. Germany can't have a military, so that's pretty much all I have to say. A lot of the European countries don't have much of a military to offer individually.Ok, I have a big problem with this paragraph. Germany does have a military and a navy and it has been so for hundreds of years. In fact, it is compulsory for 18 year old boys to serve for a year in the army and currently has about 200,500 professional soldiers.
And what do you mean you helped out in Vietnam? The Vietnam war is a failure in military history.

Israel and Britain have our backs 100%So do Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Poland...the list goes on.

George W. Bush probably had motivation because Hussein had an assassination plan for his father. After the towers were hit, he was looking for someone to place the blame onFirst of all, there is no solid, credible evidence to back up your crackpot theory about Bush's motivations for declaring war on Saddam.
Secondly, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were not the handiwork of Saddam. It was Bin Laden. He is the one who was behind it and he even taped himself taking credit for it.

I wish it was about oil, because all the other reason for Iraq have been disproven, are stupid, or aren't worth all the people dying over there.You don't think that it was worth going there and freeing people from living under his tyranny and persecution? Would you rather he had been allowed to carry on torturing and killing innocent Iraqi people?

I'm pretty sure no country has the balls to use nukes, especially one that would be absolutely annihilated by a full-scale US nuclear attack. Russia or China, maybe.As we have both said, everyone is too scared of nuclear weapons to actually use them. And, if Russia were going to nuke the US, they would have already done it.

EDIT
"You can't win a war against an ideology with bullets, soldiers and tanks"
Sorry, but that ^ is so incorrect that it is almost unbelievable.
Every side of any war has an ideology and weapons. WW1, WW2, Korea, both Gulf Wars, Falklands and so on.

Jupiter, how are nukes not intimidating?

[dyslexiaa]

Ok, I have a big problem with this paragraph. Germany does have a military and a navy and it has been so for hundreds of years. In fact, it is compulsory for 18 year old boys to serve for a year in the army and currently has about 200,500 professional soldiers.
And what do you mean you helped out in Vietnam? The Vietnam war is a failure in military history.

I read information wrong and I apologize. While Germany has a sizeable army, they cannot declare war if it's not for the defense of Germany(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Military). If we went to war with North Korea, it would not be 'police action' like Iraq or Vietnam, it would certainly be a war. Because of this, Germany would not be able to provide any massive support to the US at all.

Vietnam was essentially France's mess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Indochina) and we tried to clean it up. America failed miserably because we screwed up South Vietnam with the leader we installed (the name escapes me).

So do Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Poland...the list goes on.

Israel and Britain are our allies for sure, through thick and thin, no matter what stupid **** we get into. I already stated they are two extremely significant allies to us, which is why I mentioned them.

A lot of members of the EU would probably avoid touching our aggressive military endeavors.

First of all, there is no solid, credible evidence to back up your crackpot theory about Bush's motivations for declaring war on Saddam.

On record, it was because he thought there were WMDs. We kicked in the door and it turns out that Iraq is the only country in the area not trying to get WMDs. Until government documents are declassified, we don't know what motivations there were for going into Iraq. To say my theory is worse than yours is a foolish move by you. Anyways..

Case for the war being about oil:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403677.html
http://www.thebluestate.com/2006/09/cheney_admits_o.html

Other theory:
http://zfacts.com/p/775.html
^
An unreliable source, but I threw it up there just to stretch your imagination about what went on.

Secondly, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were not the handiwork of Saddam. It was Bin Laden. He is the one who was behind it and he even taped himself taking credit for it.

I know this and I never said anything against this.

You don't think that it was worth going there and freeing people from living under his tyranny and persecution? Would you rather he had been allowed to carry on torturing and killing innocent Iraqi people?

Killing 600,000 indiscriminately is better than killing 180,000 discriminately?

Iraqi genocide deaths: 180,000
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1480609/posts
Iraqi war deaths: 600,000+ and counting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

CTRL+F 'Africa'

There's plenty of genocide that goes on that we don't stop.

"You can't win a war against an ideology with bullets, soldiers and tanks"
Sorry, but that ^ is so incorrect that it is almost unbelievable.
Every side of any war has an ideology and weapons. WW1, WW2, Korea, both Gulf Wars, Falklands and so on.

Tell me how we're going to defeat the insurgency with the current Iraq war tactics. We kill one soldier, five more replace him because the original soldier becomes a martyr. The wars you listed were conventional wars and the Iraq War is not.

Some of your arguments assume things that I didn't say. But I may have been a little vague which resulted in you misinterpreting what I meant, I apologize.

[Sapphire]

Vietnam was essentially France's mess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Indochina) and we tried to clean it up. America failed miserably because we screwed up South Vietnam with the leader we installed (the name escapes me).It was not France's mess. It was America's mess.
France may have been the ones who were there originally, but they lost the Battle of Dien Bien Phu and subsequently surrendered. The Americans were the ones that (through fear of the spread of communism) remained involved. They are the ones that were in way over their heads and lost lives and the war because of it.

The Geneva Conference (1954) lead to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos being declared independent from France. The agreement stopped the interference of the countries that signed in the above countries. The USA (who were present) didn't sign and so were not legally bound by it. Vietnam was temporarily divided until the next general elections.
The leader of the South fixed results of an election (1955) and declared himself president. He was very anti-communist and lead a number of campaigns along such lines. The US feared the spread of communism and wanted to help countries they feared would fall to it like Vietnam. As such, they continued to support the new president even though they knew nothing about the terrain or the best military tactics for such terrain.

I read information wrong and I apologize. While Germany has a sizeable army, they cannot declare war if it's not for the defense of Germany(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Military). If we went to war with North Korea, it would not be 'police action' like Iraq or Vietnam, it would certainly be a war. Because of this, Germany would not be able to provide any massive support to the US at all.
[...]
Israel and Britain are our allies for sure, through thick and thin, no matter what stupid **** we get into. I already stated they are two extremely significant allies to us, which is why I mentioned them.Vietnam was not "police action", it was the USA seeing an opportunity to try to prevent a nation from falling to communism.

Do you know nothing about NATO?
It is a military defensive alliance consisting of the US, the UK, Germany, France, Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark and many other European countries. Stop trying to make it look like the USA has next to no allies.
Sure, NATO won't help if the USA declares war on another country. But if war were declared on the USA then the other 20-odd member countries would aid America.

On record, it was because he thought there were WMDs. We kicked in the door and it turns out that Iraq is the only country in the area not trying to get WMDs. Until government documents are declassified, we don't know what motivations there were for going into Iraq. To say my theory is worse than yours is a foolish move by you. Anyways..

Case for the war being about oil:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403677.html
http://www.thebluestate.com/2006/09/cheney_admits_o.html

Other theory:
http://zfacts.com/p/775.html
^
An unreliable source, but I threw it up there just to stretch your imagination about what went on.None of this states that a plan to assassinate Bush Sr either explicitly or implicitly so I am confused as to why you have talked about this and given me these links.

I know this and I never said anything against this.If you know that, why did you contain it in the middle of your attempt to outline the causes of the Iraqi war?
"There's genocide in Africa every day and no one gives a shit. George W. Bush probably had motivation because Hussein had an assassination plan for his father. After the towers were hit, he was looking for someone to place the blame on. Saddam was a bad dude"
Not sure about anyone else, but to me that looks distinctively like you are saying that he wanted to place the blame for the terrorist attack on Saddam because of this alleged plan to assassinat Bush Sr.

Tell me how we're going to defeat the insurgency with the current Iraq war tactics. We kill one soldier, five more replace him because the original soldier becomes a martyr. The wars you listed were conventional wars and the Iraq War is not.I haven't claimed to have the answer to this war. I have simply pointed out that every side of every conflict has ideologies, not just this one.

[Dragonite]

didnt we drop a bomb on japan during world warII?

[Perseus]

Yes and that has nothing to with this thread. We are allies with them now, just because their leader during WWII had expanionist greed does not mean we cant be allies with them. We are allies with Germany too and Italy.

[dyslexiaa]

It was not France's mess. It was America's mess.
France may have been the ones who were there originally, but they lost the Battle of Dien Bien Phu and subsequently surrendered. The Americans were the ones that (through fear of the spread of communism) remained involved. They are the ones that were in way over their heads and lost lives and the war because of it.

And if France never surrendered, Vietnam is the same as French Guiana with no communism, America doesn't have to step in and fight a war because we're expansionist bastards, etc.

Vietnam was not "police action", it was the USA seeing an opportunity to try to prevent a nation from falling to communism.

And I'm pretty sure it was called police action as a loophole in the US government system that allows the President to send troops to war without getting approval of congress.

Do you know nothing about NATO?
It is a military defensive alliance consisting of the US, the UK, Germany, France, Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark and many other European countries. Stop trying to make it look like the USA has next to no allies.
Sure, NATO won't help if the USA declares war on another country. But if war were declared on the USA then the other 20-odd member countries would aid America.

The US alone amounts for 50% of military spending in the world. The UK will support us and they amount for 10% of military spending in the world. We have a bunch of allies, but none of them really compare to us on a grand scale and if it's our conflict, we will be mostly on our own. It would be a US-lead coalition of forces.

This is all an estimation, though, since NATO hasn't fought a major conventional war since Korea.

None of this states that a plan to assassinate Bush Sr either explicitly or implicitly so I am confused as to why you have talked about this and given me these links.

The plot to kill Bush Sr. could be one of many external motives of the Iraq War, which I will address..

If you know that, why did you contain it in the middle of your attempt to outline the causes of the Iraqi war?
"There's genocide in Africa every day and no one gives a shit. George W. Bush probably had motivation because Hussein had an assassination plan for his father. After the towers were hit, he was looking for someone to place the blame on. Saddam was a bad dude"
Not sure about anyone else, but to me that looks distinctively like you are saying that he wanted to place the blame for the terrorist attack on Saddam because of this alleged plan to assassinat Bush Sr.

They were seperate points, hence the punctuation and stuff, but I can see what you're saying. I was arguing against the assumption that Iraq was just about stopping genocide by stating some motivation that Bush would have to attack Iraq, which would be:
-Oil
-Israel
-The chance to outdo his father by having a major success in Iraq
-Bad intelligence about WMDs
-Bad intelligence about the Taliban
-Cheney being a lightsaber away from Darth Sideous
-Iraq's hostility with the US around the era
and so on.

IIRC, he did place blame (but not entirely) on Iraq or associate Iraq with 9/11. It's been a few years though, if you can show me some evidence that he never said associated the Taliban/al-Qaeda with Iraq, you win.

Just to clear it up, the plot to kill Bush Sr.:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

I haven't claimed to have the answer to this war. I have simply pointed out that every side of every conflict has ideologies, not just this one.

If you're going to state I'm 'so incorrect that it's almost unbelievable', you should have an argument to how you're correct. By the statement I made, I was saying that there is no way to win against an insurgency if all we're going to do is throw more troops at it. The 'idealogy' is the extremism that fuels the Taliban insurgency.

You can't just belittle me and then not say anything to back your point up.

[Underground_Network]

Yes and that has nothing to with this thread. We are allies with them now, just because their leader during WWII had expanionist greed does not mean we cant be allies with them. We are allies with Germany too and Italy.

WRONG

Carole is claiming that no one has the guts to use nukes... Yet we did in WWII. Does this disprove her statement? Not necessarily. But what he said still has relevance to this thread.

That and I think almost every country is WILLING to use nuclear weapons, BUT ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. That and there are some people who if handed a nuclear weapon would enjoy making 'splosions. There are some hostile factions out there that, if they acquired a nuclear weapon, WOULD use it, though again, I don't think we're going to see nuclear or bionuclear or biochemical, etc. warfare for quite sometime... Though I do think an Armageddon type war could be in the not too far away future (though I don't think it will occur in our lifetime).

Then again, with some of the ways of manipulating certain viruses (i.e. ebola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus)) and making things like "chimeras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(virus))," one man could kill the world.

[Perseus]

Venezuala is a great example of a country that will nuke us whenever they get the chance, they even said so.

[Oblivion]

Mr. Trooper, I'd like it if you responded to my last couple posts...
Really when debating you can't pick and choose which rebuttals to rebut.

[Perseus]

Respond to what? I never saw anything to which needed responding.

[Oblivion]

You completely contradict yourself, and have yet to answer my post.

You contradict yourself because you say "So, you are saying that muslims lives are not worth our time?" then continue to say "There will never be world peace because of greed and other things"
This means you support trying to make peace, but also think it's impossible?
So in your opinion, why are we fighting, if "There will never be world peace because of greed and other things"?

Finally, most of the world quite likes Obama and his family, and what he will do for the country.
Even ones who don't like him much like him a lot better than Bush, or McCain.

From http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/World-Citizens-Prefer-Obama-McCain-More-Than-3to1.aspx:

World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1


Editor's update: Gallup Polls just completed in China, Armenia, and Bolivia have now been added to this report, and overall findings have been adjusted to reflect the results. The global survey now represents nearly three-quarters of the world's population, with China's high percentage of "don't know" responses slightly reducing the margin by which world citizens prefer Barack Obama to John McCain.

Gallup Polls conducted in 73 countries from May to October 2008 reveal widespread international support for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain in the U.S. presidential election. Among these nations, representing nearly three-quarters of the world's population, 24% of citizens say they would personally rather see Obama elected president of the United States, compared with just 7% who say the same about McCain. At the same time, 69% of world citizens surveyed did not have an opinion.

World citizens are more divided over whether the outcome of the U.S. election makes a difference to their country, with 26% saying it does and 22% saying it does not. Moreover, 52% of those surveyed did not have an opinion.


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/u3trhzaq1uqmupdhwltnyg.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/_rhs6tnbhk-ac3fmjg0efq.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dk5hy-tguush-th8d5dgkg.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sgu-wu6cpee5faij4vneyq.gif

The only mention of NK in the thread is that if Japan attacks them, we'll of course back up our ally and go with them. If they use nuclear weapons, well that will be sucky, won't it?

The thing is, the US really can't do anything, unless we are going to take over NK before they have the chance. Which is unlikely. I don't understand why we are debating this; it's up to NK and Japan to either war or not war, which only involves us if there is a war, which is not our business to control, nor is it even possible to control!

OK, I was just saying how the other countries were mad at Obama; obvioulsy, our economy is more important than pying off foreign debt.

So Obama is doing his job... Right? If the second is more important, and that's what Obama is doing, why even mention it?

Ok, the whole Korea thing, i said if there was to be something I said there would be a massive ripple of countries in it. NOt just those 6.

Ok... So what other countries would be involved? Maybe South Korea?

Iraq was not about oil, actually learn something and dont be so naive.

Well, I love how you go to personal insults rather than support with facts. It was technically because of 'weapons of mass destruction' that were supposedly there. They turned out not to be there, but the war continues. Which most people interpret as 'We want your oil cheaper, so we'll make up a way to go to war with you!'

Shattered, I never said stop being allies with Japan. I said that we would help them if Korea started attacking them.

So what is your solution? Or are you just saying Obama is doing sucky, but you don't know how to do better?

I also never emntioned there were WOMDs in Iraq.

My rant was to show how a democrat is not the best candiate for president right now.

You didn't show that at all...
And look how well a republican did before that?
Oh and what happened before him? Clinton lowered the national budget excellently, after Mr. W. Bush's father messed it up.
*filler*

Um... the last three posts I made?
You didn't bother mentioning any of them.

Respond to what? I never saw anything to which needed responding.
The point of a debate is to respond to everything with your opinion and why it's right...

[Perseus]

I never saw that...

OK, I will add that Clinton actually lowered our defenses to where we were vuneralble to an attack, but who gets blammed? Bush.

I never said Obama is doing sucky, I think he is doing a good job with all of the pressure he is under.

Russia would be involved in it, The U.K, Canada(if the U.S. was attacked and Canada was affected, and probally w/o them getting affected) Japan, probally some of Europe, the Middle East(probally).

I hope this answers some of your questions...

[hello1]

Actually, national debt is what the country owes and not necessarily to other countries, it could be from other banks or even individual when the government sells bonds and other treasuries.

No, you can't owe yourself, you can owe your government and vice versa.
==

Decreasing military spending is not gonna weaken the already over budgeted defense department. That money can be better used to help the citizens with real problems and not problems that may or may not arise.

Engaging in war to bring in peace is stupid because even if you win, the remaining citizens or even other nations sympathetic to their cause will just harbor hate for you.

America thinks that it is the protector of the world, which is fine but the least it should do is make a better job at protecting the people inside its borders.

sry but your wrong out of 100% the military gets less then 1.5%....

[Oblivion]

I never saw that...

OK, I will add that Clinton actually lowered our defenses to where we were vuneralble to an attack, but who gets blammed? Bush.

I never said Obama is doing sucky, I think he is doing a good job with all of the pressure he is under.

Russia would be involved in it, The U.K, Canada(if the U.S. was attacked and Canada was affected, and probally w/o them getting affected) Japan, probally some of Europe, the Middle East(probally).

I hope this answers some of your questions...

And he lowered the deficit immensely. Did anything happen during his presidency regarding national defense? No. So it's technically not his fault. If Bush thought it was important, he could have easily upped the defense.

Ummm well, maybe not with those words, but does The reason why I bolded Obama is because he is not doing good for the U.S.
ring a bell?

Russia would be involved in it, The U.K, Canada(if the U.S. was attacked and Canada was affected, and probally w/o them getting affected) Japan, probally some of Europe, the Middle East(probally).

And those are the countries that are often involved in war...
Plus you said 'probably some of Europe'... well I think that's covered when you said the UK and Russia, as both are in Europe, and are very large.
Annnnnd, the middle east probably wouldn't be involved much. many of the countries there are involved in their own wars, and really aren't large enough to fight somewhere else, especially when NK is not likely a best buddy.


And really, that only talked about a few small points of my argument (which were more rhetorical questions actually).
My main interest right now is this:
The only mention of NK in the thread is that if Japan attacks them, we'll of course back up our ally and go with them. If they use nuclear weapons, well that will be sucky, won't it?

The thing is, the US really can't do anything, unless we are going to take over NK before they have the chance. Which is unlikely. I don't understand why we are debating this; it's up to NK and Japan to either war or not war, which only involves us if there is a war, which is not our business to control, nor is it even possible to control!

[Perseus]

So.. what is your question exactly? That there is no need to go to war?

[Oblivion]

A debate isn't about questions.
Unless you have a rebuttal for that statement, then theoretically you will have been proven wrong.

[Antares]

This is old, but Carole is right. No one has the balls to use nukes.
They know, that if one person does it, there will be TOTAL nuclear annihilation.
One country go to war, they all go to war, and we all die. Its a sad fate.

[Underground_Network]

Most countries that hate the U.S. hate it for different reasons... And most of them are "too lazy" (that's not really how I should word that, but its too early for me to think of how it would actually sound better) to ally with each other and form a force big enough to actually compete with the U.S. (and its various alliances for that matter). If all the countries that hate us could somehow manage to form an alliance and challenge us, we could have an interesting war on our hands... But its not happening, because all the countries in the various parts of the world that hate us; Central America, South America, Africa, the Middle East, certain factions in China, North Korea, etc.; are never going to decide to work with each other because they all hate us on different levels and some would be willing to give it all they've got whereas others would be hesitant in a war effort.

We have nothing to worry about for the next fifty years or so in my opinion. With where technology is at, I'd be more worried about terrorist attacks than global warfare/WWIII.

[hello1]

Well, if you knew then you wouldn't have posted that. and also, I have never said that Bush was the fault for the recession.
Bush tried to help, he just didn't dive into it as much as he should because he thought the same thing.


Saffire, Germany DID have allies in WW2. The major ones were Japan and Italy. Italy eventually gave up and Japan surrendered after Germany's surrender.

hmm japan got nuked and surrendered then Germany surrendered when we got to the capplte
(sorry i can't spell for shit)

[byee]

*Sticks toe in water here*

Just a quick question to DaTrooper: Where are you getting your opinions from, what's the basis of them? These ideas and opinions and judgements you're making, where did you get the info that serves as their basis?

[Perseus]

Well it depends, which opinions?

[Junky]

The money that is currently being pumped into the Iraq war and the Afghan war would be much more beneficial if it was being pumped into the US instead. Ever think of that?

Actually it is.


Germany only had allies during WW1. By the time WW2 began, they had merged with Austria and gained land by occupying it. They didn't have any allies in that era.

Your completely false and don't know what your talking about.

You know them military is in IRAQ, right? Not New York.
Your wrong, just completely wrong.

If a terrorist is going to attack and they plan well enough, we're just fucked. All the defenses Bush put up didn't do anything.
How would you know?
I've heard of tests where people would sneak knives and other weapons through airports.
Exactly! You've heard of these tests but where are the actual results?
Making people go through tons of meaningless security isn't saving us.
We cant stop every attack so should that mean we should not try?
(Protip: We gave the Taliban their guns.)
We gave them some weapons, BUT the majority is cheap mass produced soviet AK-47s



There's genocide in Africa every day and no one gives a shit. George W. Bush probably had motivation because Hussein had an assassination plan for his father.
Actually we did and still do, but have you ever heard of the Battle of Mogadishu? Nuff said.

Grandpa McCain and Psycho Palin wouldn't be handling this any better..
Don't resort to personal attacks its below you.

I think you're doubting the capability of a US-EU-whoever Coalition. In conventional warfare, we blew Iraq off the map in a really short amount of time. The insurgency kills us. Head-to-head, we easily have a better air force and navy. We could probably siege them into surrender.
I'm not to well informed about the state of the North Korean military. Iraq had a piss-poor military though....


.

From http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/World-Citizens-Prefer-Obama-McCain-More-Than-3to1.aspx:

World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1



Your poll is over 6 months old and therefore irrelevant.


The US alone amounts for 50% of military spending in the world. The UK will support us and they amount for 10% of military spending in the world.
Care to back that up with some links?
We have a bunch of allies, but none of them really compare to us on a grand scale and if it's our conflict, we will be mostly on our own. It would be a US-lead coalition of forces.


They were seperate points, hence the punctuation and stuff, but I can see what you're saying. I was arguing against the assumption that Iraq was just about stopping genocide by stating some motivation that Bush would have to attack Iraq, which would be:
-Oil
Credible
-Israel
Prove it?
-The chance to outdo his father by having a major success in Iraq
Honestly?
-Bad intelligence about WMDs
-Bad intelligence about the Taliban
Bad intelligence is what it is but don't blame Bush for it.
-Cheney being a lightsaber away from Darth Sideous
I already went over the personal attacks thing but I will do it again. Its below you so dont.
-Iraq's hostility with the US around the era
and so on.

[dyslexiaa]

Grandpa McCain and Psycho Palin wouldn't be handling this any better..
Don't resort to personal attacks its below you.

-Cheney being a lightsaber away from Darth Sideous
I already went over the personal attacks thing but I will do it again. Its below you so dont.

It's less a personal attack than a parody of the face of the Republican party and the stance to stay in Iraq. The strategy we're using is ineffective, the Iraqi people hate us, and soldiers are dying. There's no excuse to stay in Iraq when it was Bush's mistake to pull the trigger and send in troops.

The US alone amounts for 50% of military spending in the world. The UK will support us and they amount for 10% of military spending in the world.
Care to back that up with some links?

I can't dig up the exact article since I was searching for something totally different, but these numbers aren't too far off.

As of 2007, US 45%
As of 2008, US 48%:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

(Protip: We gave the Taliban their guns.)
We gave them some weapons, BUT the majority is cheap mass produced soviet AK-47s

I think 'some' is an understatement, but it depends on your idea of the scale. Still..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60702,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Soviet_invasion_and_civil_war

There's genocide in Africa every day and no one gives a shit. George W. Bush probably had motivation because Hussein had an assassination plan for his father.
Actually we did and still do, but have you ever heard of the Battle of Mogadishu? Nuff said.

Why don't we put the amount of troops we have in Iraq into Africa? Why don't we help end the poverty, disease, and civil war that is ripping the entire continent apart? There are so many more awful things going down in Africa versus Saddam's Iraq, I'm just trying to make the point that there are definitely exterior motives to it.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/africa-mag/afr_04_collier.html




You know them military is in IRAQ, right? Not New York.
Your wrong, just completely wrong.

If a terrorist is going to attack and they plan well enough, we're just fucked. All the defenses Bush put up didn't do anything.
How would you know?
I've heard of tests where people would sneak knives and other weapons through airports.
Exactly! You've heard of these tests but where are the actual results?
Making people go through tons of meaningless security isn't saving us.
We cant stop every attack so should that mean we should not try?

Crushing your feelings of security one article at a time. I'm all for trying to keep America safe, but when the security actually does nothing, I have a problem.

Oh hey, here are the results:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2008/10/airport_security_does_not_make_you_safer.cfm
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security

-The chance to outdo his father by having a major success in Iraq
Honestly?

Not the main factor, but definitely one that could've affected his decision to kill 4,000 Americans.

-Bad intelligence about WMDs
-Bad intelligence about the Taliban
Bad intelligence is what it is but don't blame Bush for it.

When you put your country into war without thoroughly checking your sources, it is your fault. War was never actually declared through Congress, which means it is entirely Bush's fault.

-Israel
Prove it?

Woo, links.

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Israel-is-the-real-winner-of-America-s-war-on-Iraq

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Since the U.S has Obama as president, we have a smaller military force and are more vunerable to attacks because democrats always weaken the national defenses.. guess what. The Taliban is planning another terroist attack against the U.S and we(the U.S.) have a smaller national defense because of OBAMA, so major things will go down because of having a smaller defense and smaller army..

You see, France, Germany, and another European country are mad at OBAMA because of how he is spending so much money on the U.S. and not paying off our debt to them.. Well, you see children(sorry had to say that :P)that is not a good thing,espcially if we get attacked because we no longer have an ally.

The reason why I bolded Obama is because he is not doing good for the U.S. Now, dont get me wrong, I respect him, but we do not need a president who is going aroudn trying to amke peace with coutnries that hate us because there will never be world peace. Never. Our army is not that big to fight in a massive war, and dont get the idea I want this to happen because I dont.. Im just saying how Obama is not a good president.

OK, to the war in Iraq. Well, for all you people that think its about oil, you are so terribly mistaken that if you aregue with me I will dispwn you so bad.. Well, why America got involved is because Sadam Hussein was doing what Hitler was doing, killing off people who he did not see as a perfect muslim(yes, I know Hitler didn't do that); well, look what happened in WWII when we stayed neutral for 3 years, I think, correct me if Im wrong. The U.S. does not want another mass genocide to happen.

1) We DO NOT have a smaller military force. Just because we cut back on spending for huge wasteful projects doesnt mean we are cutting back on personnel.

2) The Taliban have been planning attacks for ages. So what? We have such good Nat. Security it is fairly hard to attack us. And even if you do, it wont do much damage.

3) Just because the EU's are momentarily pissed doesnt mean we have LOST THEM as allies. If anything, we are closer than we were in the Bush years.

4) What countries hate us? Iran doesnt hate us, NK doesnt hate us, Syria doesnt hate us! You are taking the extremists from those countries and making them supreme leaders. Peace with those nations IS possible, and perhaps Obama will accomplish peace.

5) The genocide already happened, and was long gone. We missed our chance to be the good guys completely. We just used that as a guise to depose the government and take their oil(which is easily seen through revenue reports, etc.) Saddam was better than the U.S.

I think that about covers it :)

[Curthose93]

Excuse me, but has anyone mentioned that:

1)N. Korea is not "test launching their missiles over the U.S". It went over Japan and crashed in the Pacific.

2)Japan cannot "attack" North Korea. The Japanese Constitution prohibits the Japanese Self-Defense Forces from using its military in an aggressive manner. Unless the rocket is set to go down in Japanese territory, nothing they can do.

3)North Korea doesn't have the ability to launch any of its few nukes in any effective manner, so even if "World War III" were to start, I don't see a nuke dropping anywhere except near Hawaii(and that's only if they're very lucky)

4)We don't HAVE a smaller military force because of Obama. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama wants to INCREASE the size of the military. Some 65,000 troops, I think.

And WTF does he mean by "their will never be world peace"?

I thought that off-the-wall, hawkish, right-wing nut jobs were only on the radio, but apparently they've got apprentices filling teh intermets with their garbage now.

[jack straw]

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: The U.S...
Excuse me, but has anyone mentioned that:


2)Japan cannot "attack" North Korea. The Japanese Constitution prohibits the Japanese Self-Defense Forces from using its military in an aggressive manner. Unless the rocket is set to go down in Japanese territory, nothing they can do.


Ok. Japan cant attack North Korea, because the constitution says so. Remember after WWI when germany denied almost every one of the restricitions placed upon it in the treaty of versialles. He wasn't supposed to have a military, but no body stoped him. Do you think that Japan's not gonna attack NK because the Japanese Constitution says so?


wow, where do I start?
9/11 was a conspericy? Naw, that'll come later.
Saddam Heussein? Sure
Why did the U.S. stand by for so long and let them do this before standing up and going "Ok, it's not right now". Possibly because oil deposits were draning?
There are NO WMD's. Sorry, but there aren't.
It's not your war to fight. Let it go for fucks sake.
Now 9/11. There is no possible way a sane person could believe that 2 planes created a fire so ot it melted STEEL. I'm not even going to get in to the little details, yo can PM me if you want to hear them.

You also believe that paying back foreign debt is more important than stimulating the economy in a depression? Do you have ANY idea of how bad things would have got if AIG folded? Obama is trying to get the U.S. back on it's feet, and out of your multi-trillion dollar debt, but it doesn't come over night.

WWIII will happen eventually, but seriously? North Korea? That's a lot fucking easier than germany.
yes, NK by it'self is pretty much powerless. but IF THEY CAN USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, WE'RE FRIGGIN DEAD!!!

Wow, how mixed up is that? North Korea WILL use the power of nuclear arms if needed, and they will not hesitate to do so because there leader is an insane fuckhead.

Germany was a great power and WWI and WWII. What makes you think that North Korea is nothing compared to Germany almost 60 years ago? Germany didn't have nuclear arms, but Communist Russia did. North Korea is a Communist country, and they have nuclear weapons and will not be in fear of using them against us. I personally don't approve of them launching a test missle that comes very close to the U.S., not at all am I ok with that. To be honest, I was scared shitless when I heard that.

If we get launched into a nuclear war, just remember, that North Korea is at a better advantage than us. We may not even come out of the war alive.


:yeah: Thank You Watcher! (I love the quote "North Korea WILL use the power of nuclear arms if needed, and they will not hesitate to do so because there leader is an insane fuckhead. " :yes:)

Now, North korea WILL use their nuclear arsonal, if given the chance, and THAT will spark WWIII. The US will not launch nuke's back, because people like obama think that NK will be friends with us, if we leave them alone (WWII--Hitler was left alone until the munich conference, where he was given land, because he promised he would be a good little dictator and follow orders. appeasement!!!)




P.S. Just an added comment;

The great depression, starting in 1929, lasted until Roosevelt decided to build the miliary. producing arms, creating jobs, and raising overall morale. That's what got us out of the depression!

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

:yeah: Thank You Watcher! (I love the quote "North Korea WILL use the power of nuclear arms if needed, and they will not hesitate to do so because there leader is an insane fuckhead. " :yes:)

Now, North korea WILL use their nuclear arsonal, if given the chance, and THAT will spark WWIII. The US will not launch nuke's back, because people like obama think that NK will be friends with us, if we leave them alone (WWII--Hitler was left alone until the munich conference, where he was given land, because he promised he would be a good little dictator and follow orders. appeasement!!!)


1) In case you didnt notice, the U.S. BLATANTLY used the power of nuclear arms, and if Japan hadn't surrendered, there were 3 more drops scheduled! We would have bombed them all into OBLIVION if they hadnt given up, and yet a country that just threatens suddenly has an 'insane fuckhead' for a leader? COme on now!

2) They wont. And it wouldnt spark WW3. They havent even gotten a rocket up into space let alone the proper distance! All their shitty rockets fall into the sea. And even if they did launch nuclear weapons, they dont have any allies so it would be more like a worldwide lynching! AND to say that if NK DID launch Nukes, that Obama would just sit back and try to be friends is so ridiculous it doesnt even merit a response. ill just laugh :lol:

[Perseus]

1) In case you didnt notice, the U.S. BLATANTLY used the power of nuclear arms, and if Japan hadn't surrendered, there were 3 more drops scheduled! We would have bombed them all into OBLIVION if they hadnt given up, and yet a country that just threatens suddenly has an 'insane fuckhead' for a leader? COme on now!

2) They wont. And it wouldnt spark WW3. They havent even gotten a rocket up into space let alone the proper distance! All their shitty rockets fall into the sea. And even if they did launch nuclear weapons, they dont have any allies so it would be more like a worldwide lynching! AND to say that if NK DID launch Nukes, that Obama would just sit back and try to be friends is so ridiculous it doesnt even merit a response. ill just laugh :lol:

Actually, the U.S. only had 2 atom bombs, but they threatened to drop more to scare them so they would surrender.

North Korea is allies with Russia and China. Those look like allies to me. North Korea's missisiles could reach Alaska if they wanted to attack us.

Curthose or w/e your name is, do you honestly think there will be world peace? The Human race has been around for like 15,000 years or so(correct me if Im off on that), and there is still wars and genocides going on.

Hauptmann Kauffman
Democratic leaders make millitary forces smaller and focus on other things than spending money on the military. They focus more on welfare and etc... but I guess some leaders wont all do the same thing.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Actually, the U.S. only had 2 atom bombs, but they threatened to drop more to scare them so they would surrender.

North Korea is allies with Russia and China. Those look like allies to me. North Korea's missisiles could reach Alaska if they wanted to attack us.

1) The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

2) NK is not allies with Russia and China, both nations are working with the US against NK. And even if they were allies, they would never attack the US.

*And whoever gave me bad rep and said i dont know what im talking about, grow a pair and join the argument*

[Curthose93]

Actually, the U.S. only had 2 atom bombs, but they threatened to drop more to scare them so they would surrender.

North Korea is allies with Russia and China. Those look like allies to me. North Korea's missisiles could reach Alaska if they wanted to attack us.

Curthose or w/e your name is, do you honestly think there will be world peace? The Human race has been around for like 15,000 years or so(correct me if Im off on that), and there is still wars and genocides going on.

Hauptmann Kauffman
Democratic leaders make millitary forces smaller and focus on other things than spending money on the military. They focus more on welfare and etc... but I guess some leaders wont all do the same thing.

I think homo sapiens have been around more like 150,000 years, but I'm not sure, so whatever.

Anyway, I refer to my previous post: Obama is not going to make our "military forces smaller". He plans to INCREASE the size of our military by 65,000 soldiers. Just do a google search and I'm sure you'll find 10 or 20 news sites(at least) that say the same. Unless you can bring me proof that he plans to do the opposite, then stop saying so.


And Jerry: what makes you so sure that Japan will launch an unprovoked attack on North Korea? It's not an armed missile they launched, it's a test missile(or supposedly a satellite-carrying rocket, if you believe the NK reps), and it was quite clear that the test-missile was not heading for Japan(they deployed defense forces just in case, but the test-missile never came close to Japan), so WTF makes you think Japan will break its own constitution and risk starting WWIII(even thougha full-blown war would be unlikely even if they did)?

[Whisper]

North Korea is allies with Russia and China. Those look like allies to me. North Korea's missisiles could reach Alaska if they wanted to attack us.

China dosn't like North Korea's bullshit anymore than the US or any other country does
China will NOT allow the North Korean regime to fall because if it does they predict 10's of millions of refugees would flood into there Jilin and Liaoning provinces almost over night

China already has a population problem, they're already strained so much so they're the only country that has population control in place with the 1 child policy.

[jack straw]

1) In case you didnt notice, the U.S. BLATANTLY used the power of nuclear arms, and if Japan hadn't surrendered, there were 3 more drops scheduled! We would have bombed them all into OBLIVION if they hadnt given up, and yet a country that just threatens suddenly has an 'insane fuckhead' for a leader? COme on now!

2) They wont. And it wouldnt spark WW3. They havent even gotten a rocket up into space let alone the proper distance! All their shitty rockets fall into the sea. And even if they did launch nuclear weapons, they dont have any allies so it would be more like a worldwide lynching! AND to say that if NK DID launch Nukes, that Obama would just sit back and try to be friends is so ridiculous it doesnt even merit a response. ill just laugh :lol:

Ok. Your entitled to your opnion, even if I dont agree...

BUT WWII was started just by the invasion of poland by Hitler. I think a Nuke would definately Have more of an impact around the world than the invasion of poland. Their Insane Fuckhead leader is more than slightly crazy and doesn't give a shit what anybody else thinks-weather or not he has allies, he will launch whatever he has given the chance.

I have little faith In Obama as a leader, and even less when it comes to the military. I would laugh at how naive people can be, but it's slightly scary and I wish there was something that could be done to fix it.

[Whisper]

....WW1 started over an assassination. A Bosnian-Serb student started the great war....awww wouldn't mommy be proud
which led to Austria-Hungary demanding allot from Serbia they didn't get what they wanted so they declared war on the Serbs which pissed the Russian empire off then Germany mobilized so France mobilized

it was a pissing contest really

[ShatteredGlass]

Yeah okay, Obama is the president but you cant say that everything you dont agree with is his fault because guess what...congress has to approve it. And you seriously think we went to war to stop genocide? That's naive. Seeing as genocide in Darfur is increasing and do you see the US getting involved in that....no.

Yes it would be wonderful if the US went and shot all the bad guys because of "morals" and because we are "humanitarians" and all that, but it's just not true, or we'd be all over the world stopping rebels from massacring people. You think we went into WWII to stop Hitler? And free the people kept in concentration camps? Um...No, I'm sorry, we did not. 1st of all concentration camps had been active and what not before WWII. 2nd of all the US had alliances with Britain and the Balkan nations that we kind of yeah let Germany invade. 3rd of all the government knew about the concentration camps before we went in the the US and German general population did not. So yeah, did the fact that we were liberating the concentration camps play a part in it yeah it's possible but also the fact that we were, you know, finally keeping our alliances played a bigger part.

We went into Iraq for oil. Supposedly, we went in to find "weapons of mass destrcution" and capture "Usama Bin-Laden" and "Dismantle Al-queda" we've passed the 7th year anniversary to this war and we've have found no evidence weapons of mass destruction, we have not captured Bin-Laden, or dismantled Al-Queda. What was the other "unofficial" reason for entry. Oil. And you may not agree with Obama's military tactics but look at all the other great stuff he's doing, making college more affordable, creating jobs etc... he's done more in his first months of office than any US president, that's a fact, didnt make that up, look it up.

The US are not humanitarians, though I do admit we have a good govrnment, but it's fall from great. So yeah, that's my 13 cents.

[ShatteredGlass]

I think homo sapiens have been around more like 150,000 years, but I'm not sure, so whatever.

Anyway, I refer to my previous post: Obama is not going to make our "military forces smaller". He plans to INCREASE the size of our military by 65,000 soldiers. Just do a google search and I'm sure you'll find 10 or 20 news sites(at least) that say the same. Unless you can bring me proof that he plans to do the opposite, then stop saying so.


And Jerry: what makes you so sure that Japan will launch an unprovoked attack on North Korea? It's not an armed missile they launched, it's a test missile(or supposedly a satellite-carrying rocket, if you believe the NK reps), and it was quite clear that the test-missile was not heading for Japan(they deployed defense forces just in case, but the test-missile never came close to Japan), so WTF makes you think Japan will break its own constitution and risk starting WWIII(even thougha full-blown war would be unlikely even if they did)?

Yeah I agree.

[Perseus]

Yeah okay, Obama is the president but you cant say that everything you dont agree with is his fault because guess what...congress has to approve it. And you seriously think we went to war to stop genocide? That's naive. Seeing as genocide in Darfur is increasing and do you see the US getting involved in that....no.

Yes it would be wonderful if the US went and shot all the bad guys because of "morals" and because we are "humanitarians" and all that, but it's just not true, or we'd be all over the world stopping rebels from massacring people. You think we went into WWII to stop Hitler? And free the people kept in concentration camps? Um...No, I'm sorry, we did not. 1st of all concentration camps had been active and what not before WWII. 2nd of all the US had alliances with Britain and the Balkan nations that we kind of yeah let Germany invade. 3rd of all the government knew about the concentration camps before we went in the the US and German general population did not. So yeah, did the fact that we were liberating the concentration camps play a part in it yeah it's possible but also the fact that we were, you know, finally keeping our alliances played a bigger part.

We went into Iraq for oil. Supposedly, we went in to find "weapons of mass destrcution" and capture "Usama Bin-Laden" and "Dismantle Al-queda" we've passed the 7th year anniversary to this war and we've have found no evidence weapons of mass destruction, we have not captured Bin-Laden, or dismantled Al-Queda. What was the other "unofficial" reason for entry. Oil. And you may not agree with Obama's military tactics but look at all the other great stuff he's doing, making college more affordable, creating jobs etc... he's done more in his first months of office than any US president, that's a fact, didnt make that up, look it up.

The US are not humanitarians, though I do admit we have a good govrnment, but it's fall from great. So yeah, that's my 13 cents.



Facepalm...
You must not realize that we are in Darfur and in other African countries.
We were attacked by another country and you dont expect to go to war with them? Thats like just letting someone just beat you up for the rest of your life just because you don't think it's right to retaliate. Now, Im not talking about the Gulf War right now because Im poorly educated on the GUlf War, so we might've gone for oil at first, but now we have been attacked.
We have the army in many different countries, I'm pretty sure it would be hard for our troops to find Osama-Bin-Laden.

[Oblivion]

Just curious, have you had the chance to rebuttal any of my arguments?
I'll link to them...
You completely contradict yourself, and have yet to answer my post.

You contradict yourself because you say "So, you are saying that muslims lives are not worth our time?" then continue to say "There will never be world peace because of greed and other things"
This means you support trying to make peace, but also think it's impossible?
So in your opinion, why are we fighting, if "There will never be world peace because of greed and other things"?

Finally, most of the world quite likes Obama and his family, and what he will do for the country.
Even ones who don't like him much like him a lot better than Bush, or McCain.

From http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/World-Citizens-Prefer-Obama-McCain-More-Than-3to1.aspx:

World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1


Editor's update: Gallup Polls just completed in China, Armenia, and Bolivia have now been added to this report, and overall findings have been adjusted to reflect the results. The global survey now represents nearly three-quarters of the world's population, with China's high percentage of "don't know" responses slightly reducing the margin by which world citizens prefer Barack Obama to John McCain.

Gallup Polls conducted in 73 countries from May to October 2008 reveal widespread international support for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain in the U.S. presidential election. Among these nations, representing nearly three-quarters of the world's population, 24% of citizens say they would personally rather see Obama elected president of the United States, compared with just 7% who say the same about McCain. At the same time, 69% of world citizens surveyed did not have an opinion.

World citizens are more divided over whether the outcome of the U.S. election makes a difference to their country, with 26% saying it does and 22% saying it does not. Moreover, 52% of those surveyed did not have an opinion.


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/u3trhzaq1uqmupdhwltnyg.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/_rhs6tnbhk-ac3fmjg0efq.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dk5hy-tguush-th8d5dgkg.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sgu-wu6cpee5faij4vneyq.gif

The only mention of NK in the thread is that if Japan attacks them, we'll of course back up our ally and go with them. If they use nuclear weapons, well that will be sucky, won't it?

The thing is, the US really can't do anything, unless we are going to take over NK before they have the chance. Which is unlikely. I don't understand why we are debating this; it's up to NK and Japan to either war or not war, which only involves us if there is a war, which is not our business to control, nor is it even possible to control!

OK, I was just saying how the other countries were mad at Obama; obvioulsy, our economy is more important than pying off foreign debt.

So Obama is doing his job... Right? If the second is more important, and that's what Obama is doing, why even mention it?

Ok, the whole Korea thing, i said if there was to be something I said there would be a massive ripple of countries in it. NOt just those 6.

Ok... So what other countries would be involved? Maybe South Korea?

Iraq was not about oil, actually learn something and dont be so naive.

Well, I love how you go to personal insults rather than support with facts. It was technically because of 'weapons of mass destruction' that were supposedly there. They turned out not to be there, but the war continues. Which most people interpret as 'We want your oil cheaper, so we'll make up a way to go to war with you!'

Shattered, I never said stop being allies with Japan. I said that we would help them if Korea started attacking them.

So what is your solution? Or are you just saying Obama is doing sucky, but you don't know how to do better?

I also never emntioned there were WOMDs in Iraq.

My rant was to show how a democrat is not the best candiate for president right now.

You didn't show that at all...
And look how well a republican did before that?
Oh and what happened before him? Clinton lowered the national budget excellently, after Mr. W. Bush's father messed it up.
*filler*

Also, back to Sam's Q...
*Sticks toe in water here*

Just a quick question to DaTrooper: Where are you getting your opinions from, what's the basis of them? These ideas and opinions and judgements you're making, where did you get the info that serves as their basis?

Well it depends, which opinions?

Any/all of it?

[Perseus]

Most of my opinions are my own. Some of them are just what I hear and don't really take the time to look up and see if it's the "right" one or not. Some of my opinions are just based off what I've heard.

And Shattered, we are fighting to help people. I would like to say though, my view on world peace is every country liking each other, not any wars going on at one period of time. Now, back to the other part; innocent people shouldn't die because they have a leader that thinks they do.

[byee]

Most of my opinions are my own. Some of them are just what I hear and don't really take the time to look up and see if it's the "right" one or not. Some of my opinions are just based off what I've heard.

I'd suggest you spend some verifying the facts that form the basis of the adults opinions you're listening to and obviosly internalizing/agreeing with. It's one thing to get a wide range of differing opinions and objectively assess their merits, and it's another to take at face value what some are saying, simply b/c they present them well, are convincing, or exciting. The basis of a free society is freedom of expression and the availability of information to make accurate and honest evaluations of events. However, today, the line gets crossed btw'n news (objective) and political ideology (blantanly subjective), many 'reporters' (see: Hannity, Limbaugh) are nothing more than entertainers and spokespeople for a wider political agenda. It's like porn, really, designed more to excite and entertain, rather than educate.

Let me give you an example. You've repeated the oft-heard mantra that 'Republicans are better at defense', one that is repeated ad nauseum by those wing nuts who appeal to raw emotion rather than reason (or fact).

But the fact remains that 9/11 occurred under a Republican president, AND after a security report just a month before that dreadful day that specifically warned that Bin Laden was determined to attack in the USA. Our Republican president did nothing. Rumor has it that he didn't even read it.

One's party affiliation doesn't determine one's ability to lead. One's ability does. And to determine who has those abilities, one has to :1) think for onesself, and, 2) Turn off their emotion and use logic.

[IAMWILL]

I'd suggest you spend some verifying the facts that form the basis of the adults opinions you're listening to and obviosly internalizing/agreeing with. It's one thing to get a wide range of differing opinions and objectively assess their merits, and it's another to take at face value what some are saying, simply b/c they present them well, are convincing, or exciting. The basis of a free society is freedom of expression and the availability of information to make accurate and honest evaluations of events. However, today, the line gets crossed btw'n news (objective) and political ideology (blantanly subjective), many 'reporters' (see: Hannity, Limbaugh) are nothing more than entertainers and spokespeople for a wider political agenda. It's like porn, really, designed more to excite and entertain, rather than educate.

Let me give you an example. You've repeated the oft-heard mantra that 'Republicans are better at defense', one that is repeated ad nauseum by those wing nuts who appeal to raw emotion rather than reason (or fact).

But the fact remains that 9/11 occurred under a Republican president, AND after a security report just a month before that dreadful day that specifically warned that Bin Laden was determined to attack in the USA. Our Republican president did nothing. Rumor has it that he didn't even read it.

One's party affiliation doesn't determine one's ability to lead. One's ability does. And to determine who has those abilities, one has to :1) think for onesself, and, 2) Turn off their emotion and use logic.

Wow. 100% Agreed, took the words right outta my mouth (as usual)

[Oblivion]

I'd suggest you spend some verifying the facts that form the basis of the adults opinions you're listening to and obviosly internalizing/agreeing with. It's one thing to get a wide range of differing opinions and objectively assess their merits, and it's another to take at face value what some are saying, simply b/c they present them well, are convincing, or exciting. The basis of a free society is freedom of expression and the availability of information to make accurate and honest evaluations of events. However, today, the line gets crossed btw'n news (objective) and political ideology (blantanly subjective), many 'reporters' (see: Hannity, Limbaugh) are nothing more than entertainers and spokespeople for a wider political agenda. It's like porn, really, designed more to excite and entertain, rather than educate.

Let me give you an example. You've repeated the oft-heard mantra that 'Republicans are better at defense', one that is repeated ad nauseum by those wing nuts who appeal to raw emotion rather than reason (or fact).

But the fact remains that 9/11 occurred under a Republican president, AND after a security report just a month before that dreadful day that specifically warned that Bin Laden was determined to attack in the USA. Our Republican president did nothing. Rumor has it that he didn't even read it.

One's party affiliation doesn't determine one's ability to lead. One's ability does. And to determine who has those abilities, one has to :1) think for onesself, and, 2) Turn off their emotion and use logic.

A+; Wonderful
I'm glad you went against what you prefer (because I know you don't like debating on VT) and sticking your toe in the water.
Wonderful post.


Postscript- You still didn't rebut any of my arguments DaTrooper...? You wrote three sentences unrelated to my arguments?

[Perseus]

I've read your post many times and I still don't see anything that's need to be rebuttled now.

[byee]

I've read your post many times and I still don't see anything that's need to be rebuttled now.

May I humbly make a recommendation? For the next week, watch "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. It's an hour long show on the day's events, and although it has a left wing bias, it will give you a perspective that you do not have. It's on @ 10PM.

I'd enjoy talking with you about your perspective on it, and it might round out your current thinking on many current issues.

[jack straw]

Yeah okay, Obama is the president but you cant say that everything you dont agree with is his fault because guess what...congress has to approve it. And you seriously think we went to war to stop genocide? That's naive. Seeing as genocide in Darfur is increasing and do you see the US getting involved in that....no.

Yes it would be wonderful if the US went and shot all the bad guys because of "morals" and because we are "humanitarians" and all that, but it's just not true, or we'd be all over the world stopping rebels from massacring people. You think we went into WWII to stop Hitler? And free the people kept in concentration camps? Um...No, I'm sorry, we did not. 1st of all concentration camps had been active and what not before WWII. 2nd of all the US had alliances with Britain and the Balkan nations that we kind of yeah let Germany invade. 3rd of all the government knew about the concentration camps before we went in the the US and German general population did not. So yeah, did the fact that we were liberating the concentration camps play a part in it yeah it's possible but also the fact that we were, you know, finally keeping our alliances played a bigger part.

We went into Iraq for oil. Supposedly, we went in to find "weapons of mass destrcution" and capture "Usama Bin-Laden" and "Dismantle Al-queda" we've passed the 7th year anniversary to this war and we've have found no evidence weapons of mass destruction, we have not captured Bin-Laden, or dismantled Al-Queda. What was the other "unofficial" reason for entry. Oil. And you may not agree with Obama's military tactics but look at all the other great stuff he's doing, making college more affordable, creating jobs etc... he's done more in his first months of office than any US president, that's a fact, didnt make that up, look it up.

The US are not humanitarians, though I do admit we have a good govrnment, but it's fall from great. So yeah, that's my 13 cents.




I have to disagree with some things here, although you did bring up a few good points...

I may have a biased opnion on Obama, I dont like almost everything he's done, and I dissagree on most policys. He has NOT done more than any other US president in his first months in office (and what he has done has proved to be ineffective). FDR-- he made so many things that helped this country greatly, in his first 100 days. Social security, FDIC insurance, CCC, WPA, NRA, and soooooo many more... These programs helped create jobs, build morale and get things moving. Obama seemes to have the right Idea, but I dissagree with how/what he's doing. He also seems to be negative, and has said numerous times how bad things are, and that there is alot more to come, and basically just telling us we're doomed. FDR helped keep Morale high, he held "Fireside Chats" where he would make radio announcements, and talk about what good is going on.
I view myself as very conserviative, but If there is a conservative candate running for office, but I think he's just a jackass, I'm not gonna vote for him. I hate people who just vote for a person because they're a democrat or a republican. vote for the person who will fix the friggin mess, and we'll be out of our problems.

Oh, I was waiting for sombody to bring up congress... yes, they have to approve everything that Obama does, BUT they seem to be just pushing his legislation through without even reading it. the nearly $1 trillon ( $1,000,000,000,000 ) bailout was passed a little too fast, it seems, because assholes like AIG figured out that they could spend the money on whatever the hell they wanted ( they spent +1million on a golf trip with some their bailout money; Later they gave many "employess" bounses (some dont even work for the company any more, and a few recived over 1million each) while they complain that they dont have enough money to stay in business.) Most of the congress is composed of little dogs who will jump wildly with excitement anytime Obama says anything, and will pass any legislation that comes their way.

The war in Iraq is, well, idotic. We shouldn't have gone their in the first place, but now we are there, we cant leave just yet. I dont care If people say the war is about oil, WMD's, Al-Quida, or whatever, The fact is that we have to end it-- not by withdrawing, but by massive bombings, and an increase in special forces to elimnate whatever idots are out there...






Oh and by the way, the US had a few concentration camps of it's own in WWII, where it put Japanese citizens (for fear of attack/conspericy due to the recent Pearl Harbor attack.) we didn't even know about the death camps of Hitler until near the end of the war.

Did'nt have time to finish this post, so i'll be back.

[hello1]

I have to disagree with some things here, although you did bring up a few good points...

I may have a biased opnion on Obama, I dont like almost everything he's done, and I dissagree on most policys. He has NOT done more than any other US president in his first months in office (and what he has done has proved to be ineffective). FDR-- he made so many things that helped this country greatly, in his first 100 days. Social security, FDIC insurance, CCC, WPA, NRA, and soooooo many more... These programs helped create jobs, build morale and get things moving. Obama seemes to have the right Idea, but I dissagree with how/what he's doing. He also seems to be negative, and has said numerous times how bad things are, and that there is alot more to come, and basically just telling us we're doomed. FDR helped keep Morale high, he held "Fireside Chats" where he would make radio announcements, and talk about what good is going on.
I view myself as very conserviative, but If there is a conservative candate running for office, but I think he's just a jackass, I'm not gonna vote for him. I hate people who just vote for a person because they're a democrat or a republican. vote for the person who will fix the friggin mess, and we'll be out of our problems.

Oh, I was waiting for sombody to bring up congress... yes, they have to approve everything that Obama does, BUT they seem to be just pushing his legislation through without even reading it. the nearly $1 trillon ( $1,000,000,000,000 ) bailout was passed a little too fast, it seems, because assholes like AIG figured out that they could spend the money on whatever the hell they wanted ( they spent +1million on a golf trip with some their bailout money; Later they gave many "employess" bounses (some dont even work for the company any more, and a few recived over 1million each) while they complain that they dont have enough money to stay in business.) Most of the congress is composed of little dogs who will jump wildly with excitement anytime Obama says anything, and will pass any legislation that comes their way.

The war in Iraq is, well, idotic. We shouldn't have gone their in the first place, but now we are there, we cant leave just yet. I dont care If people say the war is about oil, WMD's, Al-Quida, or whatever, The fact is that we have to end it-- not by withdrawing, but by massive bombings, and an increase in special forces to elimnate whatever idots are out there...






Oh and by the way, the US had a few concentration camps of it's own in WWII, where it put Japanese citizens (for fear of attack/conspericy due to the recent Pearl Harbor attack.) we didn't even know about the death camps of Hitler until near the end of the war.

Did'nt have time to finish this post, so i'll be back.


Agree 100%

[Oblivion]

I've read your post many times and I still don't see anything that's need to be rebuttled now.

Ok, so if you can't rebut any of my arguments, do you accept them as right? Or what?
I'm kind of confused... Unless you completely changed your opinion, you would be disagreeing with my posts...

[Perseus]

Shattered, just because I see nothing to rebute atm, does not mean that I agree with you 100%.
I see nothing to rebute because I already rebuted on what I saw needed rebuting.
Sure, statistics show that some people in some countries perfered Obama, but most people didn't care.

And Jerry and Shattered Glass, Obama has one the most spending on the U.S.'s economy than any other president combined.

[Oblivion]

The fact remains that you have barely rebutted any of my arguments.
You can't pick and choose which small points to rebut-
When debating, it is essential to rebut all arguments; otherwise the apposing is assumed the 'winner' of the argument.

[Perseus]

I know. I just see nothing else to rebuttle. I am sorry to not see what you want me to respond to.

[Doc.]

I have to disagree with some things here, although you did bring up a few good points...

I may have a biased opnion on Obama, I dont like almost everything he's done, and I dissagree on most policys. He has NOT done more than any other US president in his first months in office (and what he has done has proved to be ineffective). FDR-- he made so many things that helped this country greatly, in his first 100 days. Social security, FDIC insurance, CCC, WPA, NRA, and soooooo many more... These programs helped create jobs, build morale and get things moving. Obama seemes to have the right Idea, but I dissagree with how/what he's doing. He also seems to be negative, and has said numerous times how bad things are, and that there is alot more to come, and basically just telling us we're doomed. FDR helped keep Morale high, he held "Fireside Chats" where he would make radio announcements, and talk about what good is going on.
I view myself as very conserviative, but If there is a conservative candate running for office, but I think he's just a jackass, I'm not gonna vote for him. I hate people who just vote for a person because they're a democrat or a republican. vote for the person who will fix the friggin mess, and we'll be out of our problems.

Oh, I was waiting for sombody to bring up congress... yes, they have to approve everything that Obama does, BUT they seem to be just pushing his legislation through without even reading it. the nearly $1 trillon ( $1,000,000,000,000 ) bailout was passed a little too fast, it seems, because assholes like AIG figured out that they could spend the money on whatever the hell they wanted ( they spent +1million on a golf trip with some their bailout money; Later they gave many "employess" bounses (some dont even work for the company any more, and a few recived over 1million each) while they complain that they dont have enough money to stay in business.) Most of the congress is composed of little dogs who will jump wildly with excitement anytime Obama says anything, and will pass any legislation that comes their way.

The war in Iraq is, well, idotic. We shouldn't have gone their in the first place, but now we are there, we cant leave just yet. I dont care If people say the war is about oil, WMD's, Al-Quida, or whatever, The fact is that we have to end it-- not by withdrawing, but by massive bombings, and an increase in special forces to elimnate whatever idots are out there...






Oh and by the way, the US had a few concentration camps of it's own in WWII, where it put Japanese citizens (for fear of attack/conspericy due to the recent Pearl Harbor attack.) we didn't even know about the death camps of Hitler until near the end of the war.

Did'nt have time to finish this post, so i'll be back.




No good sir, I disagree.

I will indeed admit that some of the following are just my thoughts, but most are backed up by facts if not common sense and logic.

While the reasons the Untied States went into Iraq were, indeed, very wrong. However, the United States has a global influence on every world economy, especially Communist China. (I say "Communist China" because I would like to bring that into the light, since most "uninformed" seem to be forgetting that fact).

They went in there to stop the radical Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan as well as Iraqi soldiers from destroying American and Saudi oil lines which, if you recall, they where indeed doing. Perhaps not totally out of spite toward the United States, but also in the civil strife and terrorism in the area that resulted in collateral damage. Which progressively lead up to the fall of Hussein in 2003.

You see, it isn't because the United States is greedy and want the worlds oil to its self, it's because the United States' blood is oil. The United States' entire economy revolves around petrol, and if someone shuts off the tap, (looks at the 70s oil embargo), things go to hell. Employment drops, inflation skyrockets, real estate goes into a slump and the economy will shut down and the U.S. goes into a recession. However, back then the U.S. wasn't such a global player as the U.S. is now so it did not effect the entire world economy.

Now, though, that the United States are so deeply in debt and have all other economies entwined within its own, if our economy shuts down, everyone's economy will too. If the U.S. goes into a depression, then the world is fucked. Germany, France, England, Communist China, Japan, etc. will all fall into depression with the U.S., however, Mr. Obama believes he can pull off a New Deal and save us, which is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

If, like in the 1930s, the United States government had the money to pull off a New Deal, it would work perfect but the United States does not have sufficient funds to provide for a New Deal and no budgetary policy, no policy what so ever can obtain the money he is talking about. Especially not with the increasing debt.

The bailouts will indeed work, but only for a short while. Only until the stock market is back to a good level. When people start to say, "Oh hey, this is great!" it is then, that you should be worried. By my speculations and estimates, around 2012-2014 the United States dollar will completely collapse due to the attempt at a "New Deal," which I believe will cause hyper inflation by deficit spending and the constant borrowing of money from places like Communist China.

The collapse of the U.S. dollar and the resulting depression would send the world into chaos. To the point that I believe we would indeed go to war. Most likely with Communist China, but I could very well see a war with possibly Iran. Regardless of who it starts with, I believe it will escalate into a World War.

The United States aren't the heroic peace keepers they claim to be, but in a way, they are. The are the strongest military currently, possibly not much longer with Mr. Obama at the reigns as well as the largest economy in the world. No one else can do what they do, no other country has the power to or the resources. If they let the worlds oil supply be disrupted, then you're looking at a total world-wide economic collapse that would, in my own opinion, send the world into another Great War.

So while Mr. Obama's policies will do some good, it will eventually cause the collapse of the USD, and send the United States of America into a depression that would drag the rest of the civilized world down with it.

I don't disagree with your statement on the concentration and death camps though.

I would like to make another notation similar to the one at the beginning of my argument. These are just my thoughts, feel free to try and pick them apart. Re-reading my argument, I found it rather arrogant. Forgive that, it was not my intention, I'm just stating my opinion and fact-based speculations.

Edit: Please forgive how redundant this was.

[Curthose93]

Hey, if the US and PRC did go to war, who would win?

[Sapphire]

Sorry for going back a week but haven't been around.

And if France never surrendered, Vietnam is the same as French Guiana with no communism, America doesn't have to step in and fight a war because we're expansionist bastards, etc.If France hadn't surrendered in 1954 then they would have suffered heavier losses and made to skulk away with less dignity and more dead bodies. However, France were no longer involved with Vietnam when America decided to stick their oar in. France were legally bound to an agreement to leave the country alone. America chose not to despite being one of the nations present at the time the agreement was made. That surely makes it clear that the Vietnam War was America's messy conflict, not France's.

And I'm pretty sure it was called police action as a loophole in the US government system that allows the President to send troops to war without getting approval of congress.Look into your countries history. They were terrified of the spread of communism and had foreign policies that reflected this. The Marshal Plan and Truman Aid were direct results of this fear. It was this fear that also sparked America's interest in providing military and political support to the south of Vietnam, which was capitalist, against the communist north.

The US alone amounts for 50% of military spending in the world. The UK will support us and they amount for 10% of military spending in the world. We have a bunch of allies, but none of them really compare to us on a grand scale and if it's our conflict, we will be mostly on our own. It would be a US-lead coalition of forces.

This is all an estimation, though, since NATO hasn't fought a major conventional war since Korea.

They were seperate points, hence the punctuation and stuff, but I can see what you're saying. I was arguing against the assumption that Iraq was just about stopping genocide by stating some motivation that Bush would have to attack Iraq, which would be:
-Oil
-Israel
-The chance to outdo his father by having a major success in Iraq
-Bad intelligence about WMDs
-Bad intelligence about the Taliban
-Cheney being a lightsaber away from Darth Sideous
-Iraq's hostility with the US around the era
and so on.If they were seperate points then you should have seperated them more clearly (as you have just done ^) earlier. Full stops do not indicate the end of an idea and the begginning of another.

IIRC, he did place blame (but not entirely) on Iraq or associate Iraq with 9/11. It's been a few years though, if you can show me some evidence that he never said associated the Taliban/al-Qaeda with Iraq, you win.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

These show that he wanted to invade Iraq before the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were completed.

If you're going to state I'm 'so incorrect that it's almost unbelievable', you should have an argument to how you're correct. By the statement I made, I was saying that there is no way to win against an insurgency if all we're going to do is throw more troops at it. The 'idealogy' is the extremism that fuels the Taliban insurgency.

You can't just belittle me and then not say anything to back your point up.I haven't just "belittled" you. I have given examples of ideologies and war to illustrate that every side of every war has an ideology.
The Cold War = Capitalism v. Communism. The Vietnam War = Capitalism v. Communism. English Civil War = Royalists v. Paramentarians. And so on.

And WTF does he mean by "their will never be world peace"?

I thought that off-the-wall, hawkish, right-wing nut jobs were only on the radio, but apparently they've got apprentices filling teh intermets with their garbage now.It may not be as stupid an idea as you are claiming. The estimated amount of peace world wide since 1945 is 30 minutes. 30 minutes in over 60 years isn't exactly promising...

P.S. Just an added comment;

The great depression, starting in 1929, lasted until Roosevelt decided to build the miliary. producing arms, creating jobs, and raising overall morale. That's what got us out of the depression!Actually, he got the US out of the Great Depression by introducing a number of policies like pensions, social security etc.

[jack straw]

Actually, he got the US out of the Great Depression by introducing a number of policies like pensions, social security etc.

True, the "New Deal" did help, but without WWII we wouldn't have gotten out so soon. We were selling war materials to Britan and France; WWII created Jobs building war materials and Fighting in the war; WWII backed up what FDR was doing, by getting the economy flowing world wide, and uniting us to work together.

still more to come...........

[Sapphire]

True, the "New Deal" did help, but without WWII we wouldn't have gotten out so soon. We were selling war materials to Britan and France; WWII created Jobs building war materials and Fighting in the war; WWII backed up what FDR was doing, by getting the economy flowing world wide, and uniting us to work together
Fair point.

The war in Iraq is, well, idotic. We shouldn't have gone their in the first place, but now we are there, we cant leave just yet. I dont care If people say the war is about oil, WMD's, Al-Quida, or whatever, The fact is that we have to end it-- not by withdrawing, but by massive bombings, and an increase in special forces to elimnate whatever idots are out there...Who do you think suffer in massive bombings? It's not just going to be the guilty Iraqis, trust me on that. How would killing innocent men, women and children win the war?

we didn't even know about the death camps of Hitler until near the end of the war.
Actually, news of the fate the Jews were facing under Hitler's reign had reached the Allies in 1942.