QueenZone discussion #909168

¼Microwave wrote: We need more guns. I think guns are good.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: It's not up to us to defeat them. Terrorism and Radical Islam are ideas, and you can't kill an idea. You can kill all of the people that have that idea, but that makes you a murder and you never get anything done, because the idea spreads. This is a mirror image with what happend in Catholocism at the time of the Spanish Inquisition. All we can do is hope that cooler heads within Islam will prevail. We (outsiders) can't stop this...Islam has to stop this within itself.

yamaha wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: It's not up to us to defeat them. Terrorism and Radical Islam are ideas, and you can't kill an idea. You can kill all of the people that have that idea, but that makes you a murder and you never get anything done, because the idea spreads. This is a mirror image with what happend in Catholocism at the time of the Spanish Inquisition. All we can do is hope that cooler heads within Islam will prevail. We (outsiders) can't stop this...Islam has to stop this within itself.

That's a nice theory and all (wise and quite true), but I don't feel like dying while they figure it out. It just seems like there is no place in a civilized world for the radical element. ,Mike "I'd love to save the world, but I don't know what to do" Bruce

1/4Microwave wrote: We need more guns. I think guns are good.

YourValentine wrote: First of all, you should not watch Fox News, it's just a propaganda station. You are much more likely to be shot by students in your own school than you are likely to be killed by terrorists. Secondly, you cannot fight terrorism with war and guns - just look at Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq we have more terrorism now than ever before the war. In Afghanistan the so called "war on terror" is far from being won. To fight terrorism we need to fight the roots of terrorism, i.e. poverty, injustice, illiteracy. People who have a prospect in life and a future won't fall for terrorism so easily. People who are not outraged about the injustice and the vilolence against their own people (Iraq, Palestine) won't go to a "holy war". Use your own brain and think for yourself. Why was Iraq attacked although they had nothing to do with 9/11 and they did not have weapons of mass destruction? Why was Iraq attacked - one of the few Arab countries where the terrorists did not stand a chance? Do not believe everything your political leaders tell you. For example: why can people not take any fluids in their hand baggage although it was proven that it is IMPOSSIBLE to mix a bomb from fluids on a plane? It is done to keep us afraid. We are supposed to be so scared that we don't think any further. People who are scared do not question their country, they don't ask for social justice and they don't ask what happens with their tax money and what happens with their human rights. Just get your information from various sources and always ask yourself who profits from what your government does.

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: You're on a roll Barb! :D

Mr.Jingles wrote: Radical Islamics, Radical Leftists, Radical Christians, Radical Conservatives... and so and so, Any fuckin' radical extremist wants to take over the world and force their own rules and thoughts on others. Why only pin point one single group as the threat when all of them are just about as guilty.

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poo!!<h6> wrote:

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: You're on a roll Barb! :D

Say, this is a topic that i started... does it make you happy, O great one?

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote:

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poo!!<h6> wrote:

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: You're on a roll Barb! :D

Say, this is a topic that i started... does it make you happy, O great one?

Not really, as your OP was fairly hysterical and full of American ignorance. Barb just saved it that's all. ;)

YourValentine wrote: Religion is just a pretense for radicals. If there were no religion they would find another way to manipulate people. There are millions of people in this world trying to make sense of their lives and religion is one way to find answers. Religious people are usually the ones who care about their neighbours and the community and who are willing to help when help is needed. We must always make the difference between the ethics of a religion and the people who uphold these ethics on the one side and the "powers" (including religious leaders very often) who abuse religion and pervert the religious ethics for their political purpose on the other side. I am not in a church but I respect the role of religion in a civilized society. @ Cookies - you started a topic, so I assumed you want an answer. Perhaps the posts here make you think.

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poo!!<h6> wrote:

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote:

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poo!!<h6> wrote:

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: You're on a roll Barb! :D

Say, this is a topic that i started... does it make you happy, O great one?

Not really, as your OP was fairly hysterical and full of American ignorance. Barb just saved it that's all. ;)

As a matter of fact, I'm 100% German. Ass.

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote:

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poo!!<h6> wrote:

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote:

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poo!!<h6> wrote:

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: You're on a roll Barb! :D

Say, this is a topic that i started... does it make you happy, O great one?

Not really, as your OP was fairly hysterical and full of American ignorance. Barb just saved it that's all. ;)

As a matter of fact, I'm 100% German. Ass.

So? Your ignorance is on the same level as the general American voters. ;) No need for name calling now, i didn't say anything harsh dear.

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poo!!<h6> wrote:

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote:

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poo!!<h6> wrote:

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote:

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poo!!<h6> wrote:

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: You're on a roll Barb! :D

Say, this is a topic that i started... does it make you happy, O great one?

Not really, as your OP was fairly hysterical and full of American ignorance. Barb just saved it that's all. ;)

As a matter of fact, I'm 100% German. Ass.

So? Your ignorance is on the same level as the general American voters. ;) No need for name calling now, i didn't say anything harsh dear.

I'm 12.

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote:

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poo!!<h6> wrote:

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote:

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poo!!<h6> wrote:

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote:

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poo!!<h6> wrote:

<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: You're on a roll Barb! :D

Say, this is a topic that i started... does it make you happy, O great one?

Not really, as your OP was fairly hysterical and full of American ignorance. Barb just saved it that's all. ;)

As a matter of fact, I'm 100% German. Ass.

So? Your ignorance is on the same level as the general American voters. ;) No need for name calling now, i didn't say anything harsh dear.

I'm 12.

Is that your excuse for everything?

Donna13 wrote:

YourValentine wrote: We must always make the difference between the ethics of a religion and the people who uphold these ethics on the one side and the "powers" (including religious leaders very often) who abuse religion and pervert the religious ethics for their political purpose on the other side.

Yes. This is a very good point.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: I'm ready for the onslaught of hate mail now.

YourValentine wrote: Religion is just a pretense for radicals. If there were no religion they would find another way to manipulate people. There are millions of people in this world trying to make sense of their lives and religion is one way to find answers. Religious people are usually the ones who care about their neighbours and the community and who are willing to help when help is needed. We must always make the difference between the ethics of a religion and the people who uphold these ethics on the one side and the "powers" (including religious leaders very often) who abuse religion and pervert the religious ethics for their political purpose on the other side. I am not in a church but I respect the role of religion in a civilized society. @ Cookies - you started a topic, so I assumed you want an answer. Perhaps the posts here make you think.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: I'm ready for the onslaught of hate mail now.

No hate mail from here, just a standing ovation.

YourValentine wrote: Secondly, you cannot fight terrorism with war and guns - just look at Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq we have more terrorism now than ever before the war. In Afghanistan the so called "war on terror" is far from being won.

YourValentine wrote: To fight terrorism we need to fight the roots of terrorism, i.e. poverty, injustice, illiteracy.

¼Microwave wrote: Plus have you seen the prices of a T-Shirt on Queenonline?

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poe!!<h6> wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: Radical Islamics, Radical Leftists, Radical Christians, Radical Conservatives... and so and so, Any fuckin' radical extremist wants to take over the world and force their own rules and thoughts on others. Why only pin point one single group as the threat when all of them are just about as guilty.

Because I didn't see a show about radical Conservatives.... I saw one about Radical Islamics.

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poe!!<h6> wrote: My mom is addicted to Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van susterin and Hannity and Colmes. That's how I hear about this stuff.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poe!!<h6> wrote: My mom is addicted to Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van susterin and Hannity and Colmes. That's how I hear about this stuff.

No offense but your mom really needs to wake up and smell the coffee if she believes all the crap those morons say. I for once have to tell you that I've had Muslim friends and talked to other Muslims and each and every single one of them has condemmed 9/11 by saying that their beliefs prohibit completely killing or harming innocent people. The saddest part of all is that here in America the people who claim to stand up the most for "Family values" and "Christian codes of ethics" are the same ones who support a fake war and the killing of people in the Middle East. Anyone who supports Bush should not be considered a christian. It's no wonder why people are starting to get fed up with the high level of hypocrisy of the so called "christians" churches and institutions of America.

Mr.Jingles wrote: Sorry if I offended you. Yet I consider it an absolute waste of time to watch the non-sense that comes out of O'Reilly's and Hannity's mouths. However, it's not only ultra conservatives who watch it. I know many liberals who watch those shows just to get pissed off about what they will say next. Seems pretty pathetic to me because in the end it gives them more ratings and more media exposure.

Mr.Jingles wrote: Anyone who supports Bush should not be considered a christian.

¼Microwave wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: Anyone who supports Bush should not be considered a christian.

So what would YOU call all those US soldiers in Iraq? Kerry already used "Stupid" so be a little more creative. And is it a Christian policy to exclude? So you're what, Bhuddist? Next thing you know, you'll be calling yourself Jingles Quinn.

<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltzzz wrote: I'm not really into this whole Islam thing, but in my opinion their religious leaders are heavily abusing and misinterpreting their holy book. But hey, I suppose that happens within Christianity too, but not to that degree. I mean, come on, I thought we were over the crusades and jihads thing centuries ago.

YourValentine wrote: @ Microwave I am not sure if you are serious with your post. If you are - I am from Europe and we have a more global view and don't believe the USA is the be-all and end-all. I was not talking about the USA but about Arab countries. 2 thirds of young Arab males have no job and no chance to ever get one. There you have the reservoir of poor "holy warriors". Add the illegal war against the Iraq, add the unsolved situation in the Israel/Palestine conflict and countless American vetoes in the security council concerning the situation and you have injustice. Add illiteracy and you have the chance to manipulate all these angry young people anytime. Btw, I am not blaming it all on the USA. I think the Europeans are also guilty of treating Arab countries unfair.

Cookies! wrote: "women must stay at home and take care of the family and house" and "men are the dominant sex" That's not what the bible says.

¼Microwave wrote: Arabs always have and always will feel that we are Infidels invading their land.

¼Microwave wrote:

Cookies! wrote: "women must stay at home and take care of the family and house" and "men are the dominant sex" That's not what the bible says.

Mine does.

¼Microwave wrote: Once you grow up, get back to me. I didn't write history, child.

Mr.Jingles wrote: If a foreign country invaded the U.S. under claims of threat against our national sovereignity, which then turn up to be false and it happens to trigger a war that causes death to hundreds of thousands of civilians, WOULDN'T YOU BE PISSED OFF TOO?

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poe!!<h6> wrote:

¼Microwave wrote:

Cookies! wrote: "women must stay at home and take care of the family and house" and "men are the dominant sex" That's not what the bible says.

Mine does.

Welcome to the 21st century, Faggot.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

¼Microwave wrote: Arabs always have and always will feel that we are Infidels invading their land.

Put yourself on the other side... If a foreign country invaded the U.S. under claims of threat against our national sovereignity, which then turn up to be false and it happens to trigger a war that causes death to hundreds of thousands of civilians, WOULDN'T YOU BE PISSED OFF TOO? My friend, the open mindness of people like you certainly guarantees America a brighter future.

¼Microwave wrote: They've thought that way since the middle ages. Long before the U.S. was even thought of. In fact, the first "infidels" were the Phoenicians. Plus the "Americans" came from Europe 300 years ago.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: You guys were next up....We just got it first. Had we not been there, it would have been you first.

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poe!!<h6> wrote:

¼Microwave wrote: Once you grow up, get back to me. I didn't write history, child.

Maybe it's not YOU that's shrinking, maybe it's your......

<font color=>LadyMercury wrote:

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poe!!<h6> wrote:

¼Microwave wrote: Once you grow up, get back to me. I didn't write history, child.

Maybe it's not YOU that's shrinking, maybe it's your......

Aha! I knew this thread was gonna lead to penises! Well, unless you meant his brain.

¼Microwave wrote: They've thought that way since the middle ages. Long before the U.S. was even thought of. In fact, the first "infidels" were the Phoenicians. Plus the "Americans" came from Europe 300 years ago.

<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>Poe!!<h6> wrote: I'm scared of these people O.O I recently saw a program on Fox News about radical Islamics talking about taking over the world and taking all rights away from women and minorities like blacks and hispanics, and punishing people who are not Islamic. o_O I personally think they are full of shit and hot air. The US and UK are much more powerful than these terrorist organizations. But because of 9/11 and Heathrow Airport, it still scares me. :/ What do fellow queenzoners think about this? I was just wondering...

YourValentine wrote: First of all, you should not watch Fox News, it's just a propaganda station. You are much more likely to be shot by students in your own school than you are likely to be killed by terrorists. Secondly, you cannot fight terrorism with war and guns - just look at Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq we have more terrorism now than ever before the war. In Afghanistan the so called "war on terror" is far from being won. To fight terrorism we need to fight the roots of terrorism, i.e. poverty, injustice, illiteracy. People who have a prospect in life and a future won't fall for terrorism so easily. People who are not outraged about the injustice and the vilolence against their own people (Iraq, Palestine) won't go to a "holy war". Use your own brain and think for yourself. Why was Iraq attacked although they had nothing to do with 9/11 and they did not have weapons of mass destruction? Why was Iraq attacked - one of the few Arab countries where the terrorists did not stand a chance? Do not believe everything your political leaders tell you. For example: why can people not take any fluids in their hand baggage although it was proven that it is IMPOSSIBLE to mix a bomb from fluids on a plane? It is done to keep us afraid. We are supposed to be so scared that we don't think any further. People who are scared do not question their country, they don't ask for social justice and they don't ask what happens with their tax money and what happens with their human rights. Just get your information from various sources and always ask yourself who profits from what your government does.

Donna13 wrote: "Statistical likelihood shows that the odds for getting killed by a religious terrorist are about as low as the chance of being killed by a) lightning b) a deer (and I mean the animal, not the John Deer tractor) c) peanuts This statistic includes the death toll of 9/11, so in reality it's much lower." I don't think you can calculate the statistical likelihood. To do that you would have to know the number of future strikes, which nobody knows. It is not a predictable number, like lightning, deer, or whatever. Each person has to consider his own possible future risk and exposure level, given our knowledge of the past methods used (the targeting of crowded areas, major cities, and transportation).

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Thus the point I made above in the thread...you are more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist attack. Thus, there is no point in worrying about it. The mortality rate of humanity is still 100 percent...we are all going to die sometime. So just forget about this shit and live life already.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Thus the point I made above in the thread...you are more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist attack. Thus, there is no point in worrying about it. The mortality rate of humanity is still 100 percent...we are all going to die sometime. So just forget about this shit and live life already.

You could put a few hospitals, pharmacists, and medical researchers out of business with that line of thought, now.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Thus the point I made above in the thread...you are more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist attack. Thus, there is no point in worrying about it. The mortality rate of humanity is still 100 percent...we are all going to die sometime. So just forget about this shit and live life already.

You could put a few hospitals, pharmacists, and medical researchers out of business with that line of thought, now.

Possibly. But seeing as medical professionals have been around since the dawn of time, including very dark times like the Plague, and many have been in league with not so nice people who have used their knowledge of the human animal to kill us, I'd doubt it. My point here was that there is absolutely no point in worrying about terrorists killing you....you are more likely to die in a lightning strike, which you can't prevent either. All of these people who are so paranoid about dying this way will die without ever really having been alive.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Thus the point I made above in the thread...you are more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist attack. Thus, there is no point in worrying about it. The mortality rate of humanity is still 100 percent...we are all going to die sometime. So just forget about this shit and live life already.

You could put a few hospitals, pharmacists, and medical researchers out of business with that line of thought, now.

Possibly. But seeing as medical professionals have been around since the dawn of time, including very dark times like the Plague, and many have been in league with not so nice people who have used their knowledge of the human animal to kill us, I'd doubt it. My point here was that there is absolutely no point in worrying about terrorists killing you....you are more likely to die in a lightning strike, which you can't prevent either. All of these people who are so paranoid about dying this way will die without ever really having been alive.

I was...kidding. We will always have such great television programming such as House and Scrubs due to the great medical profession. But there are things you can do to avoid being struck by lightning. You can take such actions as avoidance of wandering into open fields during thunderstorms. To prevent structural damage by lightning, might I suggest the use of a lightning rod. And we shouldn't automatically not fear anything that is not as dangerous as driving. The odds of being slain by a katana are slim, but to disregard the presence of one is just plain stupid.

Donna13 wrote: Didn't know what a katana was, so I looked it up. Yikes.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Thus the point I made above in the thread...you are more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist attack. Thus, there is no point in worrying about it. The mortality rate of humanity is still 100 percent...we are all going to die sometime. So just forget about this shit and live life already.

You could put a few hospitals, pharmacists, and medical researchers out of business with that line of thought, now.

Possibly. But seeing as medical professionals have been around since the dawn of time, including very dark times like the Plague, and many have been in league with not so nice people who have used their knowledge of the human animal to kill us, I'd doubt it. My point here was that there is absolutely no point in worrying about terrorists killing you....you are more likely to die in a lightning strike, which you can't prevent either. All of these people who are so paranoid about dying this way will die without ever really having been alive.

I was...kidding. We will always have such great television programming such as House and Scrubs due to the great medical profession. But there are things you can do to avoid being struck by lightning. You can take such actions as avoidance of wandering into open fields during thunderstorms. To prevent structural damage by lightning, might I suggest the use of a lightning rod. And we shouldn't automatically not fear anything that is not as dangerous as driving. The odds of being slain by a katana are slim, but to disregard the presence of one is just plain stupid.

Yeah, I knew you were kidding...I'm just in a bit of a sucky mood lately. Sorry. Plus I was just up after four hours of sleep to go to work, and today I have to hang out with my family most of the day, so it's not going to be getting any better I don't think. :-(

YourValentine wrote: People who are scared do not question their country, they don't ask for social justice and they don't ask what happens with their tax money and what happens with their human rights.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

YourValentine wrote: People who are scared do not question their country, they don't ask for social justice and they don't ask what happens with their tax money and what happens with their human rights.

The politics of fear... condensed into one sentence... completely over the heads of the majority of the world's population. This is an excellent topic. One of the best at QZ this year.

Donna13 wrote: The problem with "the politics of fear" theory is that you are assuming people are afraid. I've never met a fearful American. Who (or what group) are you referring to?

Donna13 wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: What state do you live in? That's really where the discussion must start.

Do you mean the state of confusion, fear, denial, panic, ignorance? Or Virginia, which is quite lovely except for the bad traffic and high humidity of the summers? Haha.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Liberals generally support punishing terrorists effectively (although perhaps subtly) or simply preventing terrorism.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Donna13 wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: What state do you live in? That's really where the discussion must start.

Do you mean the state of confusion, fear, denial, panic, ignorance? Or Virginia, which is quite lovely except for the bad traffic and high humidity of the summers? Haha.

Haha... cute. But I think Music Man makes the "fear" point pretty clear.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Liberals generally support punishing terrorists effectively (although perhaps subtly) or simply preventing terrorism.

Yeah, plenty of liberals (and non-partisan folk, surely) look past the terrorism on the surface and believe that locating root of terrorism is how the problem can be solved, as opposed to simply retaliating. This style of thinking outside the box is how crime in general is best dealt with. But with Bush pushing the "war on terrorism" on the public, the majority seems to miss this option.

Donna13 wrote: I don't think that the Democrats are against finding and killing terrorists. Clinton's latest angry response during an interview was meant to set the record straight on that. We will now see what the Democrats will do differently, now that they control Congress. The whole country is hoping for the best solutions, especially with the situation in Iraq. The roots of terrorism go back thousands of years. And although the world has dealt with it for many years, only recently has it impacted Americans directly on our soil. I do not believe it is a simple problem that can be solved by partisan politics. This assumption that the Democrats or liberal thinkers somehow have the answers is really kind of silly. Terrorism has confused all the experts for years. If there was a way to get to the root, it would have been well-documented by now.

Donna13 wrote: "The media keeps saying, "Americans want change.", when in fact I think they should be saying, "Americans want a solution. Now, damn it!" Yes. I think this is correct.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Nationally, however, fear was instilled yet again when, before the election, Bush said that a vote for the democrats was a vote for the terrorists. And sadly, some people still believe that the only way to win is to keep pounding away.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Nationally, however, fear was instilled yet again when, before the election, Bush said that a vote for the democrats was a vote for the terrorists. And sadly, some people still believe that the only way to win is to keep pounding away.

But there are also plenty of people like who don't. Be positive. :) Survival of the fittest. Natural selection. The smartest ones will succeed. Simple rules I live by, and they give me peace.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I'm not sure I'm ready to think positively, but I am hopeful. Does that count? :)

YourValentine wrote: "There are forces out there and ideas out there and I guess what I am trying to say is that the problem does not begin and end with what Americans can do about it. Therefore, I am hoping that we have enough good will out there internationally, or even just possibly people out there who want to help (whether they think we deserve it or not), and therefore, we will not have to face this alone. I think at the very least everyone must see us struggling with the problem (as well as what to do in Iraq)." Absolutely. May I remind you that the global sympathy after 9/11 was overwhelming. The USA was supported in the "war on terror" not only by the allies from the NATO but from vitually all nations. It was Bush who went to an illegal war AGAINST the vote of the United Nations and IGNORING international laws and rules. The biggest super power attacked another UN member for no reasons but lies and pretenses. Bush cannot expect other countries to send their soldiers to die in Iraq after he ignored their warnings and good advice. He cannot expect other countries to solve the incredible mess he started in Iraq with dozens of people dying every day after the US troops exposed the country to terrorism due to the incredible and dangerous incompetence of the current US administration. We now hear that the Baker commission might suggest to ask Iran and Syria for help solving the Iraq crisis - countries that were called "rogue countries" by Cowboy Bush. Maybe the Europeans who never stopped diplomacy and always kept the talking lines open instead of threatening other countries can help to establish a regional crisis management to give the Iraqui people their lives back. And let's hope the people of the United States will never allow their administration such an illegal, dangerous and useless adventure ever again.

YourValentine wrote: And let's hope the people of the United States will never allow their administration such an illegal, dangerous and useless adventure ever again.

YourValentine wrote: @Microwave You cannot blame the countries who were against this war in the first place. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and they did not have any WOMD, that was verified by the UN inspectors - but Bush chose to ignore them. He also chose to ignore the UN resolution forbidding the war and the advice of most of the NATO members, for example Germany and France. I don't think they have a solution - now that everything happens what they predicted: chaos and civil war in Iraq. There must be a regional solution and that means Syria and Iran must be involved. It's time that political common sense returns to the White House. I am sure that all countries will try to help but you cannot really come to an agreement with fundamentalists like Bush and Condoleezza Rice who do not see the wrong they are doing.

Donna13 wrote: Because enough members of Congress believed the bad intelligence on WMD, Bush got his way - his excuse and reasoning was that national defense was more important than waiting to follow UN guidance. But the problem now is what to do now.

YourValentine wrote: The point is - the USA were never in danger by whatever chemicals someone was mixing up in a sink in Baghdad.

¼Microwave wrote:

YourValentine wrote: The point is - the USA were never in danger by whatever chemicals someone was mixing up in a sink in Baghdad.

Well, then let's just put Saddam back and leave everything alone in that region. But when the missles can reach Europe, and they will soon, don't come calling on the U.S. to intervede. We should only do something when JUST the U.S. is endangered, right?

Mr.Jingles wrote: Then why did the U.S. give full support to Iraq by financing their chemical warfare against Iran, which not only did Saddam use against Iran but also against Kurds.

¼Microwave wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: Then why did the U.S. give full support to Iraq by financing their chemical warfare against Iran, which not only did Saddam use against Iran but also against Kurds.

First there are chemical weapons in Iraq, then there are no chemical weapons in Iraq. Which is it? Did they use 'em all up on the kurds and sell the rest on ebay in time for the world to "discover there are no WMDs in Iraq". Do you see the ambiguity of the argument "Bush went in for no reason" yet?

Donna13 wrote: I don't think that the Democrats are against finding and killing terrorists. Clinton's latest angry response during an interview was meant to set the record straight on that. We will now see what the Democrats will do differently, now that they control Congress. The whole country is hoping for the best solutions, especially with the situation in Iraq. The roots of terrorism go back thousands of years. And although the world has dealt with it for many years, only recently has it impacted Americans directly on our soil. I do not believe it is a simple problem that can be solved by partisan politics. This assumption that the Democrats or liberal thinkers somehow have the answers is really kind of silly. Terrorism has confused all the experts for years. If there was a way to get to the root, it would have been well-documented by now.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

Donna13 wrote: I don't think that the Democrats are against finding and killing terrorists. Clinton's latest angry response during an interview was meant to set the record straight on that. We will now see what the Democrats will do differently, now that they control Congress. The whole country is hoping for the best solutions, especially with the situation in Iraq. The roots of terrorism go back thousands of years. And although the world has dealt with it for many years, only recently has it impacted Americans directly on our soil. I do not believe it is a simple problem that can be solved by partisan politics. This assumption that the Democrats or liberal thinkers somehow have the answers is really kind of silly. Terrorism has confused all the experts for years. If there was a way to get to the root, it would have been well-documented by now.

Only recently has terrorism hit America? Oh, now that's news to me! Let's see...we have religious terrorism from the puritans, killing who wouldn't convert... Then we have the original KKK shorly after the civil war, taking out people... Oh, and let's not forget the Jim Crow-era southern legislation, not to mention the syphilis-research ("what are the effects of syphilis on a black male who does not get meditation?") of the 20th century Let's not forget the KKK-reïncarnation, which knocked off a fair few civil rights activists and innocent black people. And that's only naming the most well-known cases!

Donna13 wrote: ThomasQuinn, you forgot the DC sniper. I actually was in Manassas during the sniper attacks and was outside an office supply store walking to my car when I dropped my keys. I had this really horrible feeling come over me as I stopped to pick them up. I was not too far away from where the sniper killed his next victim at a gas station the very next day. So, this was terrorism to everyone in the DC metropolitan area and I'll never forget it. I'll never forget how I felt on 9/11 either.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: The point I was making was simple that 9/11 was in no way a 'first'.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

Donna13 wrote: I don't think that the Democrats are against finding and killing terrorists. Clinton's latest angry response during an interview was meant to set the record straight on that. We will now see what the Democrats will do differently, now that they control Congress. The whole country is hoping for the best solutions, especially with the situation in Iraq. The roots of terrorism go back thousands of years. And although the world has dealt with it for many years, only recently has it impacted Americans directly on our soil. I do not believe it is a simple problem that can be solved by partisan politics. This assumption that the Democrats or liberal thinkers somehow have the answers is really kind of silly. Terrorism has confused all the experts for years. If there was a way to get to the root, it would have been well-documented by now.

Only recently has terrorism hit America? Oh, now that's news to me! Let's see...we have religious terrorism from the puritans, killing who wouldn't convert... Then we have the original KKK shorly after the civil war, taking out people... Oh, and let's not forget the Jim Crow-era southern legislation, not to mention the syphilis-research ("what are the effects of syphilis on a black male who does not get meditation?") of the 20th century Let's not forget the KKK-reïncarnation, which knocked off a fair few civil rights activists and innocent black people. And that's only naming the most well-known cases!

Still, most of that terrorism was directed at a particular minority of people, not all Americans in general. Therefore, the two types have completely different effects.

Mr.Jingles wrote: I'm going to for once agree with Caspar on that one.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: I'm going to for once agree with Caspar on that one.

You said that the last 2 or 3 times you agreed with him, too... ha ha!

Donna13 wrote: I don't think that the Democrats are against finding and killing terrorists. Clinton's latest angry response during an interview was meant to set the record straight on that. We will now see what the Democrats will do differently, now that they control Congress. The whole country is hoping for the best solutions, especially with the situation in Iraq. The roots of terrorism go back thousands of years. And although the world has dealt with it for many years, only recently has it impacted Americans directly on our soil. I do not believe it is a simple problem that can be solved by partisan politics. This assumption that the Democrats or liberal thinkers somehow have the answers is really kind of silly. Terrorism has confused all the experts for years. If there was a way to get to the root, it would have been well-documented by now.

vallie wrote: solution: find something that can replace the world's need for oil and the US ( no offence, it's the government I'm revering to) won't have anything to have a war about.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Posted: 11/15/2006 9:53:30 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have to say that I HATE it when people say that Iraq is about oil...it was never about oil. The US actually imports most of it's oil from Canada, and Iraq hasn't ever been as big of a producer of oil as Saudi Arabia, who we pissed off when we invaded Iraq. Thus, would have endangered our oil supply, not increased it. I don't have any idea why we went into Iraq...maybe to finish what Daddy started? But it wasn't about oil. Otherwise we'd be rolling in it right now, and we can't even keep the pipelines secure. If this was about oil, that would be the first place we'd put the most troops, and we wouldn't have all of these problems with bombed pipe lines, because no one would be able to get within 50 miles of them. I said it before...and I say it again....This was never about oil.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Posted: 11/15/2006 9:53:30 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have to say that I HATE it when people say that Iraq is about oil...it was never about oil. The US actually imports most of it's oil from Canada, and Iraq hasn't ever been as big of a producer of oil as Saudi Arabia, who we pissed off when we invaded Iraq. Thus, would have endangered our oil supply, not increased it. I don't have any idea why we went into Iraq...maybe to finish what Daddy started? But it wasn't about oil. Otherwise we'd be rolling in it right now, and we can't even keep the pipelines secure. If this was about oil, that would be the first place we'd put the most troops, and we wouldn't have all of these problems with bombed pipe lines, because no one would be able to get within 50 miles of them. I said it before...and I say it again....This was never about oil.

val<font color=violet>lie wrote: Bullshit...this WAS about oil

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

val<font color=violet>lie wrote: Bullshit...this WAS about oil

Then where is the benefit/reward to us? Or is THAT the reason our soldiers are still dying over there... because we haven't secured our share of their oil? And here I thought the reason we went to war with Iraq was WMDs... no... it was humanitarian reasons... no... it was to spread democracy... no... it was due to a connection with 9/11... no!! It was, as Dubya said, because "he's the man who tried to kill my daddy". It was a vendetta, it was flexing muscle and playing the bully. It was enforcing scare tactics. It was all a lie. It had nothing to do with reality, with oil or with common sense. And half this country bought into it.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Thank you, Magical. @Valli, your points have merit, but you are failing to make the key connection here. Like I said before...if this is about oil, then why in the world are we paying 2.35 per gallon?

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I don't really think it was a vendetta.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: It was merely someone who thought he had a reason to go into Iraq in the first place, being proved wrong, and then desperately trying to validate himself.