Justice

I'm sorry --- there are no violent parts in America. I forgot. -=Mike Not on the level of Iraq. or did I miss a RPG attack in Detroit? There are many other ways to die in Detroit, I assure you.

Yeah.. that's one difference. It'd be like if we were fighting the Iranian army during this. No, it's a lot different than that. Fighting an organized Army on it's own turf, especially that of Vietnam, is something that has a bit of challenge to it. But... that doesn't make it comparable, even if it is the closest. This is the closest to an actual extended military action we've had since Vietnam. But a quagmire like Vietnam? No, not by a longshot. If it were a Civil War, it was on a completely different scale. You are talking about a full-fledged war between two countries compared to a strict guerilla war by an insurgency. I wouldn't even call Iraq a civil war. 20,000 is the largest estimate, and there's significant argument over that at the moment. It ranges from 5,000-20,000, and on size that's nothing compared to what we were fighting during the Vietnam War. Frankly, for what it could be, I'd say we are luckier than we think. I disagree with the power vacuum statement. The new Iraqi Government is beginning to solidify behind Allawi. With Sadr being handled, I think the new Iraqi government looks a lot stronger. Of course there are cultural problems... they've basically been ignored by Saddam for a long time because he simply oppressed them so much. We need to work towards normalizing those. And on resentments: There will always be resentments from people. That doesn't mean anything to me. Some things have to be done. Agreed, we need to improve. But to compare this to Vietnam... it's just plain wrong. There are so many differences both militarily and politically that make it a much different war than Vietnam. GreatOne does make a good point in that the goal in this one is a lot clearer than Vietnam, and many Americans understand the importance of our action and involvement there. Vietnam, both of these were very much missing from the table. And if there are so many differences, why do you continue to compare the two? I'm sorry, but that's the only way to put that crap. It's just irritating as hell to see the incredibly generalizations made about war, Vietnam, and the entire situation overseas. The entire tone of it is filled with a sort of teenage angst that makes me want to gag... Robbie, you okay? There is something significantly different about your tone in your post compared to your other ones. I dunno if anyone else noticed it, but it seems fairly evident to me.

Actually, Robbie, the biggest difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that we were fighting a standing, well-trained and moderately well-equiped army with the NVA. Every is so hot to jump on the Viet Cong, but the NVA was the most effective fighting force opposing us in that conflict. Hell, the Viet Cong essentially ceased to be as a fighting force after the huge failure called the Tet Offensive. Were there elections in SV? I remember a triad of generals taking over after the President was assassinated. The problem with politics is that we have people like you who are looking at a prolonged war as though it's exactly like Vietnam. This isn't one country trying to invade another. This is a small insurgency trying to disrupt a government that is solidifying slowly but surely. It seems like "Guerilla Warfare" automatically means Vietnam with so many people when the political conditions are so different that it's not even funny. That's just my look on it. I see a few very critical difference between Vietnam and Iraq that really change the playing field.

I suppose that's true, but one could say the same of Zogby, which consistantly gives Kerry much larger leads and gains than any of the other polls show.

So... you endorse positive reinforcement as a course of action? Because, frankly, that's all that this is. You release a few prisoners, then next week they take another one and demand more. Appeasing a terrorist is the worst possible course we could take with this; it solves nothing and it only makes us look weaker in their eyes, which is something we don't want to do because they'll only push us more.

Shut up, Special K. We all know you're just a homo.

Stop it. Can anyone find the hidden joke in this post?

If JFK put a full effort into it, there would have been no chance for Cuba to hold out. USN + USMC > Whatever Cuba could throw at us.

You know about the whole "Winter Soldier" thing, right?

I'm far from a palestinian sympathizer, but this is the most erroneous thing I've heard in quite awhile about the matter. Israel would CEASE TO EXIST if it were not for the huge amount of financial support from the United States. It's been bailed out of financial peril so many times I've lost count. This is ONE of the reasons why Osama lists "Israel" and "USA" side by side on his target list. Um, you have a few mistakes in there. Israel would still exist if we dropped funding. They would instantly go into war-time economy style deficit spending. In all likelihood, they'd become incredibly paranoid as well since they just lost their best buddy and it'd be like letting a pitbull loose among a bunch of children. Osama hates Israel because it's a Jewish state. That's pretty much the end of that. Osama started hating the US not for helping Israel, but for helping out the Saudi Government by placing US troops in Saudi Arabia. He was virulently opposed to this and it lead to his eventual banishment.

As the Commander in Chief (and if this story is true) then yes it is fault. Bush isn't the Second Coming, he does have his flaws, you know As Commander-in-Chief, he has to keep tabs on every piss-ant junior officer who talks shit like this to his men? Wow, the Presidential powers have really expanded...

Whether it was his fault or not, the war in Iraq was based on misinformation given to him. At best it's one of history's biggest "errors." EDIT: Main point is an error of this magnitutde disqualifies him from greatness immediately. It's an error right now... If it turns out that those WMDs ended up in Syria, it won't be an error anymore because Saddam moved them there right before the war. Agreed. To call it a mistake now is an even bigger mistake. There is a long-term upside to Iraq, and it isn't nearly as bad in the short-term as so many people have tried to make it out to be.

Rasmussen has Bush up 3, actually, judging from the site.

It was an honest question. I believe you. It just come off very rhetorical when I initially read it, that's all.

Wow. I pretty much agree with all of Thread Killer's points. This thread looked as though it was gonna be quite a big flamebait (No offense, but the question posed was very loaded, imo), but very nice response.

Yeah, I know. I guess I'm just sorta bitchy because I'm in all out attack mode after that whole 9/11 thread crap. :\

And Zogby leans Liberal, but I don't see anyone complaining about outlier-ish low numbers Bush tends to get with them...

Pieces of a plane have the same momentum as a whole plane? I should email 10 random physics professors of the net and see what they have to say about that one. Well, the Purdue study shows us that the bulk of the plane stayed together even as the explosion occurred, so I'd think the physics professors would agree with me. It's funny how everyone else gets it, but you lack the brain capacity to see where I was getting at. Of course, you also lack the brain capacity to question your conspiracy sources, so I shouldn't be too surprised. And if you can't defend it in any way, they why the hell do you keep bringing it up? Pretty much everyone on the forum but you seems to get what I'm saying. There's a difference between roughly explaining and can't explain at all. You are really getting desperate here. How much more proof do you need? Everything else has been proven pretty much impossible. To quote Sherlock Holmes, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." We've effectively eliminated all your other ones through major flaws in your argument or being a fantasy land. How much would it be to accept that what the government told us is the truth? Missed the point? You brought up useless quotes in some sort of effort to legitimize your weird and wacky beliefs about 9/11. I attacked you on them for being completely out of context. What did I miss? I think I'm fine handling idiots like you for the moment. Thank you, though. You didn't lightly play devil's advocate. You've been posting conspiracy stuff like this for the last few weeks and posting these long conspiratorial responses with random, out-of-context quotes and a picture or two. Either 1) You're a troll looking to stir up controversy the same way Kamui did or 2) You are a full blown idiot. Length played a part, as was duration of appearance, approximate size... It's not a dust cloud because it disappears way too fast. Same with a smoke trail. Judging by the trajectory, that obviously leads me to believe that it's the object that hits the Pentagon. Judging by it's size in comparison to the Pentagon, I'd say it's larger than both the GH and the Tomahawk, and the shape isn't right for an F-16 (Way too cylindrical). I'll finish up when I'm out of class.

You tend to. You'd better just sit back and suck on a lollipop while the big boys discuss this.

... "The Seven Sins" sucked, you bastard.

Go ahead and try it. I'll just bleed all over your lawn. And I'm NOT letting him try to get the last word in with things like "Well, I have proof it was a Global Hawk!!!!11! LOLYNDONLAROUCHEIN2004!!!!1"

exploding missile = water balloon exploding plane = big ball of metal or rock Pentagon = window umm OK I think I understand what you mean though, but on one hand you keep talking about how reinforced the Pentagon is and then on the other you are talking about how a plane explodes on the outside of this mighty building and is still able to deeply penetrate it because once a plane explodes it turns into a rock or something. Do you have an extensive background in physics or anything related, or are you just basing everything off of what you think should happen? *Sigh* I study military systems for a hobby. I was going to go to the Naval Academy had some things not come up in my life. I know how missiles work, and the damage is not consistant with a missile. I've told you this again and again, but you don't listen. You stupidly put your hands over your ears and say "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA (INSERT RANDOM PIC OF HOLE IN WALL THAT DOESN'T FURTHER ARGUMENT) LA LA LA LA LA LA". Listen. A missile, when it explodes, uses all of it's force up on the explosion. This is a fact; there isn't a second stage where some big object suddenly hurtles forth or something. Therefore, the damage would be contained only to the outer wall and slightly beyond that, considering the reinforced nature of the Pentagon: It was designed to withstand explosive blasts. It was not designed to have huge objects hurtled at it. The plane, despite the explosion, retains its mass and momentum, allowing it to carry through and skid, which is consistant with what Purdue found, and consistant with what my general physics knowledge. Explain to me how a Tomahakw Missile could explode on the outside and somehow carry through to cause that much damage. I dare you. They disprove the "missing wings" problem easily. They disprove the "The Hole Wasn't Big Enough" claim. They disprove the "It was the wrong turbine" claim. Those are BIG parts in the argument. There are other things brought to the table, but those are the big three. The Purdue study trumps all. They show you why and how everything ended up the way it did, the reason you can't find the wings, all of that. There hasn't been a rebuttal brought up. Until it is, you have no legs to stand on in the argument. ... You're an idiot. If you can't see that half your quotes already ARE making something more than what it really is, you're just moronic. Would you like me to bring up all the eyewitnesses that said it was the Jetliner, or will you just dismiss those and listen to the 3 or 4 that say what you want them to say? The bolded part is disproved in the comments below your article more than once, actually. Stop using it as a defense. I did look at your side of it. It's through my own experience that I dismissed it. The "You aren't being open-minded" is the last defense of tools whose beliefs are so beyond reason that they can't possibly justify any other reason why people don't agree with them. I'm open-minded; I'm sure most people on this board are more open-minded than they let on. There's a difference between being open-minded and just dumb, and you have proven yourself to be quite stupid. But when he's proven overwhelmingly innocent of the crime (thank you, Purdue), do you still suspect him of murder? BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Knowing what that is, you've definitely lost ALL credibility in my eyes. Please, do, because it seems like you have been trolling the internet for these wacky claims for a long time, haven't you? The Global Hawk is 13.4m long. You can't possibly tell me that that thing is only 13.4m long. The dimensions don't add up, or maybe you didn't notice that. Seriously, if you put credibility into the claim that it was a USAF Drone, you have my best wishes. That just made my day... That's not true. They are fairly obscured, and if you bothered to read the comments at the bottom of your article, you'd understand why that assumption is wrong. Just because a few of the families do it doesn't mean it gains any credibility. How many families, to be exact? Government line... brought to you by military people and scientists! Seriously, that doesn't impress me much. The fact that their article was flawed in large parts of their argument speaks enough of their credentials to me. And since Tom brings up the picture, explain to me, please, how that fits in. Seriously, how does it?

So you are saying a plane would do more damage than a missile? I can't follow you... Jesus... this is just too hard to get through to you. If it were a missile, hitting an incredibly reinforced building on the outside of it, it couldn't have done nearly as much damage as it did. Of course you have explosive force, but against something that is reinforced as the Pentagon is, it wouldn't work; We don't build missiles to just collide and blow shit up, we build them to penetrate and explode in the soft core. That obviously didn't happen in the video: The explosion certainly happened on the outside, which reduces the effectiveness of the missile's blast GREATLY. This is much unlike a plane, where it would just hurtle through because it's just a great big ball of metal. It's like throwing a water balloon at a window and throwing a rock at a window: A water balloon will explode on the outside and discharge all it's force there, while the rock goes straight through it, still keeping some of the force while it hurtles through. JESUS, JUST READ THE BOTTOM COMMENTS. The posters pick up on some very important details that these guys obviously missed. Maybe if you'd pull your head away from your Lydon LaRouche Pamphlet and start actually reading what I wrote, we'd get somewhere here. *Sighs and Shakes head* You don't understand, do you? A few of the quotes are taken right out of context. Like the Steve Patterson one: He says it was a Commuter Jet. Just because he didn't know the exact size means nothing, because says, well, it was a friggin jet. You don't mistake a Tomahawk Missile for a commuter Jet. They aren't that similar. Most of these people didn't actually SEE the plane. They just heard it, and saying "It sounded like a missile" isn't at all definitive proof. That's just like saying "A car sped past me on the street and it sounded like an F-1 racer". That doesn't mean it's true, it's just a comparison, but you just can't seem to grasp that; you take everything that shouldn't be taken at literal value and everything that probably should be taken literally in other new and interesting directions. Oh, and for the Rumsfeld one: mis·sile ( P ) (msl, -l) n. 1) An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile. Wow, a jetliner sure sounds like a projectile to me. Excuse me? I've shown you the Purdue study. Show me something to refute it. Your articles were before the Purdue study, so they don't prove anything, especially with all the omissions and "liberties" they take with things... You post a picture of a small hole which, for all intents and purposes, holds no value to us. Explain why this proves it was a missile. Explain the missile's blast, after mostly being let off on the outside, could have caused this hole. Or how an F-16, a much smaller and more fragile plane, could have caused this hole. Or wherever the hell Flight 77 went and where the people are now. Edit: And address the "It could be dust" defense that I ripped apart. You seemed to abandon that one...

I don't care, really, about pot (Since, well, it's grown and not a manufactured drug), but anything else, before it can be legalized, better pass the FDA. If it can't, oh well.

Yeah, that sort of confused me. How was that picture supposed to help you, anyways?