Justice

Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the US. He had no weapons capable of reaching the US. He had no plans to attack the US or US interests. Still no WMD found either. Bull. Shit. Kays found in his first report a new missile program and missiles that the Iraqi Government had been working on that could reach Cairo, Egypt, and could easily reach Jeruselum. This also ignores the fact that he gives money to suicide bombers, once again threatening US Interests. And as stated before NUMEROUS TIMES, he wasn't an immeninent threat. Then again, if we had waited for them to become an imminent threat it would be too late. We were stopping a guy who was trying hard to become a threat again to us from ever becoming one again.

Aw, come on. Who here ISN'T a card-carrying member of the massive right-wing conspiracy?

*CoughHaliburtonwasgiventhecontractbythemilitarynottheadministrationCough* *CoughHaliburtonputoutoilwellfiresinthefirstPersianGulfWarsotheywerenaturallythe firstchoiceCough* *CoughDickCheneyhasnothingtogainintryingtosomehowusehisVicePresidentialpowerstog etHaliburtonthecontractsCough* *CoughHaliburtondidn'tactuallypricegougeandinfactitwastheKuwaitisuppliersoHaliburtonwillhavetolik elypaythatoutofpocketforsomethingtheycouldn'tcontrolCough* *CoughYouareanimrodfornotknowinghalfofthisstuffCough* I'll respond to the original question when I've formulated a good enough response to it.

I believe they estimate the Iraqi Civilian death count to be around 15,000 at the max right now, and our own are 535, which is definitely below what we thought it would be. Considering Civilian casualties during the war were estimated at something like 100,000 and 400,000 after the war due to starvation and disease, I'd say we've done pretty good here. And hey, God only knows how many would have died if Saddam had stayed in power anyways, eh?

Shady officiating? ME? That hurts, Pete. We are more worried that you'll forget what comes after two, Chris. "ONE!" "TWO!" "..." "..." "Uh... TWO AND A HALF!"

They are no longer normal people, though. Despite extraordinary circumstances they've crossed over from being ordinary people that do ordinary things into sub-human monkeys who want to kill for their causes. To compare them to the average Joe is idiotic: While they may have started as ordinary people they are no longer ordinary people and likely will never be ordinary people again. But... that makes no sense. It is indirect contradiction to your assertion that killing terrorists only makes more terrorists. Hell, arguably imprisioning one's family members could turn one to terrorism if he were so inclined. Should we stop doing that as well? And another question: If we don't kill all we know about, how do we know which ones to let go and which ones to kill? This argument lacks logic or basic common sense, man. They think? Dude, they've known that the US has been at war with the Arab world for a while. Their ideology doesn't base their reasons on assumptions, but twisted facts and heresay. To say that we are giving them a justification is completely ignoring the fact that they have long justified themselves against us anyways. And just to tell you: Sitting back from a distance and telling them "Don't do that" won't stop terrorism much either. In all honesty, Al-Qaida isn't doing so good anyways. Most of their command structure, believe it or not, was destroyed when we invaded Afganistan, along with their group cohesion. They are pretty much scattered and alone in small groups now. I'm really not worried about them. And we WANT them to go into Iraq. Would you rather them attack US Civilians or US Marines with better weapons, training, and vehicles? Seriously, the All-Qaida All Stars will get their asses handed to them like they did at Samarra. And I'd define our troops more like a "Viper's nest" rather than sitting ducks, and I'm sure the guys in the M1A2s would agree with me. ... Uh, its only been 9 months, dude. It took a while to rebuild Europe. It took a while to rebuild Japan. But to say the good doesn't outweigh the bad is idiotic: They are still where they were in terms of their current living status, but they don't have a government that will come into their house and take their family off to be tortured or raped. The eleviation of that fear alone is good enough to justify this war. ... ... ... To those carrying it out, terrorism will NEVER be completely un-worthwhile. That's almost impossible to do. We've captured almost the entire Iraqi deck plus most of the Al-Qaida command structure (I believe we have #2 and #3 at the moment). To say we haven't captured those in commands is an uninformed statement. I'd take that back. And we will capture Bin Laden. Give us time. ... Okay, you are just dumb to think the idea behind 9/11 in New York was to kill as many people as possible. I'm not even going to put effort to try and stop this one.

Well, it does make their claims that America is pushing them around look unfounded. I've somewhat believed that terrorism on the level of 9/11 is almost impossible. The fact that 9/11 even got pulled off must be a fluke, because it's taken how many years for them to be able to do something that massive once? Well, they could always say "The UN is just a tool of the US to look as though it has the support of the world" because, let's face it, there still would have been massive protests even IF the UN had led the way into Iraq. It's just how it is sometimes. 9/11 was indeed an attack that took a very long time to plan and get off. But the claim that they probably aren't trying to do it again because they have nothing to gain off it is incredibly naive. They are looking to cause as much death and destruction in the name of their cause as they possibly can. What better way than that?

BX, please stop the flamingbaiting. You are just gonna get yourself banned if you just flame Mike wherever he posts. I only say this as a friendly warning. On Topic: That's way too general a statement. What if their relatives disagreed with them? Only a very small amount of people will become terrorists because of our actions, and it was likely that they would have become terrorists anyways. Another question: If killing terrorists only creates more terrorists, why fight them? Are you suggesting that we just stop fighting them? And I completely disagree with your statement on the War on Terror: They thought we were after them long before Bush declared the War on Terror. To simply think that they are coming in force now is because we are embroiled in a War on Terror is naive; it's more a result of our foreign policy and action being strictly centered around the Middle East, creating more openings for Terrorist attacks on our troops that is occuring. They may HAVE been normal people, but once one makes the jump to killing people to complete a political objective they have fallen outside the norm. A serial killer could be a normal person before, but once he starts summarily murdering people we don't call him normal again, now do we? ... But that contradicts what you said above saying that killing more terrorists will only create more. Should we only kill the ones without families or something? The reason behind invading Iraq has NO BEARING on these people attacking us. If we had gone in because we said "Saddam is evil", they would have dismissed that just as heartily. Terrorists don't look at our reasons; they choose to make those up for us to further their own causes. Going into Iraq certainly didn't hurt, either: it shows that we are now making an effort to root out the evil in the Middle East and attack those who have supported them in the past. A more aggressive stance puts the terrorist on the defensive rather than the offensive. Think of it this way: if the Al-Qaida All-Stars are filtering across the border into Iraq to attack armed Marines, that means they can't try to get into the US and attack our civilians. By doing so we protect our people while drawing them into the open where we can engage them on our terms (Even engaging them in a guerilla war is far more advantageous to us than trying to find them in our own country). Of course freeing the people of Iraq helped increase Pro-US sentiment in that country. Of course it polarized terrorists in the area, the good far outweighs the bad here. From your second post: We haven't done this yet? We've shown that we will come to your area, kill off your suppliers, take your supporters out of power, and find and kill you like the rats you are. How do you not make something like 9/11 not worth it without what we've done already? And finally, your first post: B.S. 9/11 was not just about publicity, it was trying to hurt us as much as possible. They don't care about pissing us off anymore: These people are doing open battle with tanks and Marines right now. Do you think they care about pissing the US off anymore? 9/11 is the epitomy of what a terrorist attack should be and they are, without doubt, going to try and stage another one. Killing 3,000 infidels with 19 men is DEFINITELY a tasty prospect to them.

Okay, now that has to be the funniest thing I've ever seen BX do.

You know what? I just realized who Santa was. The bastard.

Give the Mossad 30 minutes with Saddam and I'll bet he'd be willing to tell the US anything they want.

I suggested an idea a while back that guys without a good program in the WF pick a rising JLer and execute a feud with them. Maybe not as much one-on-one fighting, but promoing back and forth and just injecting new blood and storylines into the system. Guys coming back with ring-rust would be ideal to set against a hot JLer, and this way they get an idea of what it's like to run a really good feud. You could have the blow-off as a JL ME or hell, even a lower-card WF match.

Amazing speech, but like Eric I would like to see his sources. I'd put a bit more faith (Ha) in his speech if he gave some cites behind it, though I do agree with him that Global Warming is more a natural act of the Earth than us really doing anything.

I believe Bush lost something like one of the hundred or so recounts done by Newspapers. Something like that; I know at least one newspaper came up with a different result.

Whether or not it is the greatest movie ever, I think it may (With the quality of all three movies, guessing on the current reviews I've seen) be the greatest trilogy of all time.

Let's not take what Rush Limbaugh says seriously. He's not really any different than Michael Moore (he's just on the other side). Rush is a bit more factual with his arguments, actually. Now Ann Cloutier or whatever, now you have an argument.

But your points really don't have a point. We know we armed Osama and Saddam. For what it's worth, the US help with their terror was minimal. There's no point to it besides to obviously flamebaiting for some of us. We already know all that shit; to parade it around as though it's incredibly new or shocking is moronic. We could have stayed there as long as we wanted; the media lacks any say in US foreign policy, sorry to say. If we really wanted to stay in Vietnam, nothing would be able to stop us. The NVA had no chance of uprooting. Protesters could protest all they like, but if we were adamant about staying in Vietnam no one could stop us. The reason we DID pull out WAS because of the media, not because we couldn't win. Indeed, there would be some successes and failures, but things like the Tet Offensive, which was a huge Viet Cong failure but portrayed by the media as one of our own failures hurt us. Again, nice try but no. The media doesn't dictate foreign policy. If we had stayed in Vietnam, even against the public will, we could have won. I didn't contradict myself, but a nice effort there.

You know, you have to wonder if this will somehow end up with Benoit winning the Rumble. Of course that may be wishful thinking, but that's almost what it's looking like.

Uh, point in case: North Korea barely has enough food to feed its people at the moment. If anything, it would be a nuclear attack, and the response to that is pretty obvious. We aren't at risk of being attacked or invaded by any nation because geography argues against it: You'd have to get past the strongest Navy in the World to have a shot at it.

... Because we had been there before Nixon took office? Our reasons for getting involved were still good. He died in 1963. The Vietnam war went on LONG after that. We were trying to save the people from a worse regieme under Ho Chi Minh while trying to contain Communism in Southeast Asia. Because the media was more concerned with showing dead Americans rather than our successes? That most people were more concerned with not getting drafted than actual peace? Wow, now THERE'S a loaded question. We didn't send them there to just die, we sent them there to stop the growing threat of Communism and stop a hostile invasion by another country. The same could be said for Korea. Would you argue that was a bad war to fight as well?

The last one is pretty much the big offense there. The other things are simple business deals (Done by companies rather than the US Government.) Is there any proof that the US Gov't had any involvement on the first one, though?

I know. Send that back to whoever wrote it. I saw the quotations. Sorry if you thought that was me bitching at you. Oops! Sorry! No problem. I can easily see how the mistake can be made .

Considering they didn't overcharge (the Kuwaitis did and there is no evidence to suggest any sort of kickbacks going on), nope, this doesn't worry me that much.

We did not. We did, however, continue to assist them when we KNEW they had chemical weapons. How much assistance did we actually give? I only remember the one time back in 1983. That's about it.

I know. Send that back to whoever wrote it. I saw the quotations. Sorry if you thought that was me bitching at you.