<p>
</p>
<p>Hey! Get out of my brain! There’s not enough room for the both of us in here, no matter how big it is! :D</p>
<p>LOL. I’ve been thinking along the same lines. :D</p>
<p>wait, wait, I have to go back and say, dare I say once again, that I agree with Zaphod [Post #11]. </p>
<p>Okay, I agree that you should always listen to your enemy. My father used to say that you can learn something from everybody, even the fool, if only to learn how not to be a fool.
Beside, he/she might say something really, really dopey [or has he already?] that some young, impressionable person might believe. [Was that an ad hominem attack? Can something you say be dopey without the person behind the statement being dopey?] Without the ol’ drunk warhorses speaking up from time to time, how would his words be countered?</p>
<p>But the ignore function is nice to know about . . .</p>
<p>I love this historical revisionism. Now JFK was a conservative, I never knew. </p>
<p>I have a simple question to pose. In one paragraph explain why 9-11 happend. Why did so and so do it?</p>
<p>Back in 1998, bin Laden issued his ‘fatwa’, or his legal opinion declaring a Jihad against the United States. He had no authority to do so. In his statement, he argued that it was the religious duty of Muslims to kill Americans and their allies–military and civilians.</p>
<p>After 9/11, Bin Laden gave three reasons for fighting the US…keep in mind these are all reasons he lists in his propaganda war. They are exactly that, PROPAGANDA:</p>
<p>1) The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia with the two holiest cities of Mecca and Medina</p>
<p>2) US support for Israel in its oppression of Palestinian people and occupation of Jerusalem</p>
<p>3) The suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of Washington’s campaign against Suddamn Hussein’s regime.</p>
<p>4) Us Support for dictators that oppress their people in the Middle East.</p>
<p>Ok well I know that’s what he said, my question to you is then do you deny that this has been American policy or that it should have been or should remain to be American policy.</p>
<p>American policy has been, is, and should be, to benefit American interests. I would expect that is every nation’s point of view. Mistakes have been and will be made by American policy makers. As American’s we tend to learn from our mistakes (albeit slowly sometimes), and policy makers can get voted out of office via a peaceful political process. The difference is that in the Middle East when their glorious leaders make a mistake the general population usually has squat to say about it.</p>
<p>you sidestepped the question , the 4 points that Dmeix and i brought up, do you believe that has been american policy and do you support it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or if they do, they usually find themselves disassembled while still alive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Get a clue you little prick. It is not America’s policy to support tyranny, but rather to, as shogun said, support it’s own interests. Global politics are always shifting, and old allies become new enemies. In WWII, Russia was our necessary ally to defeat the axis powers, and yet after the war we became enemies. We were never really supporting the Soviets, but rather we had a common cause.</p>
<p>In the same way in Afghanistan in the '70s and '80s we armed them to fight the Soviets because, again, the Soviets were at the time our enemies. It’s not that we supported the Afghan gov’t, but rather we had a common enemy.</p>
<p>Take a look around. The world CAN’T work in this rosy ideological sphere you think it should. It can’t, and so it doesn’t. Not only that, but it shouldn’t. In my opinion, America’s interest should always be in AMERICA.</p>
<p>Oh, and add me to the list. My fingers tire from the typing, and I think my raised blood pressure may be taking years off my life. I’m young, it’s not healthy! :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You HERETIC, you! :eek:</p>
<p>Ok fine I finally trapped you. I was waiting for you to say that. America’s interests in that region or wherever region is to get the resources they want or whatever. When it comes to staying in power and having supremacy America will fight just as dirty as the Soviet Union or the UK or the Chinese.</p>
<p>So, at least now that you have agreed to that, save every one the ******** when you say we are in Iraq to help them or that we are spreading democracy as leaders of the free world. America doesn’t have a mission to spread peace and liberty, like everyone else they want to make money and step over whoever they want to do it. And remember that the next time you try to defend the war as a “humanitarian” effort.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You really think you have some sort of argument don’t you? That’s not what I said AT ALL. All I said is that there is no reason for you to think the US should be above taking care of itself. We fight to win. The only fair fight is the one you lose.</p>
<p>Basically you’re saying that if we were invaded by [as a RANDOM (random means just something I pulled from the air you moron) example] China tomorrow, we shouldn’t use every resource to keep from being defeated. Instead we should sit back and let them steamroll us. Is that what you’re saying?!?!?!</p>
<p>I’m not advocating the use of brutal tactics as a means to an end, I’m just suggesting that there is no way to avoid the ugly side of politics. (Oh yes, there is an ugly side.)</p>
<p>I for one don’t give a rats ass if there is collateral damage if it means ultimately a swift victory for the US. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, totally justified in my opinion, for reasons I can explain later if you’re really as dense as you seem. I don’t submit that we should have a standard for use of “alternative” tactics, but that we should allow it occasionally on a case-by-case basis.</p>
<p>Confused, I have to ask… is your world like, purple or something? Is the sky maroon?</p>
<p>(Z-man, I know, such a heretic! 
)</p>
<p>BTW C23, I am a religious fanatic so if you want to skip over my post feel free to do so. I will only return the favor wholeheartedly!</p>
<p>Read the second paragraph ■■■■■■ bag I said you’re right America, like everyone else, USES BRUTAL TACTICS. The second paragraph concludes off the first. In the first paragraph I merely clarified what you said.</p>
<p>
Okay. I WILL! ;)</p>
<p>
PREACH IT, brother! </p>
<p>Here! here! :D</p>
<p>
No, but HE is. </p>
<p>Oh, I’m sorry! I thought you said MORON! :D</p>
<p>“you sidestepped the question , the 4 points that Dmeix and i brought up, do you believe that has been american policy and do you support it.”</p>
<p>I in NO WAY provided those points as examples of “American policy.” Those are reasons bin Laden provided for why he chose the fight the US. None of them have anything to do with policy, but are in fact propaganda.</p>
<p>And yes, by spreading democracy and freedom to the world, the US is acting in it’s own interest. Why? Because we’ll eventually have democratic allies all over the world! We would be able to use these countries as bases of operations for spreading more freedom to the world. More allies means less enemies, more access to resources, a more global community, etc, etc…the list goes on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, we are trying to spread liberty. I don’t always agree with the policies of this administration, but don’t just believe everything you see on CNN (confused-news-network :D), we are making a difference in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of those countries have governments that are stabilizing, and things are looking up as far as troop withdrawals. The training of Iraqi troops has been extremely efficient and, as the PM said last week, will be able to start taking care of themselves within a year. A YEAR.</p>
<p>We ARE making progress, you just don’t hear about it on the news. As a journalist, I have to say one of my favorite quotes is “when a dog bites a man, that is not news; when a man bites a dog, that is news.” --Charles Anderson Dana</p>
<p>It’s the press–rosy outlooks for the war don’t get good ratings. This is the true lesson in how people manipulate to make money. I’ll save that rant for another day.</p>
<p>That comment is way ignorant.</p>
<p>You’re telling me America isn’t in Saudi Arabia. You’re telling me America doesn’t give 8 billion a year to Israel. A 100,000 people didn’t die based on the sanctions. America doesn’t support dictators in the ME like the King of Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Where are you basing this facts from?</p>
<p>america isn’t spreading democracy , america is protecting its oil reserves and fighting with brutal tactics like everyone else, pff, ur an idioto.</p>
<p>In what way is the government in Iraq stabilizing? Civilian deaths have INCREASED. your posts don’t even follow each other. Before you said America fights to protect its interests (OILLL) and now you say its to spread liberty?!! If America wanted to spread democracy why did it coup so many democratically elected governments in the past?</p>
<p>Confused,
How many nations can you list that are willing to go into a dictatorship, depose the dictator and then be willing to leave same nation in the hands of the people who live there? Stalin sure didn’t do it, I doubt any middle eastern nation would, certainly China or N Korea wouldn’t do it. There are a handful of Western Democracys that have the ability and the will do the right thing beyond their own borders—they are a precious thing–their leaders arent always the smartest, nor do they always do the right thing, but they are the worlds best hope for peace.</p>
<p>If there is a COLLEGE Confidental moderator out there, PLEASE block “confused23” from all of the U.S. Service Academies Forums! There is no doubt in my mind, he is just a troublemaker. Mature adults do not have to resort to name calling.</p>