Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you are outside and a ant bites you,"$&#@ ants!"......so you go to the ant hill and start stomping all over it,now thousands of ants are trying to sting you,and the ant that bite you to begin with was from the ant hill 6 feet away from the one you stomped all over anyway.
Nope... I'd dump some gas on the anthill then through a match at it.
You dishonor the all volunteer military that sacrifices for this country.
Yes, to keep terrorism out of this country.
You talk tough but what would you do for your country ,besides whine, that is.
this is starting sound like the flip version of political correctness,any criticism of the war or Bush is to dishonor to the troops.
The troops do what they are told,but we as civilians have a duty to keep watch on government and just because the government sends troops somewhere that doesn't automatically make it honorable on the part of the leaders.
you are outside and a ant bites you,"$&#@ ants!"......so you go to the ant hill and start stomping all over it,now thousands of ants are trying to sting you,and the ant that bite you to begin with was from the ant hill 6 feet away from the one you stomped all over anyway.
haha, you did not just try to compare al-quada killing 3,000+ civilians to an ant bite did you?
p.s. al-Quada had camps in Iraq.. read the 911 commission report.
haha, you did not just try to compare al-quada killing 3,000+ civilians to an ant bite did you?
p.s. al-Quada had camps in Iraq.. read the 911 commission report.
meh not really, but the policy right now it seems is go after any terrorist if he is Muslim and stroll into each country one by one thinking we will make these people bow to our will.
A Iraqi or Iranian who may not have cared about America will be pissed of that there are foreigners on their land,trying to make it what they want it to be.You create more enemies.And they haven't even attacked yet,the Iraqis didn't attack us,the Iranians didn't (9-11).Yet we are going to start wars based on they "might"..........where does that end?What makes you think they even America can or has the right to do that?
Oh repeat it so many times you believe it "America is the best",we are "the goodguys","we have a military who can defeat anybody","the world wouldn't be anything without America"........pride can become arrogance,and it shows when there are comments about nuke em all,God will sort 'em out.I guess you have seen one Muslim you've seen 'em all eh?
We will become the very thing that attacked us on 9-11 if we go down the road that we think we are saving the world.We can't be captain of the sea,we need only be captain of our ship.Let others be unless they do attack,then we have the right to go after them.
haha, you did not just try to compare al-quada killing 3,000+ civilians to an ant bite did you?
p.s. al-Quada had camps in Iraq.. read the 911 commission report.
they had camps.......camps,is taking over a whole country needed for camps?Is it so hard to understand that people will hate you if you take over their country,who might not have been involved before?
meh not really, but the policy right now it seems is go after any terrorist if he is Muslim and stroll into each country one by one thinking we will make these people bow to our will.
Here we go again with the new US "policy" of invading countries. Please provide a link to this "policy".
Your whole posting is flawed because its based upon a false premise..
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
meh not really but my point is we are not going after them but the policy right now it seems is go after any terrorist if he is Muslim and stroll into each country one by one thinking we will make these people bow to our will.
There are a lot of muslim countries that contain terrorists that we have not invaded.
There are a lot of countries that we have not "strolled" into.
There is absolutely no evidence that we are asking the people of the countries that we do invade to "bow to our will".
We have absolutely NO historical data to base your premise on. We have attacked and defended numerous countries to "preserve world peace", never taking a dime, or any land, or dictating what type of government that those that we have conquored put into place.
Yes, I'll admit that Iraq we are taking a much greater hands on approach to the creation of a new government but we also invaded Afghaistan, and there was no government change there. We did not demand or dictate the new laws and government there, or anywhere else.
None of this changes the fact that we did not attack al-Quada first, and they existed in Iraq, and Afghanistan and unlike other countries where they exist, Iraq and Afghanistan showed their unwillingness or inability to deal with the terrorists on their own land, the very same terrorists that attacked us first, and on numerous occasions.
they had camps.......camps,is taking over a whole country needed for camps?Is it so hard to understand that people will hate you if you take over their country,who might not have been involved before?
Nope... I'd dump some gas on the anthill then through a match at it.
That is what most of us would do but this govt is too afraid to insult anyone. And so we cower down like ants, the very ones used in this scenario. Now the enemy is no longer afraid of us because we are too afraid to fight back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.