The EVIL USA

[Arabesque]

Thanks for that article.

This is Iraq's "liberators". How nice are Americans.

LOL didnt they use Christina Aguilera's music to keep them awake?

shame on the US.

[nellified]

Originally Posted by Jumperjack

I agree Andy, I hate this particular US Government, I have nothing against the country itself. There is one question however that keeps puzzling me. How can a country where the majority of the people must be sane and intelligent people vote for the same idiot as their president twice? It doesn't make any sense. OK he wasn't elected by a majority the 1st time, but the 2nd time he was. That makes it even more puzzling because people must have known by that time what an idiot Bush was.

haha, thats beyond me man. i just wasnt sure how well kerry would do either, but it didnt matter cause kerry won for our state anyways. ill be sure to vote the next time around, hopefully we will have much better candidates to choose from. but thats 2 years away, which means we still have 2 years of bush.

[Vicious]

Hey Josh, 2 pages back, you boasted that your navy could handle a Middle-Eastern conflict alone right.

Here's your answer: http://www.exile.ru/2002-December-11/war_nerd.html

Very interesting, and I suggest you read it top-to-bottom.

[Jeremy]

[Nel]

Originally Posted by Jumperjack

I agree Andy, I hate this particular US Government, I have nothing against the country itself. There is one question however that keeps puzzling me. How can a country where the majority of the people must be sane and intelligent people vote for the same idiot as their president twice? It doesn't make any sense. OK he wasn't elected by a majority the 1st time, but the 2nd time he was. That makes it even more puzzling because people must have known by that time what an idiot Bush was.

the answer is quite simple......Karl Rove.

Karl Rove was able to shrewdly dictate and divert the talking points of the election. He made it less about the Iraq War and more about the culture wars (abortion, gay marriages, religion..etc.) He manage to energize the religious right to get up and vote by creating a climate that, if you vote Democrat, you will allow gays marriages and legal abortions to destroy conservative family values.

Don't find it peculiar that when Iraq turned in a downward spiral, Bush thought it was a good time to suddenly bring up an ammendment banning gay marriages...again-diversion.

So in retrospect, whether Bush is dumbest person in the world is kinda irrelevant. All the blue collar, red-neck population cared more about electing a guy who talked and acted like them. Kerry was more nuanced and sophisticated and it alienated a lot of the average-minded folks- maybe a bit too European for their liking (Bill Clinton was from Arkansas and he at least had a Southern accent).

Yeah, it's sad that it has to take a blunder like Iraq and Katrina to make people finally open their eyes.

Jermey - yeah, Marc Jacobs seems to have the right idea ;-)

[Jumperjack]

How funny that is Carlo, as atrue liberal I have nothing against conservative family values, that is their choice, I also have nothing against homesexual mariages and any other form that people choose to live, again that is their choice. I could go on but that would not be fair as we have a PM here that believes in those same values as your president Bush. The good thing is that in our country the government has always been a coalition, in my lifetime it has not happened that one party had a majority. Think about that, I think the US might benefit from that sort of system as well. Anyway you and me agree on most points, so why am I even posting this? lol.

[Nel]

Originally Posted by Jumperjack

, in my lifetime it has not happened that one party had a majority. .

that is a good point, our country would benefit if was either a Democrat president and a Republican Congress or vice versa. If you have a Republican president and republican Congress, like what my country has now, it always spells fiscal and political disaster because everything gets passed with hardly any oversight or restraint, which explains the defecit we have.

At least if Kerry won, the Iraq war would not just be a Republican problem and both parties can work together. But it's the Republican's mess, they asked for it

[Nellysman]

Originally Posted by Vicious

Hey Josh, 2 pages back, you boasted that your navy could handle a Middle-Eastern conflict alone right.

Here's your answer: http://www.exile.ru/2002-December-11/war_nerd.html

Very interesting, and I suggest you read it top-to-bottom.

Get your sources from somebody who isnt an average joe. Lets see those small planes even make it 20 miles near our ships. You forget we have Air Power and missile defense systems to combat those types of units. Besides that article is from 2002, we've allready proved the power of our Navy in Iraq(2003) and Afganistan(2001).It is also worth mentioning that Iraqi's Army did not put one plane up. Your info is old outdated and full of useless opinion from somebody who isnt even an expert just a journalist. Nobody has any game on our Military strength,mobility and ability to fight multi regional wars.

North Korea would have invaded South Korea years ago if they could afford gas for their tanks, they simply cant make it more than 30 miles into South Korea with an Army worth worry with their current refueling and Gas reserve. That is another reason why the USA is so effective, we have the money and abilitys to keep our tanks fueled at all times when most armys would run out of gas just trying to keep a small convoy going strong let alone invading with a large army. So the answer is its cheaper and easier to Build a Nuclear Weapon and use it against the USA since they cant take the US Military with Ground or Air Forces.

Think of the second most powerful army in the world and ad 15 friends to their allience, they would fail against our army. We already spend more than the next 14 most powerful military nations combined let alone having the best planes,tanks,Weapons,most high tech and best trained and equiped infantry.

[Paper Tiger]

ets see those small planes even make it 20 miles near our ships. You forget we have Air Power and missile defense systems to combat those types of units.

Pearl Harbor.

[Nellysman]

Originally Posted by Paper Tiger

Pearl harbour.

that was 1941, if you haven't noticed its 2006 and we actually have an Air Force that is always alert and better Radar plus satellites. Nobody will ever have such a free Military shot ever again on us.

You cannot compare 1941's technology with Todays. We didnt have NORAD or any Radar that was worth a shit back when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The radar we did have was still in its proving state and Navy officers back then didnt trust it and ignored the warnings from the Radar posts because of all the false alarms that were coming from it.

We've already tested our Navy in the Middle East, they cant stop us. Lets see those country's first get any planes off the ground before they can speak of attacking our Navy Ships that are equipped with smart missiles that would shoot any threat down before its a concern including single engine private planes. If our Navy wasn't effective/weak, how were we able to transport 10,000 ground units by ship to Kuwait and Basra Iraq without being noticed or challenged? Air Escorts and recon are the main reasons you will never see Tom's theory put to the test against our Navy.

Tom based his information off of some nerd who got his info from an army game LMFAO

we always have a few planes escorting our Super Carriers.