Here's a question about Government, Military, justice and whats acceptable

The invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11... it was all about oil, and tightening the reigns on American liberties in or to increase govenment control... just look at the Patiot Act... you could be arrested tomorrow, be held indefinitely without a trial, and all theyd have to say is they "suspect" you of terrorism... they don't need any evidence or any proof... but if u start putting leaders feet to the fire (what the media used to do) then people will speak out against you and say you love the terrorists or you are in Al-qaeda...

we killed thousands of innoncent Iraqi civilians since this war started, tortured innocent people in secret military prisons, and all for what?

just look at the mess that is TSA.

one thing i've noticed is that so many Americans dont care if they lose all their freedoms, as long as it makes them feel safer...

Scoob64

I hate the TSA, most Americans do.

You've also jumped on massive hyperbole of hating the war in the Middle East. Really easy to believe everything negative on the internet isn't it?

We got so much oil for Iraq is is just crazy, our oil problems are just solved. :?

Face it, in 2003 Congress and the majority of the US backed an invasion of Iraq to get rid of a dictator who we had tons of evidence was backing terrorist organizations and possibly was giving them weapons of mass destruction (which we know they had previously because they had used them before). However once we got in with no really clear way out, we got bogged down in a massive insurgency and tried to keep several political/religious factions from taring each other apart. Little known fact, Iraqis killed more civilians than any coalition military did. They were constantly killing each other over pretty much everything. Since Saddam was gone there was no oppressive military regime (who used chemical weapons on its own people) to stop them from finally fighting each other.

Do some homework before just spouting crap like a secret military police and us slaughtering innocents. It's so easy to look back after-the-fact 8 years later and say we were wrong without understanding the mentality of the people during those few years. Also your information is so misleading you have no hope of having a clear view on what's going on in the middle east.

Face it, in 2003 Congress and the majority of the US backed an invasion of Iraq to get rid of a dictator who we had tons of evidence was backing terrorist organizations and possibly was giving them weapons of mass destruction (which we know they had previously because they had used them before). However once we got in with no really clear way out, we got bogged down in a massive insurgency and tried to keep several political/religious factions from taring each other apart. Little known fact, Iraqis killed more civilians than any coalition military did. They were constantly killing each other over pretty much everything. Since Saddam was gone there was no oppressive military regime (who used chemical weapons on its own people) to stop them from finally fighting each other.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

The invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11... it was all about oil, and tightening the reigns on American liberties in or to increase govenment control... just look at the Patiot Act... you could be arrested tomorrow, be held indefinitely without a trial, and all theyd have to say is they "suspect" you of terrorism... they don't need any evidence or any proof... but if u start putting leaders feet to the fire (what the media used to do) then people will speak out against you and say you love the terrorists or you are in Al-qaeda...

we killed thousands of innoncent Iraqi civilians since this war started, tortured innocent people in secret military prisons, and all for what?

just look at the mess that is TSA.

one thing i've noticed is that so many Americans dont care if they lose all their freedoms, as long as it makes them feel safer...

Wasdie

I hate the TSA, most Americans do.

You've also jumped on massive hyperbole of hating the war in the Middle East. Really easy to believe everything negative on the internet isn't it?

We got so much oil for Iraq is is just crazy, our oil problems are just solved. :?

Face it, in 2003 Congress and the majority of the US backed an invasion of Iraq to get rid of a dictator who we had tons of evidence was backing terrorist organizations and possibly was giving them weapons of mass destruction (which we know they had previously because they had used them before). However once we got in with no really clear way out, we got bogged down in a massive insurgency and tried to keep several political/religious factions from taring each other apart. Little known fact, Iraqis killed more civilians than any coalition military did. They were constantly killing each other over pretty much everything. Since Saddam was gone there was no oppressive military regime (who used chemical weapons on its own people) to stop them from finally fighting each other.

Do some homework before just spouting crap like a secret military police and us slaughtering innocents. It's so easy to look back after-the-fact 8 years later and say we were wrong without understanding the mentality of the people during those few years. Also your information is so misleading you have no hope of having a clear view on what's going on in the middle east.

wow, there is no need to be condescending... and I have done some homework on this issue - i'm not a political scientist, but do take an interest in whats going on in the world.

our government put Saddam in power to begin with... and we were told by the Bush administration that we were invading Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction, which they didn't. We stayed in Iraq, causing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and thousands of American soldiers lives in order to save face and continue the war profiteering...all under the justification thatif we stayedthere that the terrorists would movein and take control etc etc... its all just war propoganda and fear tactics, my friend... if you know your history you know that this country has been doing this for years...just look at the Vietnam War. This country is 14 trillion in debt and we spend a ridiculous amount of moneyon this war in the middle east...our government loves to meddle in the affairs of other countries, and basically police the world... all while we argue about how in debt we should allow ourselves to become.Why not come home and just defend THIS country and take care of our own people before we bankrupt ourelves?

If we really wanted some justification for 9/11 why not go into Afghanistan where they were supposedly located at the time? 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to get our butts into Iraq, where the neo-cons wanted us for years. Do you honestly think the government cares more about the troops and citizens than money? Just look at the ongoing debate about taking care of the medical expenses of the first responders who worked at ground zero.... they still can't even get cancer treatment paid for by the government.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Face it, in 2003 Congress and the majority of the US backed an invasion of Iraq to get rid of a dictator who we had tons of evidence was backing terrorist organizations and possibly was giving them weapons of mass destruction (which we know they had previously because they had used them before). However once we got in with no really clear way out, we got bogged down in a massive insurgency and tried to keep several political/religious factions from taring each other apart. Little known fact, Iraqis killed more civilians than any coalition military did. They were constantly killing each other over pretty much everything. Since Saddam was gone there was no oppressive military regime (who used chemical weapons on its own people) to stop them from finally fighting each other.

LJS9502_basic

I would.

However you see it quickly drop as people realize we made some really dumb mistakes on the political side of things and got ourselves caught up in a drawn out war. I will say that Dick Cheney should have probably been relieved of his duties as his ties with Halliburton led to many terrible political decisions that worsened our cause.

Nothing we can do about it now. At least Iraq is back to being stable and under its own control. Took forever and I do blame certain politicians for that, but my points still stands that a majority of Americans supported the war for the first year or two. That changed fast as the link shows. It got horribly unpopular towards the end of the Bush Administration and is probably the biggest reason Obama won in 08.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Face it, in 2003 Congress and the majority of the US backed an invasion of Iraq to get rid of a dictator who we had tons of evidence was backing terrorist organizations and possibly was giving them weapons of mass destruction (which we know they had previously because they had used them before). However once we got in with no really clear way out, we got bogged down in a massive insurgency and tried to keep several political/religious factions from taring each other apart. Little known fact, Iraqis killed more civilians than any coalition military did. They were constantly killing each other over pretty much everything. Since Saddam was gone there was no oppressive military regime (who used chemical weapons on its own people) to stop them from finally fighting each other.

Wasdie

I would.

However you see it quickly drop as people realize we made some really dumb mistakes on the political side of things and got ourselves caught up in a drawn out war. I will say that Dick Cheney should have probably been relieved of his duties as his ties with Halliburton led to many terrible political decisions that worsened our cause.

Nothing we can do about it now. At least Iraq is back to being stable and under its own control. Took forever and I do blame certain politicians for that, but my points still stands that a majority of Americans supported the war for the first year or two. That changed fast as the link shows. It got horribly unpopular towards the end of the Bush Administration and is probably the biggest reason Obama won in 08.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

The invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11... it was all about oil, and tightening the reigns on American liberties in or to increase govenment control... just look at the Patiot Act... you could be arrested tomorrow, be held indefinitely without a trial, and all theyd have to say is they "suspect" you of terrorism... they don't need any evidence or any proof... but if u start putting leaders feet to the fire (what the media used to do) then people will speak out against you and say you love the terrorists or you are in Al-qaeda...

we killed thousands of innoncent Iraqi civilians since this war started, tortured innocent people in secret military prisons, and all for what?

just look at the mess that is TSA.

one thing i've noticed is that so many Americans dont care if they lose all their freedoms, as long as it makes them feel safer...

Scoob64

I hate the TSA, most Americans do.

You've also jumped on massive hyperbole of hating the war in the Middle East. Really easy to believe everything negative on the internet isn't it?

We got so much oil for Iraq is is just crazy, our oil problems are just solved. :?

Face it, in 2003 Congress and the majority of the US backed an invasion of Iraq to get rid of a dictator who we had tons of evidence was backing terrorist organizations and possibly was giving them weapons of mass destruction (which we know they had previously because they had used them before). However once we got in with no really clear way out, we got bogged down in a massive insurgency and tried to keep several political/religious factions from taring each other apart. Little known fact, Iraqis killed more civilians than any coalition military did. They were constantly killing each other over pretty much everything. Since Saddam was gone there was no oppressive military regime (who used chemical weapons on its own people) to stop them from finally fighting each other.

Do some homework before just spouting crap like a secret military police and us slaughtering innocents. It's so easy to look back after-the-fact 8 years later and say we were wrong without understanding the mentality of the people during those few years. Also your information is so misleading you have no hope of having a clear view on what's going on in the middle east.

wow, there is no need to be condescending... and I have done some homework on this issue - i'm not a political scientist, but do take an interest in whats going on in the world.

our governmentput Saddam in power to begin with... and we were told by the Bush administration that we were invading Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction, which they didn't. We stayed in Iraq, causing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and thousands of American soldiers lives in order to save face and continue the war profiteering...allunder the justification thatif we stayedthere that the terrorists would movein and take control etc etc... its all just war propoganda and fear tactics, my friend... if you know your history you know that this country has been doingthis for years...just look at the Vietnam War. This country is 14 trillion in debt and we spend a ridiculous amount of moneyon this war in the middle east...our governmentloves to meddle in the affairs of other countries, andbasically police the world... all while we argue about how in debt we should allow ourselves to become.Why not come home and just defend THIScountry and take care of our own people before we bankrupt ourelves?

If we really wanted some justification for 9/11why not go into Afghanistan where they were supposedly located at the time? 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to get our butts into Iraq, where the neo-cons wanted us for years. Do you honestly think the government cares more about the troops and citizens than money? Just look at the ongoing debate about taking care of the medical expenses of the first responders who worked at ground zero.... they still can't even get cancer treatment paid for by the government.

As I've already said, we knew for a fact that Saddam had WMDs at one point. Their constant refusals of nuclear inspections during the Clinton administration were also good causes to be alarmed. If you actually did your homework you would know the Shia and Sunni did NOT like each other in Iraq. The minority group, the Shia, had been the ones in power forcing the majority group, the Sunni, into submission. Once we took out the leaders that all went to hell and bascially a civil war started. It was a bad situation, let an oppressive government continue to execute and violently control the majortiy of the people, or change it. Seeing we were trying to stop Saddam from aiding our enemies in the region, we kind of had no choice.

Also you mention the Vietnam War. Did you not know that North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam who were our allies? It's not like we just went over there and invaded a country because we felt like it. The war was massively unpopular and the only reason we lost because the of the political pressure to just abandon South Vietnam got to great.

We went into Afghanistan in early 2002 (and even sent special forces to back the few surviving guerrilla groups fighting the Taliban in 2001). We are still in Afghanistan fighting our enemies.

You're really spilling seperate issues into each other and trying to blow things out of porportion to what they are. Yes the war spending has been quite a bit I won't disagree with you, but we aren't just fighting because we want to. There is a reason.

You say that you want us to defend our lands then speak out against the TSA. That's a massive contradiction in itself. I hate the TSA but I understand why they exist. They just don't have to be so damn invasive.

Those graphs are merely the trends of those asked. I'd say the majority of Americans were apathetic and are apathetic to most political endeavors. When you include the entire population you have to realize that includes those incarcerated, those homeless, those in poverty, those that are ill, etc. I'm not comfortable with believing people that have their own valid concerns are going to be gung ho about the US engaging in war. Yes...the support was higher at the beginning of the war then it was later and is now. But that in no way can mean the majority of Americans backed the actual war.

LJS9502_basic

You're implying random sampling doesn't work. Every major poll is like that. Basic statistics works. You have a 3% margin of error from random sampling as long as the sample size was large enough. Those national polls are usually from tens of thousands of people across the country. They are a very accurate measure of what the country believes.

Basically you're just trying to say I'm wrong after I showed you evidence. I've even said the war was not popular a few years after it started but when it first did the American public was behind it. If you want to ignore evidence because you don't believe in basic mathematics and statistics, I guess there is just nothing I can do.

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I hate the TSA, most Americans do.

You've also jumped on massive hyperbole of hating the war in the Middle East. Really easy to believe everything negative on the internet isn't it?

We got so much oil for Iraq is is just crazy, our oil problems are just solved. :?

Face it, in 2003 Congress and the majority of the US backed an invasion of Iraq to get rid of a dictator who we had tons of evidence was backing terrorist organizations and possibly was giving them weapons of mass destruction (which we know they had previously because they had used them before). However once we got in with no really clear way out, we got bogged down in a massive insurgency and tried to keep several political/religious factions from taring each other apart. Little known fact, Iraqis killed more civilians than any coalition military did. They were constantly killing each other over pretty much everything. Since Saddam was gone there was no oppressive military regime (who used chemical weapons on its own people) to stop them from finally fighting each other.

Do some homework before just spouting crap like a secret military police and us slaughtering innocents. It's so easy to look back after-the-fact 8 years later and say we were wrong without understanding the mentality of the people during those few years. Also your information is so misleading you have no hope of having a clear view on what's going on in the middle east.

Wasdie

wow, there is no need to be condescending... and I have done some homework on this issue - i'm not a political scientist, but do take an interest in whats going on in the world.

our governmentput Saddam in power to begin with... and we were told by the Bush administration that we were invading Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction, which they didn't. We stayed in Iraq, causing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, and thousands of American soldiers lives in order to save face and continue the war profiteering...allunder the justification thatif we stayedthere that the terrorists would movein and take control etc etc... its all just war propoganda and fear tactics, my friend... if you know your history you know that this country has been doingthis for years...just look at the Vietnam War. This country is 14 trillion in debt and we spend a ridiculous amount of moneyon this war in the middle east...our governmentloves to meddle in the affairs of other countries, andbasically police the world... all while we argue about how in debt we should allow ourselves to become.Why not come home and just defend THIScountry and take care of our own people before we bankrupt ourelves?

If we really wanted some justification for 9/11why not go into Afghanistan where they were supposedly located at the time? 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to get our butts into Iraq, where the neo-cons wanted us for years. Do you honestly think the government cares more about the troops and citizens than money? Just look at the ongoing debate about taking care of the medical expenses of the first responders who worked at ground zero.... they still can't even get cancer treatment paid for by the government.

As I've already said, we knew for a fact that Saddam had WMDs at one point. Their constant refusals of nuclear inspections during the Clinton administration were also good causes to be alarmed. If you actually did your homework you would know the Shia and Sunni did NOT like each other in Iraq. The minority group, the Shia, had been the ones in power forcing the majority group, the Sunni, into submission. Once we took out the leaders that all went to hell and bascially a civil war started. It was a bad situation, let an oppressive government continue to execute and violently control the majortiy of the people, or change it. Seeing we were trying to stop Saddam from aiding our enemies in the region, we kind of had no choice.

Also you mention the Vietnam War. Did you not know that North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam who were our allies? It's not like we just went over there and invaded a country because we felt like it. The war was massively unpopular and the only reason we lost because the of the political pressure to just abandon South Vietnam got to great.

We went into Afghanistan in early 2002 (and even sent special forces to back the few surviving guerrilla groups fighting the Taliban in 2001). We are still in Afghanistan fighting our enemies.

You're really spilling seperate issues into each other and trying to blow things out of porportion to what they are. Yes the war spending has been quite a bit I won't disagree with you, but we aren't just fighting because we want to. There is a reason.

You say that you want us to defend our lands then speak out against the TSA. That's a massive contradiction in itself. I hate the TSA but I understand why they exist. They just don't have to be so damn invasive.

you lost me when you said that defending this country and supporting the TSA are one in the same... you really think we need the TSA to be safe? Fear tactics man...

that was not the only reason given to us for going into Vietnam... just research the Gulf of Tonkin incident that allowed us to throw tons more money into the war at Vietnam... as it turns out that never even happened... it was only a false flag incident.

and its odd how you assume that just because i don't come to the sameconclusion as you I "haven't done my homework"... as if your opinions are the only logical points one could reach after a bit of reading.

at the start of this war on terror, we only had a fraction of the troops in Afghanistan as we did in Iraq... but yet we were going over there to"bring those responsible to justice"... nope... we were going over there to further advanceour agenda.my point is this... we as a country cannot afford to police the world and meddle in the actions of every single country and every American individual... it is bankrupting us. The problem that we as a nation have is that we think the answer to every disagreement we have with a foreign nation is a huge bloody war... and we used 9/11 as a justification to start another huge bloody war with a country that didn't attack us on 9/11... Saudis attacked us, not Iraq...

We can't force our "American goodness" on other countries through the barrel of a gun... it doesn't work and it won't work.,. in factwe make ourselves vulnerable to hatred, future attacks,and economic problems by trying to do this. Our meddling in other countries affairs and occupying lands that don't belong to us are things that cause 9/11... yet for some reason so many buy this lie that we attacked just because we are a rich nation... that is simply not true. we piss off a lot of foreign countrieswith our screwed up foreign policy.what would we say if China was occupying our land? Yet its okay if we do it to everyone else?

you lost me when you said that defending this country and supporting the TSA are one in the same... you really think we need the TSA to be safe? Fear tactics man...

that was not the only reason given to us for going into Vietnam... just research the Gulf of Tonkin incident that allowed us to throw tons more money into the war at Vietnam... as it turns out that never even happened... it was only a false flag incident.

and its odd how you assume that just because i don't come to the conclusion as you I "haven't done my homework"... as if your opinions are the only logical points one could reach after a bit of reading.

at the start of this war on terror, we only had a fraction of the troops in Afghanistan as we did in Iraq... but yet we were going over there to"bring those responsible to justice"... nope... we were going over there to further advanceour agenda.my point is this... we as a country cannot afford to police the world and meddle in the actions of every single country and every American individual... it is bankrupting us. The problem that we as a nation have is that we think the answer to every disagreement we have with a foreign nation is a huge bloody war... and we used 9/11 as a justification to start another huge bloody war with a country that didn't attack us on 9/11... Saudis attacked us, not Iraq...

We can't force our "American goodness" on other countries through the barrel of a gun... it doesn't work and it won't work.,. in factwe make ourselves vulnerable to hatred, future attacks,and economic problems by trying to do this. Our meddling in other countries affairs and occupying lands that don't belong to us are things that cause 9/11... yet for some reason so many buy this lie that we attacked just because we are a rich nation... that is simply not true. we piss off a lot of foreign countrieswith our screwed up foreign policy.what would we say if China was occupying our land? Yet its okay if we do it to everyone else?

Scoob64

Well I'm just saying the TSA is one layer of protection, do you want our military to have checkpoints at every single international airport? I guess we could go that route.

The reason we pumped more troops into Iraq is because the Iraqi military was considerably larger. Also you don't just flood hills with thousands of tanks and troops, that's suicide. Different wars require different strategies. We didn't just go over there to advance our agenda, we have no agenda. Any talk of an agenda is just fear mongering and fear tactics trying to get people to hate our government and our nation.

We haven't been forcing "American goodness" on all of those countries in Africa or on Iran and North Korea. We didn't invade the hell out of Lybia just because we disagreed with them, though we did use some military force to destroy an army that was targeting civilians (that war is still going on too).

China does occupy land. We also stayed out of Russia's invasion of Georgia.

We don't just invade for fun. You're views on our forigen policy are so skewed that you're not seeing what's really going on throughout the world.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Those graphs are merely the trends of those asked. I'd say the majority of Americans were apathetic and are apathetic to most political endeavors. When you include the entire population you have to realize that includes those incarcerated, those homeless, those in poverty, those that are ill, etc. I'm not comfortable with believing people that have their own valid concerns are going to be gung ho about the US engaging in war. Yes...the support was higher at the beginning of the war then it was later and is now. But that in no way can mean the majority of Americans backed the actual war.

Wasdie

You're implying random sampling doesn't work. Every major poll is like that. Basic statistics works. You have a 3% margin of error from random sampling as long as the sample size was large enough. Those national polls are usually from tens of thousands of people across the country. They are a very accurate measure of what the country believes.

Basically you're just trying to say I'm wrong after I showed you evidence. I've even said the war was not popular a few years after it started but when it first did the American public was behind it. If you want to ignore evidence because you don't believe in basic mathematics and statistics, I guess there is just nothing I can do.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Those graphs are merely the trends of those asked. I'd say the majority of Americans were apathetic and are apathetic to most political endeavors. When you include the entire population you have to realize that includes those incarcerated, those homeless, those in poverty, those that are ill, etc. I'm not comfortable with believing people that have their own valid concerns are going to be gung ho about the US engaging in war. Yes...the support was higher at the beginning of the war then it was later and is now. But that in no way can mean the majority of Americans backed the actual war.

LJS9502_basic

You're implying random sampling doesn't work. Every major poll is like that. Basic statistics works. You have a 3% margin of error from random sampling as long as the sample size was large enough. Those national polls are usually from tens of thousands of people across the country. They are a very accurate measure of what the country believes.

Basically you're just trying to say I'm wrong after I showed you evidence. I've even said the war was not popular a few years after it started but when it first did the American public was behind it. If you want to ignore evidence because you don't believe in basic mathematics and statistics, I guess there is just nothing I can do.

You're just picking small amounts of the total American population to back your claims. How do what politicans have anything do to with public opinion? I have no idea where you're going with this. You're saying statistics don't work, not to believe the media, don't believe polls, don't believe anything that has statistical evidence. You're making no sense and not backing up anything you say.

Obviously if statics didn't work most marketing wouldn't work, public planning, the US census would be totally useless... I could go on. Why would anybody teach a subjec it's not to be trusted? That's a plain contradiction. "Ok this is statistics 101 where we teach you the foundation of statistics. However don't believe anything here because all statistics are way to easy to manipulate."

That's just plain stupidity.

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

you lost me when you said that defending this country and supporting the TSA are one in the same... you really think we need the TSA to be safe? Fear tactics man...

that was not the only reason given to us for going into Vietnam... just research the Gulf of Tonkin incident that allowed us to throw tons more money into the war at Vietnam... as it turns out that never even happened... it was only a false flag incident.

and its odd how you assume that just because i don't come to the conclusion as you I "haven't done my homework"... as if your opinions are the only logical points one could reach after a bit of reading.

at the start of this war on terror, we only had a fraction of the troops in Afghanistan as we did in Iraq... but yet we were going over there to"bring those responsible to justice"... nope... we were going over there to further advanceour agenda.my point is this... we as a country cannot afford to police the world and meddle in the actions of every single country and every American individual... it is bankrupting us. The problem that we as a nation have is that we think the answer to every disagreement we have with a foreign nation is a huge bloody war... and we used 9/11 as a justification to start another huge bloody war with a country that didn't attack us on 9/11... Saudis attacked us, not Iraq...

We can't force our "American goodness" on other countries through the barrel of a gun... it doesn't work and it won't work.,. in factwe make ourselves vulnerable to hatred, future attacks,and economic problems by trying to do this. Our meddling in other countries affairs and occupying lands that don't belong to us are things that cause 9/11... yet for some reason so many buy this lie that we attacked just because we are a rich nation... that is simply not true. we piss off a lot of foreign countrieswith our screwed up foreign policy.what would we say if China was occupying our land? Yet its okay if we do it to everyone else?

Wasdie

Well I'm just saying the TSA is one layer of protection, do you want our military to have checkpoints at every single international airport? I guess we could go that route.

The reason we pumped more troops into Iraq is because the Iraqi military was considerably larger. Also you don't just flood hills with thousands of tanks and troops, that's suicide. Different wars require different strategies. We didn't just go over there to advance our agenda, we have no agenda. Any talk of an agenda is just fear mongering and fear tactics trying to get people to hate our government and our nation.

We haven't been forcing "American goodness" on all of those countries in Africa or on Iran and North Korea. We didn't invade the hell out of Lybia just because we disagreed with them, though we did use some military force to destroy an army that was targeting civilians (that war is still going on too).

China does occupy land. We also stayed out of Russia's invasion of Georgia.

We don't just invade for fun. You're views on our forigen policy are so skewed that you're not seeing what's really going on throughout the world.

well obviously we are going to disagree... but you need to learn how to have a civil debate without making claims like "You haven't done you're homework! Your views are skewed!!" you sound like Bill O'reilly or Sean Hannity, that if you disagree with someone you have to go after their intelligence or mentality... but if thats what ya gotta do then so be it. as I said, I'm not a political scientist, but I have donemy research, and I am concerned about whats going on in the world.

and I know China occupies land... that was not at all my point... I was saying what if they occupied our land... wouldn't that piss us off? We have to start examing our foreign policy from the perspective of future consequences, and how we'd feel if countries were doing similar actions to us.

but again with the TSA, its odd how we have the national government butting in when we are going to pay aprivate (not federal) company to travel. Why not let Delta, American Airlines, etc manage their own security?? I'm sure they would do it more cost effective,and would provide security without being invasive- as if they let someone with a bomb on board, they would be responsible and they'd lose all their customers... but they also wouldn't require 92 year olds to take off their adult diapers and the ridiculous nonsense that is going on today. Heck man, we already passed the Patriot Act that allows the government to tap our phones and search us without a warrant... why stop there?

why aren't the TSA standing at the front of every hotel?

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

You're just picking small amounts of the total American population to back your claims. How do what politicans have anything do to with public opinion? I have no idea where you're going with this. You're saying statistics don't work, not to believe the media, don't believe polls, don't believe anything that has statistical evidence. You're making no sense and not backing up anything you say.

Obviously if statics didn't work most marketing wouldn't work, public planning, the US census would be totally useless... I could go on.

Wasdie

Actually what I said was what statistics classes teach that statistics can be skewed. In regard to polls one can get the answer they want by the way they word the question. This is not unknown. As for mentioning the census....that's not the same thing as a poll. Though not every one fills out the census and thus they are not counted in the statistics....it still is representative of those that did fill out the census. However...saying one is a white male is not the same as answering an ambiguous question.

And I never mentioned the media at all so that was edited in by you.

That's just plain stupidity.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

you lost me when you said that defending this country and supporting the TSA are one in the same... you really think we need the TSA to be safe? Fear tactics man...

that was not the only reason given to us for going into Vietnam... just research the Gulf of Tonkin incident that allowed us to throw tons more money into the war at Vietnam... as it turns out that never even happened... it was only a false flag incident.

and its odd how you assume that just because i don't come to the conclusion as you I "haven't done my homework"... as if your opinions are the only logical points one could reach after a bit of reading.

at the start of this war on terror, we only had a fraction of the troops in Afghanistan as we did in Iraq... but yet we were going over there to"bring those responsible to justice"... nope... we were going over there to further advanceour agenda.my point is this... we as a country cannot afford to police the world and meddle in the actions of every single country and every American individual... it is bankrupting us. The problem that we as a nation have is that we think the answer to every disagreement we have with a foreign nation is a huge bloody war... and we used 9/11 as a justification to start another huge bloody war with a country that didn't attack us on 9/11... Saudis attacked us, not Iraq...

We can't force our "American goodness" on other countries through the barrel of a gun... it doesn't work and it won't work.,. in factwe make ourselves vulnerable to hatred, future attacks,and economic problems by trying to do this. Our meddling in other countries affairs and occupying lands that don't belong to us are things that cause 9/11... yet for some reason so many buy this lie that we attacked just because we are a rich nation... that is simply not true. we piss off a lot of foreign countrieswith our screwed up foreign policy.what would we say if China was occupying our land? Yet its okay if we do it to everyone else?

Scoob64

Well I'm just saying the TSA is one layer of protection, do you want our military to have checkpoints at every single international airport? I guess we could go that route.

The reason we pumped more troops into Iraq is because the Iraqi military was considerably larger. Also you don't just flood hills with thousands of tanks and troops, that's suicide. Different wars require different strategies. We didn't just go over there to advance our agenda, we have no agenda. Any talk of an agenda is just fear mongering and fear tactics trying to get people to hate our government and our nation.

We haven't been forcing "American goodness" on all of those countries in Africa or on Iran and North Korea. We didn't invade the hell out of Lybia just because we disagreed with them, though we did use some military force to destroy an army that was targeting civilians (that war is still going on too).

China does occupy land. We also stayed out of Russia's invasion of Georgia.

We don't just invade for fun. You're views on our forigen policy are so skewed that you're not seeing what's really going on throughout the world.

well obviously we are going to disagree... but you need to learn how to have a civil debate without making claims like "You haven't done you're homework! Your views are skewed!!" you sound like Bill O'reilly or Sean Hannity, that if you disagree with someone you have to go after their intelligence or mentality... but if thats what ya gotta do then so be it. as I said, I'm not a political scientist, but I have donemy research, and I am concerned about whats going on in the world.

and I know China occupies land... that was not at all my point... I was saying what if they occupied our land... wouldn't that piss us off? We have to start examing our foreign policy from the perspective of future consequences, and how we'd feel if countries were doing similar actions to us.

but again with the TSA, its odd how we have the national government butting in when we are going to paying a private (not federal) company to travel. Why not let Delta, American Airlines, etc manage their own security?? I'm sure they would do it more cost effective,and would provide security without being invasive- as if they let someone with a bomb on board, they would be responsible and they'd lose all their customers... but they also wouldn't require 92 year olds to take off their adult diapers and the ridiculous nonsense that is going on today. Heck man, we already passed the Patriot Act that allows the government to tap our phones and search us without a warrant... why stop there?

why aren't the TSA standing at the front of every hotel?

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

You keep bringing in China as an example which has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I'm sorry if I sound like some crazy right wing guy, but don't tell me how to argue when you're changing the subject and skirting the issues. From what you believe you have been showing that you don't fully understand the recent history of Iraq. That's all I was saying. Then you started bringing up non-Iraq war related things just to expand the debate to other things.

Other countries have been doing similar actions to us, they just aren't as massive in scale as ours. We don't get in their way and they don't get in our way. Simple as that.

I'm not sitting here saying the TSA is the best thing ever made, you're jumping to those conclusions yourself. I'm simply saying that you want better national defense and one of the things we created for that has been the TSA. Simple as that.

I understand that Ben Franklin quote but at the same time I see a flaw in it. Obviously when we had tons of liberty we had very little security. Do you want everybody just conceal a weapon and have an assault rifle at home for defense? This isn't the 1700s, this is an era where weak groups of people can get ahold of some very deadly weapons. Franklin said that when in order to cause real damage you needed the money for a small army. Today you can buy or make explosives and blow up stuff. It's a totally different world. We can't live by those same philosophies.

The hardest part is to balance our private liberities with being safe. We've decided that a good offense to those who have harmed us and threaten to continue to harm us was better than closing our borders. No one solution is going to work. We need to keep working to find a good balance. Things like the Patriot Act are probably overkill but a level is necessary to keep us safe from a new threat.

It's no secret that this world has many problems.
I want to live in a better world, as I'm sure you do as well. So why can't we have that better world?
What is it that holds us back? If the leaders of our countries are working toward a better, peaceful world, why can't we ever seem to achieve it?

If everyone I loved was in the same building and it got blown up by someone, then I went on a vandetta and killed that murderer, do you think I'd be a hero? Would I get a medal?
Of course not. I'd be thrown in jail.
Then why should the Government and Military be any different? Why is it ok for the Military to invade other countries using the excuse that they're just fighting back/defending their country? Then they get praise for doing it. Celebrated for murdering people. And not all of them would be bad. Some would no doubt be defending their own country and family.

Doesn't sound right, does it?
There are many other things that don't sound right when you really think about it and see the bigger picture.

Skull-Fire

don't blame us that you guys can't stand each other.

i don't think the world can even imagine how much we wish we could leave you to your own devices for a decade witout all hell breaking out.

does anyone really think we want our money and youth wasted on a bunch of foreign wars?

as far as leaders making a better world no that is not what they want, they want to secure personal power and line their pockets in any way they can.

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Well I'm just saying the TSA is one layer of protection, do you want our military to have checkpoints at every single international airport? I guess we could go that route.

The reason we pumped more troops into Iraq is because the Iraqi military was considerably larger. Also you don't just flood hills with thousands of tanks and troops, that's suicide. Different wars require different strategies. We didn't just go over there to advance our agenda, we have no agenda. Any talk of an agenda is just fear mongering and fear tactics trying to get people to hate our government and our nation.

We haven't been forcing "American goodness" on all of those countries in Africa or on Iran and North Korea. We didn't invade the hell out of Lybia just because we disagreed with them, though we did use some military force to destroy an army that was targeting civilians (that war is still going on too).

China does occupy land. We also stayed out of Russia's invasion of Georgia.

We don't just invade for fun. You're views on our forigen policy are so skewed that you're not seeing what's really going on throughout the world.

Wasdie

well obviously we are going to disagree... but you need to learn how to have a civil debate without making claims like "You haven't done you're homework! Your views are skewed!!" you sound like Bill O'reilly or Sean Hannity, that if you disagree with someone you have to go after their intelligence or mentality... but if thats what ya gotta do then so be it. as I said, I'm not a political scientist, but I have donemy research, and I am concerned about whats going on in the world.

and I know China occupies land... that was not at all my point... I was saying what if they occupied our land... wouldn't that piss us off? We have to start examing our foreign policy from the perspective of future consequences, and how we'd feel if countries were doing similar actions to us.

but again with the TSA, its odd how we have the national government butting in when we are going to paying a private (not federal) company to travel. Why not let Delta, American Airlines, etc manage their own security?? I'm sure they would do it more cost effective,and would provide security without being invasive- as if they let someone with a bomb on board, they would be responsible and they'd lose all their customers... but they also wouldn't require 92 year olds to take off their adult diapers and the ridiculous nonsense that is going on today. Heck man, we already passed the Patriot Act that allows the government to tap our phones and search us without a warrant... why stop there?

why aren't the TSA standing at the front of every hotel?

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

You keep bringing in China as an example which has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I'm sorry if I sound like some crazy right wing guy, but don't tell me how to argue when you're changing the subject and skirting the issues. From what you believe you have been showing that you don't fully understand the recent history of Iraq. That's all I was saying. Then you started bringing up non-Iraq war related things just to expand the debate to other things.

Other countries have been doing similar actions to us, they just aren't as massive in scale as ours. We don't get in their way and they don't get in our way. Simple as that.

I'm not sitting here saying the TSA is the best thing ever made, you're jumping to those conclusions yourself. I'm simply saying that you want better national defense and one of the things we created for that has been the TSA. Simple as that.

I understand that Ben Franklin quote but at the same time I see a flaw in it. Obviously when we had tons of liberty we had very little security. Do you want everybody just conceal a weapon and have an assault rifle at home for defense? This isn't the 1700s, this is an era where weak groups of people can get ahold of some very deadly weapons. Franklin said that when in order to cause real damage you needed the money for a small army. Today you can buy or make explosives and blow up stuff. It's a totally different world. We can't live by those same philosophies.

The hardest part is to balance our private liberities with being safe. We've decided that a good offense to those who have harmed us and threaten to continue to harm us was better than closing our borders. No one solution is going to work. We need to keep working to find a good balance. Things like the Patriot Act are probably overkill but a level is necessary to keep us safe from a new threat.

lol, i'm not skirting any issue. i brought up China to make a point about of foreign policy... i used them as an examle of a powerful country that would cause people to be upset if they had military bases in our cities. I'm saying that our foreign policy often serves to encourage terrorist attacks on Americans in the name of payback. We go over to Iraq and so many innocent get killed in the crossfire.well, one of the kids happens to survive, guess what hes going to do when he grows up? blowback...

regarding national security, what I'm saying is why don't we take some of these billions of dollars being spent to fund this war and streamline, focusing more on taking care of problems at home before we meddle with another country's problems. We are in too much of a financial crisis to continue spending money like this. Heck, if we are going to go to war willy nilly, we should at least have a war tax to pay for it, so then at least everyone could feel some hurt. Its not fair that our troops and middle easter civilians have to feel all the suffering. Even better, they should bring back the draft.. because if little Johnny, the son of millionaries, has to go serve in Iraq... wow, would that ever change American's attitudes on war. If members of Congress had to send their own kids to fight this war, guess how many would vote to continue to fund it? Its easy to justify war until it hits home.

You say that Patriot Act provides a level necessary to keep us safe from a new threat. Well, what about the threat of an ever-expanding and controlling government to the point where lose liberties and freedoms on a daily basis... all in the name of "security". We are indeed less free today than in the 90s, and definitely no safer.

I think the reasons are because of greed, ideology, ignorance, lack of unterstanding of others and an unwillingness to be flexible when interracitng with those you disagree with.

http://bigthink.com/michiokaku#!video_idea_id=24407

[QUOTE="Skull-Fire"][QUOTE="fastesttruck"] I blame all those people that came up with whats "right and wrong". I hate this world. I"m all for it just ending fastesttruck

Wow! CULTS and stuff and yeah? Because cults have done so well in the past, especially in the 20th century. Burning and poisoning your own people out of some weird fantasy is not rational thought. There's plenty of room and I'm sure some cults too. Just go to the country for spaciousness, and I'm sure you could find a cult if you research on Google. You can find everything on Google.

Because no one can agree on what is right and wrong, or on what a "better world" is. Simply, all the conflicts and problems we see in the world around us have their roots in everybody having a unique opinion and wanting something different.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You're just picking small amounts of the total American population to back your claims. How do what politicans have anything do to with public opinion? I have no idea where you're going with this. You're saying statistics don't work, not to believe the media, don't believe polls, don't believe anything that has statistical evidence. You're making no sense and not backing up anything you say.

Obviously if statics didn't work most marketing wouldn't work, public planning, the US census would be totally useless... I could go on.

LJS9502_basic

Actually what I said was what statistics classes teach that statistics can be skewed. In regard to polls one can get the answer they want by the way they word the question. This is not unknown. As for mentioning the census....that's not the same thing as a poll. Though not every one fills out the census and thus they are not counted in the statistics....it still is representative of those that did fill out the census. However...saying one is a white male is not the same as answering an ambiguous question.

And I never mentioned the media at all so that was edited in by you.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You're just picking small amounts of the total American population to back your claims. How do what politicans have anything do to with public opinion? I have no idea where you're going with this. You're saying statistics don't work, not to believe the media, don't believe polls, don't believe anything that has statistical evidence. You're making no sense and not backing up anything you say.

Obviously if statics didn't work most marketing wouldn't work, public planning, the US census would be totally useless... I could go on.

jimmyjammer69

Actually what I said was what statistics classes teach that statistics can be skewed. In regard to polls one can get the answer they want by the way they word the question. This is not unknown. As for mentioning the census....that's not the same thing as a poll. Though not every one fills out the census and thus they are not counted in the statistics....it still is representative of those that did fill out the census. However...saying one is a white male is not the same as answering an ambiguous question.

And I never mentioned the media at all so that was edited in by you.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Small amounts? No I'm pointing out that not all demographics were represented in the polls. So to take the polls which by the way only show how the support waned...as making a statement that the majority of Americans supported the war doesn't work for me.

Actually what I said was what statistics classes teach that statistics can be skewed. In regard to polls one can get the answer they want by the way they word the question. This is not unknown. As for mentioning the census....that's not the same thing as a poll. Though not every one fills out the census and thus they are not counted in the statistics....it still is representative of those that did fill out the census. However...saying one is a white male is not the same as answering an ambiguous question.

And I never mentioned the media at all so that was edited in by you.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Relevant.

jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]While a comedy....it's accurate.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Quite. I'm not sure Margaret Thatcher would have survived her time in office without it.jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]She doesn't seem to have been popular...LJS9502_basic