quote:

---

Wow, what blatent stereotyping.

---

stereotyping, yes. truthful? also yes.

quote:

---

You're implying that liberals are anti-war.

---

mostly everyone within 100 miles of the political center is anti "war".

i find it shocking that anyone on the right who is an activist is considered a nazi and anyone on the left that is an activist is simply that; an acitivist. Both preach hatred, but only one is viewed upon by the mainstream media as a "hater".

What experts are these?
Are these experts aware that this "World War III" has been going on since 1947?
Sure, the technology has improved quite a bit, but its still the completely insane clawing between what is possibly the world's most jumbled country and what is possibly the world's most invalid country.

Given 54 years, I would think "World War 3" would spread outside of 3 countries....
But hey, I'm not an expert.

Pakistan and India are basically at war. Fighting and killing happen every day in Kashmir. Suicide bombings, terrorist attacks, missile attacks, to me they are all signs of chaos. It people repeatedly blew themselves up outside my house fot years, I would definetely consider that chaos. Experts are already calling this WW3.

wow this is a good debate... just thought I'd congratulate you guys. Sit back and feel good about yourselves!


I'm with djmagnusa pretty much. Although good things for iraq could still come out of the war, and now that its all happened we should just get on and fix things, it wasn't really justified. It's good that Saddam has been deposed- tyrranical dictator=should be stopped; but rushing into war was badly thought out. Other options should have been explored.

I think a solution with Israel and Palestine would solve a lot of problems in the Middle East as a whole, terrorism against the West etc. Removing the Palestine problem would stop terrorists from having a legitimate grievance against the West, and this (I would hope) would cause the terrorists themselves to lose motivation, and Middle Eastern governments would not have sympathies with their cause.

Palestine should have been the focus, not Iraq, when we're talking about the war against terrorism.

As for the original topic: are liberals the downfall of the human race? Hmm, good point. Liberals = downfall, I can see what you're driving at!
*cough* sarcasm *cough*

But that blinkered viewpoint has already been argued against.

So I'm out.
Inky

im intruding in this conversation, i know, but i dont care.

quote:

---

EVERY POSSIBLE CATEGORY OF PEOPLE HAS FOOLS IN IT (except geniuses)

---

you can have all the knowledge in the world and not know how to apply it. you can be a genius, knowing all the math tricks and lit and science and whatever, and still be socially dumb, act in foolish ways, and not know how to apply that knowledge to real life. geniuses can be fools too.

quote:

---

What if we found a nuclear weapon tomorrow?

---

Yes, what if, what if aliens popped out of your *** with ray guns. To make a claim that a country is an imminent you must have proof, we have seen where the supposed proof that the Bush administration gave has gone, completely down the **** tube.

quote:

---

I believe a man who started 3 wars and murderered hundreds of thousands of people is terrorism.

---

A ruthless tyrant yes, a terrorist no.

quote:

---

The Taliban government, who raped and murdered whoever they want.

---

Again this is an example of oppressiveness not chaos.

quote:

---

Pakistan, on the brink of a nuclear war with India.

---

That means they are about to go to war, that is not an idication of chaos because if that was the case you would have to say the United States and the Former Soviet Union were in chaos during the Cold War.

quote:

---

Saudi Arabia, terrorist groups fighting off Saudi government and American interests.

---

Now I'll agree that Saudi Arabia must be dealt with, but just because the support Terrorism does not mean the country is in a state of chaos. Conflict does not mean chaos.

quote:

---

Jordan and Syria, could be destroyed by Israel at any second, already have through history.

---

Again conflict does not mean chaos because if that were the case the United States is in chaos as well.

quote:

---

Palestine, being controlled by a dying terrorist, and is at war with Israel.

---

You have gotten ONE country out of the whole Middle-East, this is hardly the evidence you need to back up the claim that the Middle-East is in chaos.

quote:

---

And Syria, who were bombed 2 weeks ago by Israel and Israel is threatening to do it again.

---

Again this is an example of CONFLICT not chaos.


Only one of your examples has proven to follow through, the rest were not signs of Chaos and therefore your a making a big claim with a limited amount of evidence.

Iraq could still be an imminent threat. What if we found a nuclear weapon tomorrow? That's a threat. As for Iraq harboring terrorists, it all depends what your definition of terrorist is. I believe a man who started 3 wars and murderered hundreds of thousands of people is terrorism. And anyone who supports that person is just as guilty. (aka, Iraqi army). The Middle East is in chaos. The Taliban government, who raped and murdered whoever they want. Pakistan, on the brink of a nuclear war with India. Saudi Arabia, terrorist groups fighting off Saudi government and American interests. Proven fact that Saudi's support terrorism. Jordan and Syria, could be destroyed by Israel at any second, already have through history. Palestine, being controlled by a dying terrorist, and is at war with Israel. And Syria, who were bombed 2 weeks ago by Israel and Israel is threatening to do it again. Could be next target in war on terrorism. That's chaos.

quote:

---

This war has been going on not even a year. We will find the weapons.

---

Yes, but the Bush administration claimed Iraq as an emanate threat and it’s proven to be quite the contrary.

quote:

---

Iraq was harboring terrorists. The Iraqi’s were terrorists themselves.

---

Where's your proof of this, every single supposed link to terrorism, that the Bush Administration has claimed, has proven to be false. Also the majority of the "terrorists" in Iraq came from foreign countries AFTER the war started.
Also stop being so hypocritical, first you say the Iraq's are terrorists and then you say "Giving the Iraqi people freedom was a bonus,” so now we are freeing terrorists?

quote:

---

Every country in the Mid East is chaotic. We have been bombing Iraqi targets for years straight.

---

Again I would hardly say pre-war Iraq was in chaos, saddam had very tight control of the country up till the war, oppression is a element of a state of Authoritarianism not anarchy. The only countries in the Middle-East, that are in chaos, are the ones we have invaded and of course Israel. Every other country in the Middle-East is OPRESSED; they are not in a chaotic state. Also you fail to provide any evidence that supports your claim of "chaos in every country in the Middle-East," the only "facts" you have provided have very little to do with the state of the countries in the Middle-East.

I don't care about the Iraqi people. I care about the people of the US. What happens over in different countries I do not care about. This war has been going on not even a year. We will find the weapons. Iraq was harboring terrorists. The Iarqi's were terrorists themselves. Giving the Iraqi people freedom was a bonus. That's not the main reason for going in. Every country in the Mid East is chaotic. We have been bombing Iraqi targets for years straight.

Dispute settled.

quote:

---

Iraq was already a chaotic place even before we went in. Just ask the Kurds. They'll (or what's left of them) would love to share thier stories of 50,000+ dead. Bush is defending the US, unlike Clinton, who for some reason got involved with the Kosovo crisis. There was no logic for helping them. They did not pose a threat to the US, and the country had no value to us.

---

I would hardly call Iraq, before the war, chaotic. Your examples are not signs of chaos, oppressiveness yes, but not chaotic. As for the Iraq, invading it did not provide extra protection for the U.S, every supposed link to terrorism Iraq had never existed until after we invaded, very ironic I find it. As for the weapons of mass-destruction, that we haven't found, there is another bit of irony in this situation as well. We supposedly went in to stop Iraq from giving weapons to terrorists, yet we haven't found them, so if the weapons did exist, we in fact caused the very thing we were trying to prevent.
As for the Kosovo thing, I find this to be the single most hypocritical statement by conservatives. They bashed Clinton for going into Kosovo, but then they support the invasion of Iraq under the pretence of it being a humanitarian mission, what a crock of ****ing ****.

Poncho, what are you talking about? Iraq was already a chaotic place even before we went in. Just ask the Kurds. They'll (or what's left of them) would love to share thier stories of 50,000+ dead. Bush is defending the US, unlike Clinton, who for some reason got involved with the Kosovo crisis. There was no logic for helping them. They did not pose a threat to the US, and the country had no value to us.

lol, throwing batteries at cops. I can see icm doing that ...

wadingo, you foolish mofo, say more than two words, lol.


Gemini, like the lol ???

Nu, if you want to claim that Clinton's military action was just wagging the dog, then you have to concede the same of the Republican attempts to get the attention off real issues by making such a big deal of his affair. Whereas Bush's PR war is only taking the spotlight from other issues, not personal conduct that's irrelevant.

btw Rito, what was that about "throwing batteries at cops" referring to?

You seem to think liberals are the only dumb@sses out there. I hate to tell you this, but stupid people come from all backgrounds, religions, and political parties. You can't sit there and tell me conservatives have no extremists who will do stupid things, such as throws batteries at cops.

-rito

[QUOTE]
They supported going into iraq and descending it into anarchy and chaos, while they protest Clinton's affair, which really didn't hurt anyone. Hypocrisy![QUOTE]

Clinton did launch attacks and kill innocent people, to draw attention away from what he was doing with Monica. Remember how use wasted 1.3 million-dollar Tomahawk missles to blow up a couple of tents?

Hear Hear

I agree with Mr. Blue in that there are many examples in which liberals have not thought before speaking. The asprin factory bombing has very little relevence to this board and only God would know why you put that up there. Let me clear the air: both that of Republicans and Democrates have made mistakes in our time. The blame game in which we are playing on these forums is stupid. I feel that neither liberal nor conservative views should sway the thoughts of those contributing to this forums. As a nation we must "pull our heads out of our *****". If you don't like president Bush that's great for you. If someone makes a grammar mistake or personal comment don't just shoot their statement down. We all must think before speaking.

Wow, what blatent stereotyping. First of all... oh my gosh... I don't even know what to say.
You're implying that liberals are anti-war. And we don't know how to speak our mind in the appropriate way. Okay... all conservative are anti-abortion and they blow up abortion clinics. It's okay to speak YOUR mind, but think before doing so.

quote:

---

It's okay to speak your mind, but think before doing so.

---

Good advice, it’s a shame that most "conservatives" seem to make exceptions, when it applies to themselves, to the rules they hold everybody else too.