Honestly now, should we? Iraq was a blunder of information. At least we got Saddam, but what about someone else? North Korea, Iran, or someone else? Tell me your honest opinion. Is there a possibility that we will pick on someone who will start WW3? Or can we do whatever we damn well please? Is there a threat to America? Or is it just another lie? Also on CNN.com inspectors have found great uranium to build WMDs? Should we invade Iran or N. Korea?

[This message was edited by Paintbucket on February 19, 2004 at 02:48 PM.]

TallyWack and JesusFreak...

What perfect examples of pure tyranny and absolute psycoticism.

Iceland and Aguagon have made great points and have blasted the nuke-maniac and the neo-nazi back to there points of pure Ignorance.

I believe they have said everything that has needed to be said.

Oh and one last thing. For those of you who want to invade Saudi Arabia because of its support for terrorists, it certainly isnt going to happen under Bushes watch. Bush loves the Saudis and heavily supports them so they go off on there corrupt funding of terroists and abusses of human rights.

I believe we should rebuild both America and the world. True, we need to rebuild our industrial base, rebuild our infrastructure, make necessary political and economic reforms, reform our educational system, rebuild our cities, and rebuild our military. If we mobilize the national will to do this, we can do this in ten years.

Once we rebuilt America though, then we can resume the unification and reconstruction of the world under the stars and stripes.

I think the US should fix the US before it tries to fix other countries.

I think we should take out the terrorist regimes of Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria Libya, Nigeria, and others. Not only are these nations sponsoring terrorism and are anti-American, they are also terrorizing their own people.

But before we take all of them on, we need to rebuild our manufcaturing base, rebuild our infrastructure, put America on a wartime production level, implement Universal Military Training and reinstate the draft.

If we were to mobilize this nation like we did for WW2, we would create a 30 million personnel military. We would have one million armored fighting vhelicles. We would have 100,000 combat aircraft. We would have a 8000 ship navy. And we would have a Special Operations Force of 500,000 personnel.

We should have two million GIs occupying and rebuilding Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, and Liberia. I also think these nations should be incorporated as US Territories and then become US States after their reconstruction.

quote:

---

Don't judge a book book by its cover or a person by their screenname. That really says a lot about your character.

---

Pardon me while I fall out of my chair laughing. Any one care to explain why exactly this is just so hypocritical? I mean: wow.

I'll judge you by the fact that you spout meaningless drivel and everyone other phrase you post is "Jesus loves you."

Don't judge a book book by its cover or a person by their screenname. That really says a lot about your character.

After reading this thread and all the responses to it, all I can say is that I'm really scared. A disturbing number of people seem stuck with a "dominate all or you're a weak pansy sure to be overrun" attitude. While this attitude might have been a biological necessity in the Stone Age, there is little place for it in the 21st century world. France made a decision, and whether we agreed with that decision or not, France had every right to do what it did. This talk of invading France and Mexico is downright sickening. Just because we're the most powerful country in the world doesn't mean we're automatically right (and I can already see TallyWhack reading my post and scratching his head, thinking, "But...we got the nukes.").

As for the UN, I think its purpose and agenda are both very noble, but I don't think it has been carrying itself very effectively. However, the solution is not to disregard the UN and go against it, but rather to raise a persuasive voice within the UN. Bush's idea of persuasive discussion with the UN was "I would really appreciate it if we could bring this matter to the front of our agenda and do something about it. Oh, and if you don't support me on this, too bad, I'm doing it anyway."

As for invading more countries, I don't see any need to right now. However, if they need arises, the President needs to appeal to the UN in a diplomatic, persuasive matter. The very idea that the President would even think of going against such a noble alliance for his own pursuit is deeply disturbing. As for Bush, I think his chance of regaining UN popularity are about as likely as France bombing Canada for no apparent reason.

And as for jesusfreak, we really need to stop arguing with him, because it is pointless. I base this on his screename.

Hmmm...so...your idea that the U.N.'s goal is to establish one tyrannical world government is proved by the fact that they have some ties with Unitarian Universalists?

My dad's a UU minister...I've been to UU Church meetings...don't THINK I remember anything about world domination...

So...why don't you just step off, O Thoughtless One?

I didn't claim to be any kind of expert. However, there is a Unitarian Universalist worship room built into the U.N. headquarters in New York.

I doubt you're an expert on what the UN "thinks". to any extent, we're off topic, so if you'd like to continue, either start a new thread, (or find an old one) or NoiseMail.

The U.N. thinks the only way to accomplish it's goals is to "harmonize". There are other agendas at the U.N. than those stated in it's official charter.

Purposes

The purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in the Charter, are to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.
UN homepage

I fail to see how that translates into a "one world government"...Duh!

Yes but this organization wants a one world government! We are trying to establish new and fair democracies! Duh!

Riiiiight. So nevermind the fact that we are trying to take over the wold, it's an organization devoted to *peace* that's the REAL anti-Christ....

You people just don't get it, do you? Jesus warned us in the vision he gave John the Baptist, otherwise known as Revelation. He warned us of the coming world governement that's going to welcome in the anti-Christ. Say hello to the U.N.'s purpose, baby. If anyone or any nation is going to stand against the United Nations in these last days in which we are living, it's gonna be us, as in the U.S. I hope God won't let a nation founded by godly men fall that far at the end of time.

Major sarcasm on my part on the world domination comment. I saw no point to invade Iraq, especially without UN approval, nor do I see any point to invade anywhere else. War solves nothing, destroying people and places does not achieve peace.

quote:

---

I'm definitely in favor of world domination. Definitely.

---

exactly what are u'r reasons if u're not kidding around ....

I'm definitely in favor of world domination. Definitely.