http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/03/north.korea.ap/index.html

sick. I'm definitely signing up now because then I'd not only get to kill hajji but charlie too.

They love to flap their gums, but if it came down to it, USA vs. N. Korea would be like Hurricane Katrina vs. a dragonfly.

well, hurricanes have more stomach to carry out a mission successfully than americans do.

heheh. well, the article is just propaganda, but i like how they act as if they would survive our pre-emptive strike to take nuclear action.

Again?

DrinkHardThrashHard said:

well the u.s. a vs. iraq is not going that well what makes you think we will fair any better vs nhk

thrash nigger said:


Nuclear wise? Are you kidding me? We would vaporize that whole continent before they could take their last piss!!

hoser said:


Wish we could do that with the fucking Jihadi sand niggers. One nuke and the world would be free of these jihadi religious zealots.

hoser said:

Yeah, just one nuke. It sure is convienent that all jihadists congregated into the area roughly the size of ground zero. Thanks a million, fellas!

But again, that's just my stupid opinion.

The Rifleman's Creed
by Major General W. H. Rupertus, USMC

THIS IS MY RIFLE. There are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. My rifle, without me is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than any enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will....

My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...

My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weakness, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...

Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but Peace

huh?
Im confused by the last post.
War with China would suck, big time.
Yes, I said China.
If we go to war with N.Korea, China will be involved.

North Korea would be a straight conventional war. China would not likely want to get involved this time, seeing as their leadership is less of hardline commies, like NK is and was 50 years ago. With our military, South Korea and a sizeable chuck of the UN (They will get involved because the nuclear power shooting at people is dangerous to them too. They know that. If China does not add them, the short term would be destructive to South Korea with the first strike of thousands of artillery and ground to ground missle on Seoul and other population centers that they are aimed at, at all times. Then their gas, electrity, food and finally ammo would run out and they would lose. Aside from the fact that as Hoser said, if they launched a nuke, we would nuke the whole country with only a small bit of our nuclear weapon arsenal, from either home based silos or our nuclear subs.
If the American people had a clear, present danger with a face on it and a target that no one could argue about that atacked them or a close ally and was seen as a threat, you would see unquestioned support and lines at recruting stations. Iraq is a totally different ballgame in terms of semetrical and asemetrical warfare.

ooops....not hosers post, but Mike Piles'

China would definitely get involved.
Maybe only as far as supplying weapons, ordnance, and possibly military, but they WILL help one of their biggest allies/importer/exporting countries.

AND.....

As much as I hate some of you assholes', sometimes....


I'd REALLY hate to see you you all get obliterated.
Well, save a few.

Same thing that they did in 1950. Remember the Chosin?

china/cuba.
Another interesting connected faction to look out for.

phillipines
Sudan
Yemen
Mexico even.

Ahhhhh....Cuba wouldn't worry me a bit.....despite Red Dawn. China and Korea on the other hand could pose a massive reduction in our troops / supplies. I might end up going back if that happens.

I'm totally signing up to go kill people. As long as we are at war with people who have darker skin than us and/or oil I have no problem fighting.

Dude, we along with other Euro and Asian countries and now some Arab and South American countries are bigger trade partners then North Korea. They have dick for money then any of the other nations China trades with. North Korea has just been China's rabid pitbull on a chain at their doorstep. China doesn't want it and coul put it down anytime, but keeps it there to keep it's neighbors nervious and allow them to be the voice of reason everyone would be forced to come t in order to deal with them. HOWEVER, if that dog should break loose of it's chain and go nuts, China will have no choice but to put it down. If you are an emerging possible super power and economic power house, are you goingto flush your trade contracts worth billions and alliences and any trust you have with the free world to support a poor, loose cannon nation with nuclear weapons that will one way or the other lose their fight, or will you let it happen and then look like the responsible good guy and help it happen and then help with the rebuilding/reunification of Korea, while not sending your country back over fourty years on the world stage and watching your economy take a massive plunge?
China would be nuts to back North Korea if they flew off the handle. They would lose so much that they've strived for years to gain in doing so.

ya true....especially now, that they dont have shit!

(see other post)

China has already told N. Korea to stop with the testing as well. So, in other words, they told them they are on thier own if they keep up with the testing.

N. korea is so poor because that asshole spends their $$$money$$$ on bombs they don't need, that's why they eat cats and dogs.


We dun naaht haave weapon of mass destrukshun, Haans Brix!!

From the UN meeting this morning:

After a morning meeting of the U.N. Security Council, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said, "No member defended what the North Koreans had done."

They're on thier one with this one...

it's a wonder the rest of the world doesn't get on North Korea like they do America. When was the last time Canada had to increase its missle defense system because of something America did?

oh canada's sneaky... they are planning a lot and the test are covert. not overt.

Albanian Village Bombed Forward Into Stone Age
March 17, 1998 | Issue 33•10


PRISTINA, SERBIA—The ethnic-Albanian village of Pristina was bombed forward into the Stone Age Monday, thrust ahead more than 20,000 years by a Serbian attack. "The Albanians of the Kosovo region have been bombed from their previous state of anthropological sub-infancy into the earliest dawning of civilization," Serbian general Ratko Rilosevic said following the raid. According to U.N. spokespersons, the bombing so badly devastated the village that, by the next day, it had developed a hunter-gatherer societal structure and begun to communicate in rudimentary linguistic patterns. "If the bombing had been any more severe," said one Red Cross relief worker, "these villagers might be extracting metals from ferrous ores in order to fashion weapons of retaliation against their attackers."

© Copyright 2006, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.

N. Korea is incompetant. Their missle plunged into the Ocean of Japan minutes after take off. Much like the Chinese they are only as powerful as what they can steal from other countries. I.E Chinas stolen nuclear secrets from Los Alamos during the Clinton regime. N. Korea is a non issue.

Good point about only having tech they can steal....

I cant say Clinton and Regime in the same sentence, it's an oxymoron.

Is it safe to say that N. Korea is more advanced with Nuclear technology than Iran?

BornSoVile said:

I'd say so, at least N. Korea has missles to test.

North Korea's is definitely way more advanced than Iran, which is one reason I've been more concerned about them than others in recent years. After all, the Iraq WMD claims were proven fictional to anyone dumb enough to believe them in the first place, and even in the midst of all this concern about Iran, the truth is that their ruling mullahs are surprisingly stable as fanatics go when it comes to the self-preservation of their own lives and billions of dollars. But North Korea always seemed more of a loose cannon with nothing to lose.

However, after these recent events, I am glad to reassure all of you that North Korea striking us with nuclear weapons is next to impossible. Not because of their technology, or missiles falling in the sea (their technology is on its way and will eventually leap those hurdles), but because they have clearly demonstrated their intent by their timing.

If North Korea had started this shit in 2003, or 2004, or 2005, that would have been one thing; it would be a tactical attempt to exploit the lack of US forces available due to the Iraq war. But when did they wait until? They waited until just a few months ago, after seeing Iran score huge points against the US for standing up to them in regards to nuclear development. Iran's goverment has a sweet deal; everytime they want to raise oil prices, they say something controversial, and it works just like a magic wand. In addition, they look like they're standing up to the bully, and raise their profile to a major international player. Everyday that passes, they benefit more on all these fronts.

North Korea sees this, and decides they want to play the same game. The good news for us is that the game only continues to work if there is never a nuclear strike. The bad news... well, markets reacted to the missile test by going down, except oil of course, which went up due to fears that the Asian oil supply might be interrupted. It's the Iran effect all over again, and once again, we seem powerless to stop it.

Ultimately, the real nuclear threat have been and always will be independent groups that owe allegiance to no goverment. No third world country is going to risk hitting us hard, it's much safer to bleed us gradually. After all, why should a maggot buzz around and risk being swatted when he's quietly draining the whole supply undetected?

ShadowSD said:

Thats a little out there... They have had them in the past, so it wasn't that far off that they still had them. I still say they had them up till the whole confrontation started then did one of three things: 1) Sold them. 2) Hid them real well. 3)Destroyed them. Also, there is no proof that they were never there, just they are not there now.

Nuclear war is a very far fetched. If one country shoots one off, every country will shoot thiers off. Nobody will win and everyone knows it. So, everyone wants them for show. "Hey, look at us. We have nukes. We're big boys now."

Man_of_the_Century said:

I thought it ridiculous when first suggested that Iraq had WMD's, I found it to be the biggest crock of shit considering what I knew about the country. Now that there are none to be found, I'm supposed to see that not as evidence that I was correct, but as a serendipitous coincidence. Well, I might be able to buy that had Cheney not written pre-9/11 arguments about setting up permanent military bases in Iraq to an guarantee their oil supply. I might be able to buy it if Colin Powell didn't recently say that making the Iraq WMD arguments in front of the UN was the lowest point of his career. And I might be able to buy it if it were not for enough deceit and outright lies from this administration to fill up this whole North Korea thread and kill it with off-topic ramblings.


Man_of_the_Century said:

Exactly right.

Am I the only person to read the articles that were streaming around in the last few weeks. They stated that US forces did in fact find WMD's... they found near depleted chemical weapons inside old missiles. They were pretty much useless due to age, but it still show's that they never got rid of the ones they were building to destroy Isreal. They werent the WMD's we were looking for, but they still had them.

ShadowSD said:

Man_of_the_Century said:

This is of course true, but that's what the problem with nukes is. We all have guns to each other's heads. All it takes is one maniac actually using one of these atrocities to mankind and we're all gonna pull the trigger. Most of me believes that this will in fact happen, probably within the next 50 - 100 years, and will destroy the "civilized race" (haha) that has been built up over the past thousands of years. I just hope if it happens, or when it happens, it gets everyone so our planet finally gets to have some humanless peace.

i hope it sparks the zombie apocalypse

DrinkHardThrashHard said:

No, it would in fact be one of the most bloody wars in recent years.

Even if we're the ones inciting a war against the North, the North will invade the South no question. The North would storm the South with commandos and start a large scale strategic assault from behind the front lines. They would then launch artillery and missles, and cross the border as a full scale attack with almost all of their troops (a million plus). You know what? We have 27,000 troops on the border. They would be stuck in the middle of this entire thing. And the terrain is forrested, mountainous and hilly, which in short means anyone being attacked by infantry has an incredibly slim chance of winning against them. And If there are engagements in the urban areas, everyone gets fucked over. Another Korean war would almost definately mean a draft.

anonymous said:

This was a PR stunt by Rick Santorum about two weeks ago. He was referring to an old discovery of nothing, chemical weapons that were destroyed in the 90's and the remnants of which troops found two years ago. Trying to revive the story and misrepresent it for an election year is just reprehensible. Fortunately, for once in this decade voters are paying attention, and incumbent senator Santorum is trailing his challenger by double digits. That's why after an initial PR blitz by Santorum and Fox News, the story disappeared as quickly as it appeared.

anonymous said:

Our point is that true suicidal fanatics don't run governments, they blow them up. It's the action of someone with nothing to lose. Therefore, the terrorist with the nuclear weapon is more of a threat than the government with one.

You just have to consider the variable of self-preservation, of which there are many different degrees. Even Bin Laden - who IS a terrorist with no home to destroy, no sovereign interests to protect, and no way of being located on a map and targeted like a goverment leader - will send others to die instead of himself to preserve his own image as an uncatchable jihadist for the strength of his movement. Now think of the leader of a country, who has all those other liabilities, and is useless as a martyr. It quicly becomes clear that it is the terrorist, if anyone, who will re-open the Pandora's Box of nuclear warfare.

anonymous said:

They may have seemed far fetched when it had never happened before, but it has hundreds of times over. Also, your trying to compare a bomb that takes out a few city blocks to a bomd that would level an entire city. You level a city and someone is going to level one right back.

And you need to stop living in the movies. There isn't anyone in the world with any real power that wants the world destroyed. There are people out there that want contries wiped off the planet (like North Korea), but they are not dumb enough to attempt a nuclear strike. Once they send one off thier entire country would be leveled at the push of a button, and they know it.

ShadowSD said:


Just turned on the TV (which goes automatically to PBS when you turn on the cable box), and saw Former State Department Official Wendy Sherman say the following on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:

"I also think Kim Jong Il look at what we were doing with Iran. Here, Iran had really behaved badly, and for that bad behavior, they got a pretty good package that included a light water reactor; the very reactor the Bush Administration denied North Korea."

Nothing like being backed up by the TV within thirty seconds of turning it on.

http://video.download.com/3800-11167_53-8312.html

ShadowSD said:




Jim Lehrer is a baggy eyed Bolshevik

The fact that someone who backs neo-con policies would call themselves americaninfidel proves everything I've said about the current strategy in the war on terror being a counterproductive and self-destructive failure. Please keep calling yourself that.

i really really really really really really really hate the word terror now. just the thought of the word makes me gag. all i can hear is Bush saying "tearrr"

Yeti said:


I wonder if bush has a pre order in for the new terror album?









Bring Back the BOMB!!!!!!!!!

gwar?

sacreligion said:

is amazing.

ShadowSD said:




What exactly would be productive? I do not see how going by the title Americaninfidel is counter productive. Sitting online bantering is counterproductive.

I'm deploying to Iraq in Sept, maybe you don't think our military is going in the correct path. But I'd say joining the cause is a little more productive than trading of witticism's on a death metal site that no politician or anyone of any power will ever see. Wouldnt you agree?

Oh and further more, how would you know what policies I follow, all you heard me say was that Jim Leher was a Bolshevik, and a baggy eyed one at that. A lib should be about to decipher that as well. Oh and I'm not going to try to pull some, "I'm in the military, I'm almighty crap either".... but my point remains. Going to Iraq is certainly more of a help to the solution than just talking about the problem to people who will never have anything to do with the problem.

americaninfidel said:


I read the other thread you posted in where you made your views very clear. I had a gut feeling anyway, and since I was right about it, you can't fault me.

americaninfidel said:

I was making a reference to a point I've made here in the past about how we can only win by not allowing ourselves to sink to their level, whether it comes to condoning torture, dehumanizing enemies, or supporting the political policies of religious fundamendalists:


"If the terrorists successfully frame this war as Christian vs. Muslim, WE LOSE, and if we frame this war as civilization vs. anarchy, WE WIN. That's it."


"I just hold our government to a higher standard than I do terrorist head cutters. If I didn't, then that would mean I don't expect any more from our government than I do from terrorists. And if I don't expect more from our government than I do from terrorists, then there's no reason to be more fearful of one than the other."


"We may not like it, but America as a superpower sets the standard for the rest of the world in ways we don't even realize, and this is doubly true after the fall of the USSR and our emergence as the sole superpower. We elect a foreign policy hardliner (Bush), and yet we are surprised when other countries do the same (Iranians electing Ahmedinejad / Palestinians electing HAMAS).

Ultimately, America sets the standard nowadays, and everytime we punch the mirror for mimicking us, we can't change the reflection; we only end up with shards of glass in our hands."

Source: http://www.returntothepit.com/view.php?formid=27374


Having someone who refuses to listen to this kind of common sense reasoning call themselves americaninfidel is incredibly ironic, if nothing else.



americaninfidel said:

How? How could joining a cause that's not going the correct path POSSIBLY be productive? You say regardless of the fact that I don't think our military is going in the correct path, joining that cause would still be productive; I would love to hear you explain this logic to me.

Bad foreign policy decisions in the Middle East were the terrorists' motivation for 9/11. So our first response was to create more bad foreign policy decisions in the Middle East. Now, America has in a few years fallen to its lowest standing around the world in several decades, which makes terrorist recruitment that much easier. The number of poor, uneducated, young Muslim men in the world with no hope of advancement exceeds the entire population of the United States, and the worse American policies look to them, the more vulnerable all of them become to jihadist recruitment.

Despite our pride as the world's only superpower, if our policies turn them all against us, we can't kill them all. No amount of miltary force, no nuclear weapons will be of any use, because the terrorists will be scattered everywhere and not in a central location. The US, meanwhile, IS a central location which has countless unprotected targets to this day. Now consider that twenty of them took out three thousand of us. Is the math getting through to you yet?

Bottom line: there is one ratio that matters in the war on terror: are we killing them faster than they can recruit?

Maybe all the "tough" reactionary conservatives who go on about defense and patriotism while supporting self-destructive foreign policy and calling Wolf Blitzer and Jim Lehrer communists like they're Joseph Fucking McCarthy should stop being so smug and start thinking about the security of the country realistically, and not as a catchphrase.

I didn't say that I don't beleive its not productive, I said that you don't beleive it is. My point was that at least I'm doing something to help the cause. Am I saying joining the military is the only way to help? No. But in my opinion it is certainly a lot more of a start than being a political pundit on a webpage. If your really so sure of your foriegn policies, then why don't you make yourself heard? Why do you banter on only to peers on a non-political webpage? Is it perhaps because if you tried to throw around your opinion amongst actual political commentaters or foriegn policy experts you would get trounced into the ground?

Admitedly you see a problem with Islamofacism? You have made no claims against using force against them. So how is it not productive to join the military? Explain that to me? It is not up to a soldier to make foriegn policy, its not up to a soldier to choose the course of action.... that one is up to Rummy. It's our job to follow out orders, and if you really beleive that terrorism is a problem... which you do. Then you should be glad their are people out there to fill the uniforms because the Hailtheleafs and WW@W and Josh Martins arnt lining up anytime soon. How you don't agree that joining the armed forces.... (no matter what course its going) is productive, then please explain to me what your doing that is a lot more of a help to todays current crisis. I would love to hear it.


Oh and by the way, I don't care if you get all flared up about my name American Infidel. That is what I am, I didnt coin the phrase my friend.


Further more, I don't see how you can make an example of condoning torture. Since when was that policy? In all of my military training I have never once been taught a class by Saddam Husseins play book.

I've also never heard anyone say its MUSLIMS VS CHRISTIANS.

I don't see where an otherwise very intelligent guy is throwing out some radically unheard of examples. Your starting to sound less like an intelligent moderate, and more like a "passionate" Liberal.

Oh and I'll assume that the article of mine that i posted was the pepsi spy one. You shouldnt have to be a conservative to be outraged by leaking national security tips that endanger our troops or propagating for the enemy. If you'll notice I also pointed out FOX new's Geraldo Rivera.... Im not biased. I hate anyone who helps the enemy. Only reason I had two example from CNN is because they are more blatant and notorious about doing it. Those three were just off the top of my head.

Oh wait.. u said if the terrorists label it as christians vs muslims... my bad.

americaninfidel said:

Since you dragged my name into this...

If you really hate anyone who helps the enemy then you should hate George Bush and yourself too. You idiots played right into their hands by starting a war with next to no international support against a country that hardly posed a threat to us and justifying it with lies. As SD already pointed out, when you make America look like a tyrant all you do is increase recruitment levels for the terrorists. Hatred of America is what started this shit in the first place. Giving them a legitimate reason to hate us is the most counterproductive thing you could possibly do.

Oh, and open and free poltical discussion is a good thing no matter where it takes place. Even on a metal message board.
Why do you hate freedom so much?

Shadow, you are giving Infidel too much credit. You really think he knows who Joe McCarthy is?

americaninfidel said:

Only if your cause is to make America look even worse in the eyes of those who already hate us, while at the same time wasting our resources on a war that's not making us any safer.

How do I hate freedom, because I said that no one of any political importance is going to read it. Yea that really impugns freedom Josh. Your a moron, and just having you on his side makes Shadow look dumber. He's making some good points on his own. How about you leave this to the people who arnt strung out Josh

Josh Martin NLI said:



The people that already hate us? What, were we suppose to send them more millions of dollars in foriegn aid in responce to 9/11? Your a real clever guy Josh. You should really run for office, I mean if a drunk like Teddy K can get office in Ma... I'm sure a junky with your credentials will have no problems.

americaninfidel said:

Out of everything I said you pick the tongue in cheek remark to respond to.

Shadow is kicking the shit out of you in this thread. You are lucky he's playing nice.

I love how every person against the war makes it seem like were going bankrupt from it. If you were intelligent at all and researched the matter, you would quickly learn that this war has cost the least amount of our gross national income out of almost every conflict in history. Even the war of 1812. But I'm really giving you too much credit by assuming you know about the war of 1812.

americaninfidel said:

Is this "junky" crap supposed to be insulting??? I like to party and I've never made a secret of it.

But yeah, lets make it way easier for them to recruit more terrorists. Brilliant!!!

haha well I shouldnt be so lucky. I enjoy arguing with people who make good points. One reason I'll argue with shadow is because maybe he can expand some horizons. He speaks intelligently and makes valid points. You on the other hand just speak passionatley and say any dimwitted thing that comes to mind. Maybe you better leave this to the people with an attention span longer than a beer commercial.

americaninfidel said:

You have learned to twist and exaggerate from your hero W very nicely. No one said we are going bankrupt. Its still a giant waste of resources.

americaninfidel said:

No, you won't argue with me because you can't refute anything I said. That's why you have to resort to the insults.

I love how junkies referr to shooting up as partying. A party has baloons and cake. Beer and music if you will. Never before have I seen a social gathering of heroin users. At the most there is a few just sharing a needle and lying on a couch.

americaninfidel said:

You are acting like you know me.
I have the balls to post under my real name. I have no clue who you are other than someone who got suckered into going to Iraq. You actually think you are helping. hahaha

Its a waste of very little resource my friend. Financially, and the human toll is so much less than any country has ever spent. The battle of Somme in world war 1 cost the British 60,000 lives on the first day. Heres how its helping, with them attacking us there.... they don't have all the time to plan and execute attacks here. The best defense is a good offense.

Ha, being mocked for doing the bravest and most noble thing that anyone from any country can do... risk their lives for the hand that feeds them. And from a junkie, and I dont need to personally know you to know your a junkie...

heres my real name... Kevin Wesley Fletcher... from Chelmsford Ma... currently in building 2554 on Fort Carson Co. I have nothing to hide cum dumpster.

I dont get your point about our foriegn policy? We have given more aid to muslims than any other entity in the world. PERIOD. We have more Muslims living in America than in Afghanistan. You think its our harsh treatment of Muslims that causes their hatred? Or our foriegn policy, because Europe has been butting into Africa and the middle easts business much longer than we have been a country. And in China they are much harsher on their Muslim minorities. But what do you think a nuclear armed China would have done muslim terrorists flied planes into sky scrapers in Bejing? Its because years of appeasement has caused us to be viewed as weak. And Bin Laden has even publicly said as much, about how Clinton shamefully pulled out of Mogadishu. Saying please dont kill our citizens wouldnt have helped out mr national security adviser.


Heres a hint Josh. Its not our foriegn policy that makes them hate us. Its our moral degeneracy that they hate. These hardcore religious zealots dont want their daughters wearing mini skirts and t shirts that say party favor. They dont want their sons in bathhouses all fucked up on ecstacy with rings in their nipples. They dont want their wives to go out to the bar half naked. They dont like the thought of singers half naked on the stage, cavorting with a whip. They dont want Howard Stern slapping their daughters ass.

Its not our foriegn policy they hate. Its our way of life. Even though they kill civilians and saw off heads, they still see themselves as more pure. They see the westernization of such countries as Jordan and Kuwait. And they are appauled. They hate us, not our foriegn policy.

americaninfidel said:

I'd like to beleive that.
But the people who were attacking us weren't Iraqis.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and if we ever grow the balls to invade Saudi Arabia I wouldn't mind that either.
But Iraq? C'mon....

Its not simply us they want to destroy Josh. They want to controll the world with Sharia law. And as Shadow has said, an enemy in hiding and not centralized is more dangerous.

You want to know why they attacked us first.... they didnt expect us to react like we did. They wanted to prove were weak to the rest of the world, do you think the appeasers in Europe would give up much resistance when the almighty America ran away. They are attacking us because were the head of the snake as far as Western civilization. If we go down they surely Europe will crumble.

How is Iraq different from Saudi Arabia?

Fuck em all.....theres no difference.
Its like saying North and South Carolina are two drastically different entities.

Blow
em
the
fuck
up
!!

elequently said powerkok.

americaninfidel said:

So, you gossip about me like an old lady, talk about counterproductive...

I don't disagree that there is a portion of Islam that hates our way of life, but clearly lots of them like it too, since they are slowly but surely being westernized.
But I'd really like you to provide a link to a study that shows our way of life is the main source of aggravation as opposed to our support of Isreal and them blaming us for their shitty living conditions.

I'm not going to be bold and say this was their intent. Because the empty suits under Rummy probley didnt think this too far into it. But heres a good reason to invade iraq. Fuck the plight of iraqis under Saddam. Fuck all that stupid shit the demicans and republicrats said.

Strategically speaking. Look at a map. Iraq is right dead in the middle of many extremist countries. Right in the middle of the middle east. Not to mention its religious signifigance to them. Us setting up shop there is absolutley the best place to be... its drawing all the vermin out of the woodworks so we can kill them. Not to mention the largest terrorist training camp run by Ansar an Islam was located on the border of iraq and iran and 10 special forces group destroyed it. Theres a reason theyre not coming here thru the border with Mexico... its because first they need to drive us out of the holy land. Im 100% against a pull out of Iraq.

I don't think the current quagmire in Iraq is making us look all that strong.
We kicked the Taliban right the fuck out of Afghanistan. That was good.
Then we invaded Iraq for no good reason and its turned into a mini-Viet Nam. That was not good.

If Bush really wanted to end terrorism he would've invaded Riyadh, not Baghdad. I don't believe for a minute that the so called war on terrorism is the motivation for this war. If it was, why all the lies?

There is no study into it. Because the Neo cons are too busy jabbering on abotu Iraqi freedom and the anti war libs are too busy attacking the bush administration.

Im not a lib or a conservative. Im a nationalist, and thats how i registered as a voter. I dont have a political agenda. My agenda is too give my children as good of a country as i inherited. So I dont know why everyone calls me a neo con and Bush lover. I voted for him, but thats cuz John Kerry was a timid, two faced, indecisive jackass.

I dont get how faulty intelligence is summed up to a lie. Because democrats, republicans, Americans and Europeans alike all publicly said he had the weapons. If he lied, he was certainly in good company.

americaninfidel said:

And fuck all the normal people over there just trying to live their lives. If they get in the way, too bad, right?
America is supposed to be better than that. That is pathetic if we stoop to that level.

If anything, he chose Iraq because Saddam tried to kill his daddy. I cant blame him. id kill some asshole who tried to kill my father too. And inadvertantly he managed to make the best strategic stronghold. Plus with our military rampaging through out the world. We need oil, and Saudi is our biggest supplier. If we truley had stole Iraqs oil, we would probley turn our eyes on Saudi next. Truth is, just like our alliance with the Soviets in WW2. Its merely an alliance of convenience in my best estimation.

We dont target the normal people. In the end, they'll end up a lot better than they would have if Saddam mantained controll and then passed power to Uday or Qusey.

americaninfidel said:

You really believe it was just faulty intelligence?
I think the way that Bush retaliated against those who were over there and said there were no weapons is proof enough that he knew all along there was nothing there.
Outing a CIA NOC is the most harmful thing ever done to our intelligence community.

americaninfidel said:

Now you're just throwing out your own theories.

Are those defense strategies discussed before or after you're done gossiping about me?

Well what reason could it be? I know a lot of combat veterans. A lot. Many who have been two or three times already. And I have asked them if they've ever seen us doing anything fishy around oil rifineries. Not one combat veteran will tell you that were stealing their oil. But im being presumptive here, most people think if he lied... it was to steal oil. I dont beleive that, if he did lie. It was because of the attempted assination on his father and on clinton. I couldnt care less either way. But if he did lie, then why did the Democrats agree with him? They had the same intelligence he did, and so did all the European countries.

Heres a good article. Funny that I found it at this particular time.




The Subtexts of War
Culture, oil, and reckless dissent.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Throughout this war there are various truths generally recognized, but rarely voiced.






The Subtexts of War 07/07

Winning the Iraq Wars 06/30

Despair and Hope 06/22

Betting on Defeat? 06/16

Vietnam, After All? 06/09

The American Way of War 06/02





Zalenski: July 9, 2006

Editors: Window on The Week – 7/7/06

Boyles: Failure of Intelligence

Kucewicz: Finance-Based Growth

Berg: A Step Toward Clarity

Hanson: The Subtexts of War

Goldberg: Truth, Justice, & Arrogant Unilateralism

Santorum: Comprehensive Failure

Lowry: End of Illusions

Sieff: America’s New Best Friend

Robbins: Video Nasty

Hawkins: War on the Border





First, before 9/11 the Western hard right-wing allowed radical Islam a pass — and then afterwards the Left did worse. That fact helps to explain the strange exemption given radical Islam in the West even today.

In the 1980s some conservatives saw the jihadists in Afghanistan or the Wahhabis in the Gulf as valuable bulwarks against global Communism. On the Western domestic front, even extremist Muslims — in their embrace of family values and resentment against modernism — were considered bedrock conservatives. Supposedly, they shared the same understandable concern about Western “decadence,” such as promiscuity, homosexuality, crass popular culture, and family dissolution.

So, despite clear evidence that many conservative mosques in the West were promulgators of a sick backward extremism, many social reactionaries hardly wished to upset their fellow travelers. Add in common distrust of Israel, and no surprise that the pages of The American Conservative will still sometimes resemble those of the Nation.

But with the fall of Communism, and the subsequent revelation that Islamists did not worry about the unfortunate direction of contemporary Western culture so much as they wished to destroy it, culpability then mostly fell to the Left.

Multiculturalism (no culture is worse than the West’s) and its twin of cultural relativism (those with power have no right or ability to judge others) gave a wide pass to radical Islam and its 7th-century primitivism. Apparently most Leftists thought the dearth of women in the clubhouse at the Masters Tournament at Augusta National was far worse than the Arab world’s honor killings, burqas, and coerced female circumcision.

Indeed, a radical Leftist always faces a dilemma when a fellow anti-American sounds fascistic. The usual course, as we have seen since September 11, is either to keep silent about such embarrassing kindred spirits, or to weasel out by suggesting our own hegemonic tendencies pushed a once reasonable “Other” in lamentable directions.

The result? Killers and terrorists have been able to operate openly in European capitals. Here in North America, in the 58 months after the Twin Towers fell, numerous cadres of terrorists still continue to be rounded up — without a peep of condemnation from mainstream Muslim groups, who have instead crafted an ingenious cult of victimization, predicated on sympathy from the Left. Ask yourself: In the fifth year since September 11, is it more likely that Islamic associations in Canada or the United States will condemn global Islamic extremism or complain about purported Islamophobia and the sins of “Zionism”?

Another undercurrent to this war is the abject failure to do anything about imported petroleum — the hundreds of billions that accrued to the Middle East and Gulf when petroleum skyrocketed from $30 to $70 a barrel. Without such excesses of free-floating and impossible-to-trace petrodollars, bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Al-Zarqawi would have remained clownish portraits on the pathetic street posters of a Jericho or Zarqa. Instead, we are indirectly paying for their IEDs.

The truth is that as long as American petroleum demand, coupled with restrictions on our own energy development, helps drive the world oil price up, we are simply funding psychopaths who otherwise would have no viable economic means of support. Without Saudi petrol money, Wahhabism, the godhead of Islamic fascism, devolves into just another localized lunatic sect. So we talk seriously about new alternative energy, and seriously do nothing — in the vain hope that the price soon collapses or, barring that, we can stop the guy on a motorbike in Damascus or Ramadi from delivering millions in cash satchels from Saudi financiers to al Qaeda killers.

Yet, when the fifth anniversary of this war approaches this September, we are no closer to energy independence than we were in 2001. There is no better proof of this than our continual appeasement of rich sheiks who have ensured that the venom of their own incoherent imams reaches billions.

Finally, there are a number of influential Americans — let us be frank — who want us to forfeit this effort in Iraq. For some prominent Democrats, like a Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Durbin, who compares our wartime military on occasion to Saddam’s Baathists or Nazis, it is an issue of simple partisanship. If Iraq blows up in the face of the United States, and we can still avoid another September 11, then they wager that Bush and his cohorts, in the manner of a wrecked Johnson or Nixon administration, might alone suffer the political consequences. For them, collateral damage to America is worth the risk incurred by their own sleazy rhetoric.

Others of the Michael Moore / Cindy Sheehan brand are far more unbalanced, of course. They have either praised the enemy outright (jihadists as “Minutemen”) or slurred the present administration (Bush as “world’s greatest terrorist”) as consistently as any al Qaedist mouthpiece. Still, we can’t call these folk exactly fringe-types — not when the Democratic elite queue up for Moore’s premiers or praise Sheehan’s madness. Just as mainstream Muslim organizations don’t rush to condemn Islamic radicalism, so too liberal Democrats rarely denounce the rhetoric of their own fanatical Left.

True, during the 1998 Balkans campaign, there were right-wing Lindbergians who wanted Clinton to fail and the United States to get stung in the Balkans and return to its 1930s isolationism. But these critics were small in numbers, isolated from the mainstream political opposition, and quickly silenced by the brevity and economy of warfare waged solely from 30,000 feet.

There is a final unspoken truth as well. Al Qaeda might not go away soon. The Europeans, as in the Clinton years, will always triangulate. North Korea and Iran, both of whom started nuclear programs in the 1990s, will still issue unhinged threats. Barring its discovery of some clandestine government effort to monitor radical Christian fundamentalists better left secret, the New York Times will keep leaking confidential national-security measures. But the time will come when there is once again a Democratic administration.

In that climate, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Howard Dean, or their epigones, will still have to persuade the American people that radical Islam means to destroy us. They can’t say their war is cooked up in Texas, but will instead have to deal with the Sheehanites and the loose-cannon bloggers they either appeased or encouraged.

Who knows — perhaps President Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Wesley Clark, and Attorney General John Edwards may soon appear on television extending support for democrats in Baghdad or deploring unlawful disclosures that emboldened terrorists plotting to blow up Washington.

Because this generation of the opposition, in a foolish and short-sighted manner, has turned an American struggle into George Bush’s futile war, it will either have to abandon the democracy in Iraq or recant and assure the rest of us that its past hateful and extremist rhetoric was just politics, and they are now going to unite us and lead us on to victory over the primevalists after all.

I never said one word about oil.
Since we're being theoretical now, I think this whole bullshit war is just a distraction. Something to keep the left up in arms about so they don't pay too much attention to his domestic policy on social issues, which is where Bush is truly evil.

You're article supports my theory.
Michael Moore should be far more worried about the assholes Bush is putting on the supreme court than how we treat a country of ragheads.
It will be very interesting (if not scary) to see where things like the Patriot Act lead to 20 years down the road.
We are slowly turning into a fundementalist christian nation. So slowly that most people don't notice it. Each baby step towards a theocracy seems like a good idea at the time. But looking at the big picture is frightening. The longer the right stays in control, the more we will revert to puritanical times. Roe v Wade is a heartbeat away fro being overturned. Bush has far too many Americans so scared that they will trade away the first ammendment for some "security". Warrantless wire taps are only used against terror suspects NOW. That is a very very slippery slope.
Our entertainment is slowly being cleansed of anything "controversial" because of a (gasp!) female breast being shown on tv.
Way too many people think creationism and intelligent design are science.
I could go on but I think I've made my point.
Meanwhile everyone is too busy arguing about the war to notice that WE are turning into a christian version of the Taliban.

Basically, the war keeps the left busy and it gets the right to support government intrusion into our lives. Its win/win for the chistians who got Bush elected.

I never said the article supported my point.. or hurt yours. I mostly liked the beginning. Particularly where they described why radical muslims hate us. I dont see how were turning into a radical christian country when I see blasphemy everywhere daily.... and people have been trying to overturn Roe v.s Wade since it was created. Nothing new my friend. And the right getting its judges is what happens when they win two straight elections. Just like when we were cursed with Ruth bader Ginsburg when clinton won 2 elections. Its politics and thats how it goes... its not a huge conspiracy like you make it sound.

u really think everyone who voted for Bush is Christian? Thats a gross over estimation my friend.

This is boring if you need me to connect the dots for you.

connect them.. cuz i think ur delusional. Enlighten me here.

I love how Josh changes the point exactly when he is faced with a valid point in that his 'theories' arent really that plausible.
Josh, you are so righteous and edgy, I cant even stand next to you without being sliced open.

What point did I change?
Wesley was the one who started posting theories, so I did too.
If he can't see my point from what I already posted, yawn.
Everything I said IS happening. It just depends on if you think its a good thing or a bad thing. I, not being a christian, think its bad.

Wesley's response showed what I was saying went right over his head. Again, yawn.

Here's a hint though. The key word in what I said is "slowly"

And if the fundamentalists get voted out in '08 my whole theory will become moot anyway.

And Kok, I know you are a DKs fan. You of all people should know what I am talking about.

What point Josh? So far, you havent made any lasting impressing. Shadow i can learn something from. Which is one reason I hear him out. So far you didnt make any good point, you kept changing the subject... and i played with ur game to the tee. Which is what powerkok is talking about.

And yes my middle name is Wesley. Very clever to call me by my middle name like its clever and insulting. Which was named after my great grandfather, whom was just another man who makes you look as abysmal as you really are.

And as far going over my head, you still havent came up with anything to explain why were becoming a christian america when jenna jameson publishes a book called "how to become a porn star".... your just anti bush and anti christian. You never insult the muslim faith.... but your attacking christians periodically. Ive decided now, your not intelligent enough to argue with. How about you leave it to Shadow so your side doesnt sound like what CNN causes the stereo type to be.


Im leaving at 0600 to go to the national training center. So I wont be able to defend myself until august. So this is your keen time to get some licks in Josh. I know your not above it.

Oh and for the record. Changing the point... would be arguing foreign policy about the war..... to claiming Bush is making a Christian America in about 3 posts. Your very typical. Just another Bush basher who would love to see our country to go down in flames to spite this administration. Your a disgrace to the left... and Shadow if you read this... ill be back to continue this in a month.

Josh Martin NLI said:

I hear and can agree with both sides, on certain points, yes.
I will be the last one to persecute anybody.
I do love DK.