Heard the news? Bush said, that he could invade Iran, if government of this country won't prove their cleanity in weapons of mass destruction. I think (and there are lot of such people), that war in Muslim countries (like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc.) is suicide. You probably know about Chechnya in our country.
Muslims have their own viewing and comprehension of the world based on their religion, and if you declared war on such fanatic country (and in Middle East there are all like that), you will be destroyed. Here's an example: Americans will probably stay in Iraq just like we in Afghanistan. The terrorists with their attacks will finally force US to take measures. Our measure in Afghanistan was withdrawing forces from this country. What will do Americans?
I don't think, that they will act in more or less democratic way, which means withdrawing. Invade in Iraq costed money and had secondary target - oil. So the only way to deal with terrorists, when they finally ruin you, is to introduce shooting all without exception. Muslims is a nation of potential terrorists. Their religion preaching terror, which is well known in word "gazavat" (well, at least we, Russians, pronounce it like that, though more popular is synonim "dzhihad"). Actually, I heard speech of Muslim priest, and he told, that this "gazavat" don't intend violence or war actions. Muslim "holy war against wrongs (peolpe of not Muslim faith)" intends preach against all that (wrong) religions. He meant, that this war have only one weapon - word.
But some damn extremists perverted the truly words of their prophet and use the religion as a shield in their terroristic acts against the Jews (in Israel) and other nations (you are remember 11.09.2001). Had to be said, that this meaning of "holy war" appeared long ago, couple of years after Magomed death. Thus, nowadays that "holy war" means only terror, even in eyes of respectable Muslim priests in our country (I heard such speech on TV just when US invaded Iraq). So I think Americans should take care of Iraq and then think about other plans. But, like I said, it is improbable to take control in Iraq. If country had less area, than maybe, but Iraq is not very small. So, to make a conclusion, Americans have a BIG problem and I don't think that they'll deal with it.

I really hate that sdfljsdlfčh salkgjlksadgj sagj isgj BUSH!!! :ranting: :ranting: :ranting: :ranting: :ranting:
And I tell you this - he wont stop just like that on Iran, I think he will go further (maybe China?)!

About gazavat or dzhihad or jihad, I would say it WAS somekind of a holy war, BUT for that time (7th century)! And there were different circumstances.

I think the US isn't planning a full-scale invasion like in Iraq since the new generation of Iranians isn't at all fanatic (the middle and upperclass mostly, the lowerclass is still fanatic)
I think they are simply planning on destroying some of the above-ground nuclear installations like Israel did with Osirak.
This would be a severe setback to their nuclear program and would send a clear message to the government. And then the US could go back to trying to topple the Ayatollah through diplomatical means.

If they did try somewhere like China then they would get their fingers pretty badly burnt, more so than they did in Iraq.

:blink:

Bush wouldn't go into Iran - it would be economic suicide. And China? Not a chance.

Even forgetting the religious/political backlash (which will be massive, I agree) caused by invading a third arab islamic country, three wars would just cost too much.

Now I know the Republican party loves guns, but it loves money too.

I doubt they could overrun china :D

It's almost a superpower on it's own.

Wtf does this Bush think what he is? What (excuse me) damn right does he have to declare a war on any country? Iran simply saw the need to get some nuclear weapons, because USA has any. As with that thing where Russia and USA agreed to destroy their mass destruction weapons, Russia did it. USA didn't. Now they claim to have the right to attack someone who has them? I really didn't want to say that, but I hope that sometime later a brutal blow will be dealt to USA which will destroy their economy power at all. That would teach them to not to put their nose in things that aren't of their concern. :not_ok:
Tell me what you want, I think the terrorists are on the right side there. They at least dare to do something against USA, while other countries simply hold their heads back and don't dare to say anything against.

Nevermind the fact innocent people died in those heroic attacks, atleast the Bush administration got hurt, right?
I mean because of those attacks the US grew weak, eh?

sarcasm off

I don't mean people that "just do their job" and that are against the actions of the USA. But there're many people who are on Bush's side, and such ones I meant. Though if people don't do anything against, even if they're against that in their minds, they're supporting it, too.
And "innocent" people always die, that's life, pal. I didn't mean that it's ok that "innocent" people die. It's sad that people have to die in our "civilized" world at all. But it's not something that can be prevented, right?

I don't agree with the terrorist attacks but I do believe that America needs it's ego popping, I am tired of it thinking that it can do whatever it wants and invade any country and then not have to answer to anybody.

No, pal, thats death.
But you are right, people always die, might aswell revel in the glory of the terrorist attacks in that case.

But if that is really your point of view that its not terrible that innocent people die you have NO right whatsoever to critisize the war.
The only reason war is bad is because innocent people get hurt, but thats life, eh pal?

I think I mentioned it visible enough... :whistle:

yes, you seemingly contradict yourself but I can't help but feel your apologetic stance towards innocent deaths is a bit halfhearted.

I don't approve terroristic acts too. If you want do die with honor, you mustn't kill yourself and take away life of innocent people. War means war actions, actions against enemy soldiers, not those damn cowardly attacks on innocents.

Indeed,
I have nothing aainst the insurgent attacks against US troops.

I take the point about the terrorists being brave enough to stand up to the US because someone needs too and most politicians are generally too cowardly.

However, I would in no way condone their actions. No situation should ever require the deaths of innocent people, in fact, no situation should ever require the violent deaths of anyone as far as I'm concerned!

We just ‘spread the freedom’ (Bush’s TM) LOL

I can’t say I liked Sadam and what he did to his people, neither have I liked what USA is doing in Iraq.

As for Iran, USA is just checking out what they doing, even Government is declining that they have done that. I don’t believe they will attack Iran same way they did Iraq, but they might attack some ‘targets’.

I don’t believe USA will ever attack China, as China already has nuclear weapons. More likely they will attack North Korea.

Apropos of all this, if you want to read something really scary, try the Project for the New American Century. PNAC, as it's called, issued a manifesto in 1998, and most of the signatories are highly placed members of the Bush administration: cabinet secretaries, under-secretaries, and paid advisors. This is the official think-tank of the Neo-Cons. The stuff is written to sound very proper, but its concepts are alarming in their implications. Here's an example by a prominent Neo-Con, administration representative and PNAC founding member, Richard Perle:

"We are going to have to take the war against [the terrorists] often to other people's territory, and all of the norms of international order make it difficult to do that. So the president has to reshape fundamental attitudes toward those norms, or we are going to have our hands tied by an antiquated institution (the traditional international system) that is not capable of defending us."

He assumes definitions of terrorists and terrorism, a single solution for terrorism, and a right to violate the territorial sovreignty of any nation if the Bush administration deems it necessary to its interests. This is virtually identical to the policy of the Roman Empire in its heyday, by the way, the idea that nations must be stopped in advance of causing problems, if they could possibly do so. And there's that sinister, "the president has to reshape fundamental attitudes toward those norms," which seems like a permit to employ any means--any lie, any falsified document--to achieve a given result, since (in the PNAC perspective) the goals justify any means.

bush = the antichrist

well that sounds like inquisition to me!!

4 more years.... :blink:

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/scp/vi...&event_id=14994

god help us.... LOL

Well I guess it's my turn to say something...
First off - I don't think it's Bush who's doing this. One man alone can never do this. And if you take a look at the Clinton administration - US was in war back then too. Only back then it was the war on drugs and it was happening in their own back yard - latin America. They were able to make that war popular, by making movies about it and everybody wanted to stop drugs anyway... So what if they aply a bit of preasure on some banana-government (not ment as an insult to anyone living in smaller countries south of Rio Grande) to allow their troops to go in.
Now drugs aren't importaint anymore. People were sick and tired of drug treaths and the military involvment wasn't big enough. A country with such a huge war machinery as US can not afford not to go to war. If they don't go to war they have to reduce their army budget - and that would mean a disaster! Do you even know how many people got a steady job and a comfortable life because they worked for companies that had governmet contracts for building army products? Most of american industry that is still home based could collapse!
So if the choice of the government is to let their country get ruined or find a good excuse to go to war... Well so far we know what they chose! The problem is that most products made in America can't compete with the products of far east (because of the cheap labour force). And even if US get a cheap enough laber force - it's not american citizens, but emigrants who are prepared to work for less (thus the unemploymant rate gets higher). And after some time even those workers realise they have some rights and will demand more, so the prices have to go up and the company is not competitive any more.
American economy stands on very thin ice!!! Most people are overdepth - loans and morgages of all sorts... And most of it's heavy industry is moveing or has moved abroad... Health and social security rate is extremely low, and it's up to an individual to take care of it... Only type of industry that still seems to be in the rise is the entertainment industry (films, music, yellow press, sports, talk shows,...) which has reached a definite low in quality (with some exceptions). Besides media (who controls the entertainment - and public opinion) there is only one other strong branch - and that's the military.
Not to mention the fact that the remains of the industry is poluting in a big way - and thus US has to ignore the international agreements like the Kyoto protocol (which is seriously outdated anyway). But it's easier to ignore an agreement that's backed up with militery actions. Start a war agains Iraq and break some international treaties (with an excuse that your own people would believe all the way) and no one will even think of trying to convince you to except a protocol to preotect the environment...
So I think the root of the problem is much deeper. Will US attach Iran? If there's no better target - yes, because not to attack will mean that the US will start to fall apart (which it eventually will). Many people compare it with the Roman empire - yes there are many paralels and yes - both ends will be just about the same (it's only a question of time - and who the next Byzantium will be).

What, still wanna read more? Well start thinking on your own - I haven't all the answers :sneaky: :bye:

Reading your post , it basically covers my point of view too,but I have this to add:

USA isn't run by presidents it's run by CORPORATIONS and their interest, which in the long run made US the superpower it is today, however, US will be (economically) defeated by China , it's already started, and China will become the new superpower sooner than you think , and I mean economically and not so much in political power.

Is there really any difference? Usually the political power derives either from great military strength, or from great economy strength (usually a superpower has both) - and rerely one might have some power because they hold a vital resource (but that just usually makes one a target of a superpower).

Well China won't be able to influence the world so much until it totally get's rid off communism, I know they've started to open up but if they'll use authocracy so much, they will be suspicios to other countries, and the rest of the world might team up on them...(Like commies and capitalists did in WW2, against the greater threat)

God, I was under the impression that sentance died together with the word "Flowerpower"

Could be, on the other hand, there's an ever growing number of people that are developing some sort of communist nostalgia (people from many eastern coutries).
Sayings like: "Before you had the obligation to work even if you couldn't get rich - now you have the right to starve to death and complain about it." aren't exactly sure signs of communism being defeeted - it's a good idea, that was misused by some individuals. So with some addaptations (a more liberal form, that would find a fine line between market economy, social security and government involvmant...). Who knows.
@Stroggy: The sentance might be old, but can you honestly say it's not true?

Good point about Roman empire and Byzantium. But, like I said, I don't think, that further expansion will help US to set right the situation in their country (like you mentioned about their economic, social situation etc.). This is because all Arabian world is a big pack of terrorists. You probably saw on TV about terrorists training camps. We are living in time, where we are showing about how other people learning in how to kill us!
But the topic is not about it. But, to think, really it looks like conquest of the all, that is not conquested, is the only option left to US, if they want to stay in Union a little more. But it won't help much, because if US attack another Islamic country, like Iran, they are going to meet the resistance of the all Arabian world. And the conquested countries especially, of course. And then the collapse of the most democratic country in the world will be very fast. So... we shall see, what they'll do next.
Somebody in one of the posts said, that US could attack China. Well, this is really madness. There are 1, 400, 000, 000 of them nevertheless! :ok: No... I think, that couldn't be excluded war between our countries. Or China against us. We've been told in university, that US has a plan of making the conflict between Russia and China. But, the hell, anyway I'll better fight the US, not Chinese! So I hope, if the war will broke out, it would be the war against US! Don't listen very much to the speeches of politicians about how good are our relationships. We were and will be the enemies, until there is only one country left.
Although, if I was born in, to say, 1750, I would gladly and surely travel to the colonies in 1775 to fight the revolution! I miss these times very much... I mean all the XVIII century.

Can you honestly say its only the US?

The entire world is under the influence of corperations, not just the 'evil' US.
And, when push comes to shove, do politicians really have different goals than CEOs?

@Stroggy:Well US has much more liberal market than let's say France(which owns many companies), so Corps.(not the dead bodies) definetaly play a bigger part in politics in US than in before menrioned France
@Sebatianos: Communist nostalgics will get old and die eventually, I know by my parents, but the world is left to younger people and they hac very little or no memory of communism.Anyway doesn't everybody how it was much better in the good old days??

I feel sorry for the guys who get hurt by the sane people who try to kill off american soldiers. except the american soldiers

Don't make me pack again and move to some 3rd country!!! (living in US) :blink: :angry:

I don't believe that there will be some big war comming soon. Even if it will, it will not include two superpowers, but one of supper powers and some small weak country.

Same as Rusia occupied Chechenia, China did simillar long time ago with Thibet, and USA is just about done with Iraq (far from done, but they controling most of the country). I don't believe they will succede with elections and other nice talk stuff, as people overthere are not thrilled to see americans. Nieather I would like to see them, if they bomb me, take me to preason if they believe I did something and torture me... (long list)

What about India and Pakistan? Could there be a war (possible nuclear war) between these two countries?

I'm surprised the US hasn't been in civil war.
oh, yes it has...
I'm surprised the US hasn't been in civil war again.

Can you honestly say its only the US?

The entire world is under the influence of corperations, not just the 'evil' US.
And, when push comes to shove, do politicians really have different goals than CEOs? [/b][/quote]
Point well taken :ok:

@Nick:
Do you really remember those old days :whistle:
But seriously - you're talking about muslim world as being nothing but a training base to produce terorist that will kill everybody who isn't muslim. Thet's just silly. Yes - there is a lot off terorism going on and that's BAD. But I have a question: "Do you know why there's so much terorism?"
In my opinion it's very simple (and I can even understand it - NOT SUPORT, just understand). That region of the world now known as the Islamic world once had some great empires (Persian & Otoman are just the most famous). So they have a history that can make them proud in some way. But for a couple of centuries now they have been treated as somebody elses peice of land, that can be turned over to a new owner with all the people living there (it was a part of land that was under the control of: Turks, English, Frenc, Russians (at least some parts for some time) and now apearently US. They are treated as third rate countries - the third world - no one takes them seriously. They are just a part of the bet in some big poker game world superpowers were playing in last 200 years. So I bet they have to be really pissed off and the religion is probably the only thing that can unite them - that's why they are uniting under the call for holy war. That's BAD, but there's no real alternative... What do you thing Russian heroes like Aleksander Newsky were called - they were considered terorists in those days (same as American trappers fighting the red coats, or even freedom fighters in world war 2). But the terorists of today have gotten more bloodthursty, more violent and are killing inocent people (in much larger numbers then ever befor - but then again, the world never had so many people).
That's just a though - so next time you're saying - all muslims are terrorists out to kill us, just remember that it's the "developed and civilized" world that hasn't taken them seriously until they resorted to terorism...
That's no excuse - TERORISM is BAD, but stopping it is a whole different matter.

I agree.

Well said Sebatianos.

whatever that means in mehnglish, I mehgree.

Damm danny..

How could a 12 year old kid already be drunk???? :eeeeeh: :eeeeeh:

its the boredom. it can really affect the brain.

They share a drink that is called lonleyness, but it`s better then drinking alone


From: Billie Joel: Piano man

oh.

I find it hilarious that non-Americans think all or most Americans wanted to attack Iraq a second time. The only people who really think America should have occupied Iraq are the elite upper classes, the Republican party, and the major corporations. If all Americans who are registered voters were given the opportunity to vote on whether America should go to war, America would have caught Osama a long time ago, and countries like North Korea, Libya, and Iran wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction.

Did you know that pretty much every soldier in the American military is low to middle class? One of the top reasons why people join the American military is to get money for college, which is almost impossible to get otherwise unless you were born rich or are a genius. Americans didn't join the military to go to the middle east and kill people, you know.

Don't blame all Americans for America invading Iraq; blame the rich, the government, and the idiots who voted for Bush just to make sure homosexuals can't marry (which is one of the biggest reasons why Bush was re-elected; NOT the war in Iraq).

[quote][quote] U make a good point sebastianos just wanted to comment on this part:
1-ETA spanish separatists and the corsica liberation army are both considerd as terrorists group but none of them is either bloodthirsty or violent
2-it is said in islam (don't know the real qoran quote) that whoever kills an offender to islam (christians,jews,buddhists) will be greated in heaven by 13 virgins

i live in a black list country (islamic majority) and beleive me islam's only objectif now is to overpopulate christianity.

The Koran says that Muslims may not kill at all, except in defense of self, others, and/or Mecca.

it says that muslims may not kill at all other muslims
but its another story for infidels

america supported terrorism until it happened to them.
they used to invite the irish terrorists to the whitehouse, and they even had convicted bombers lead the st patricks day marches in NYC.
they even wanted to do that AFTER 9/11... but the firefighters and cops put a stop to that.

Well, it seems anti-American schadenfreude is even more popular with the younger crowd than Britney What's-Her-Face.

No, Muslims may not kill non-Muslim followers of Allah unless they attack them first. The Koran specifically names Christians, Jews, and Sabians as followers of Allah. It wouldn't surprise me if Islamic terrorist organizations twist the words of the Koran around to their advantage.

I am sure there is a lot of word twisting but if i recall jihad is not self defence
or maybe thats another twist i bought

jihad means 'holy war' as heard on the news channel

Jihad is neither holy war nor self defense. Jihad means "to struggle." Fighting the temptations of sin is jihad. Doing what is right instead of wrong is jihad. Doing what your parents want you to do instead of what you would rather do (except if what your parents want you to do is against Allah) is jihad.

Jihad in Islam is not an act of violence directed indiscriminately against the non-Muslims; it is the name given to an all-round struggle which a Muslim should launch against evil in whatever form or shape it appears. Fighting in the way of Allah is only one aspect of Jihad. Even this in Islam is not an act of mad brutality....It has MATERIAL and MORAL functions, i.e. self-preservation and the preservation of the moral order in the world." ("Sahih Muslim, III, page 938 - explanatory note).

Well it seems you are absolutely right

From the Koran:

[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

[5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

See, this is one reason why I like being a Christian: If Islam, Judaism, or Christianity is right about Allah/YHWH, then I will end up in heaven if Allah/YHWH decides I should go there. If there's no God, then I won't have anything to worry about.

LOL well that's a great way to see things not very catholic but still a great way to see things


:angel: christianity rules!! :angel:

I consider myself a liberal Catholic, as a matter of fact. I have my own interpretations of various parts of the Bible, and I also borrow on certain philosophies and practices from Eastern religions.

Not to mention that I subscribe to the liberal Christian viewpoint on masturbation.

you've only got about 6 months on me, grandpa!

church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell church in hell

You're annoying. :bleh:

Britney seems to have fallen off the face of the Earth. The new icon seems to be Paris Hilton. Hey girls, you too can have a successful porn career AND that fashion ad contract!

I just love your arguments they are so well written i don't know how to tell you that but you just changed my whole point of view and my whole religion thank you ur an inspiration to us all :not_ok:

I just love your arguments they are so well written i don't know how to tell you that but you just changed my whole point of view and my whole religion thank you ur an inspiration to us all :not_ok: [/b][/quote]
Don't feed the troll!

A u-boat commander once said there is no such a thing as an atheist soldier.

Bush claims to be religious, yet, the he is breaking the most important commandment - do not kill. I do not know how possibly American Christians can buy this hypocracy. Perhaps it's because they are hypocritical themselves.

Or perhaps 59M Americans are homophobic.

So ur saying church in hell becoz of bush ? i don't see the connection

well i guess american christians voted for him becoz of his political opinions and not his religious beleives u can't mix up religion and politics . And i think (i don't wanna debate that) that hes doing a great job coz the world is kinda safer now that the battlefield is in irak --->i am saying that coz i am from a neighboring country and every terrorist left my country and went to irak

That's also true

I disagree with the part about religious beliefs. During the three presidential debates before the elections, Bush always spoke about his religion and religious beliefs--except when discussing the war in Iraq, and especially when discussing gay rights.

Some political analysts are also considering the reason why more Americans voted for Bush was because Kerry was Roman Catholic, and many American sects of Protestantism are anti-Catholic.

I think the gay thing was a bigger factor than the sect becoz if u check the states won by bush and those won by kerry the people who voted for bush doesn't even know what protestantism is but they know that gay marriage is heresy.and i still think bush's international policy has some positive points for me HEHE but for the americans thats another story.

No, since Bush easily won the Bible Belt states.

Bush obviously used religion to get re-elected. He says that he is anti-abortion, anti-homosexual rights, and keeps raving about god. I heard people say "I'm voting for Bush because he is anti-abortion."

Also the government puts stickers on books with evolution that say "Evolution is only a theory and should be considered with an open mind." They are also twisting the meaning of theory - a sientific theory is a hypothesis that was proven by experiment. With that logic gravity is also a theory and should be considered with an open mind.

It absolutely disgusts me how the US government endorses religion. They deny rights to homosexuals over meaningless words - the definition of a marriage.

America has a whole system of making people more easy to exploit. For example: school kids praising an American flag. From birth people are told that America inherited the world and capitalism and democracy is paradise and should be defended and forced upon other people at all costs because it is so called freedom. Imagine what would happen to you if you were openly a communist or a national socialist. Freedom of speech is only relevant when it agrees with the majority and the government.

Bush always said during his campaign that by banning gay marriage he was working to preserve the sanctity of true straight marriage--even though 50% of straight American marriages end in a divorce.

Also, many hard line opponents to the theory of evolution don't understand how creationism could fit together with evolution. It doesn't have to be either/or.

Bush in a debate gave a really positive argument for aborption he said that instead of legalizing it he would encourage nurseries and adoption and help out unmwilling mothers and if i am against aborption(and i am) this would encourage me to vote bush.u have to understand something bush comes from Texas his mentality is different from ours (we are more open-minded) but the majority of americans share his mentality so even though hes not qualified he is the most logical leader becoz he is the best representative of the american people.

Kerry said pretty much the same thing, except for the fact that he is pro-choice; he also said he wouldn't force his religious beliefs on people who didn't share the same beliefs, but would do his best to promote adoption over abortion.

the thing i find interesting about the ban on gay marriage thing.......
it made sure a lot of right-wingers turned up to vote...
and now bush isnt so sure he wants the amendment after all.
he just uses the 'patriotism', 'faith' etc of the south/midwest states for his own benefit.

Bush's supporter used churches to promote him under logo that newer before church was so close to government.

Gay marriage, abortion (Kerry said also it's not so simple as president Bush is trying to make it. What about girls that have been raped???) and stream cell research, cloning, and similar things.... Bush told them all what they liked to hear.

someone told me that their voting place was a baptist church, and the church staff handed out these leaflets to the queuing people saying that god expected them to vote republican. they complained to the cop or whoever and they said 'oh'
the religious right in usa seem to have trouble noticing that everyone else religious including the pope, isnt right wing and condemned the iraq war.

Um, no. That would be illegal, and a federal offense. You can't vote for a US public office in a religious institution: separation of Church and State.

I'm not saying that a lot of people weren't getting their dose of heavy propaganda from their local churches. But the above is simply an urban legend.

First of all why do you hate him?

Secondly, jihad does not mean holy war. It means "struggle" literally. Not necessarily armed struggle.

What you said is so...very...wrong.

First of all, Russia plans to build new generation of nuclear missiles, they hardly did they part of the deal, secondly they did not agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons, they merely agreed to reduce their numbers.

They don't attack just "someone" who has nuclear weapons, for one israel has them.

They deal with North Korea and Iran to get off them in diplomatical way, both states are dictatorships, if they want to charge in with all guns blazing then I fully support them, who knows what can breed in sick minds of leaders of these countries?

They do something against USA? They do it against whole world. Besides terrorists and Iran and Korea are not the one thing, before saying something against USA, besides blowing up things in madrid is hardly just a sign of protest against USA being a superpower. If you want to do something against that, vote RALPH NADER!

God I wish people would learn something about politics and geography before spilling out such bs.

.1 - It was not your country that those planes bombed.
.2 - If we had not done anything, do you think that the attacks would have stopped?? No.
.3 - If you all hate America, think about this. Who lets out all the foreign aid money to Europe???
.4 - Don't believe everything you hear in the news. I know someone in Iraq, and he'll tell you that 99% of the Iraqi people are glad that we are there. Imagine what it was like for them before. You've all seen the pictures and the horror, and you're still against helping those people. Sometimes you've got to step in, whether it makes you the enemy or not.
.5 - You'll find that most of the soldiers aren't going for college money, they are going cause they believe in it. And I know good guys who have left their wife and kids more than once to fight for their country.

Now I hope I've made my point.

Er no that is error of translation there is not "thous shall not kill" the jews are deeply offended by it, instead there's something like "thou shall not murder" or something like that stating that killing is sometimes necessary and inevitable. Unless you expect god to send all soldiers to hell...

Read above.

Also, when it comes to Bush, I don't like him. But if I had a choice between Bush and Kerry, Bush would be it every time.

Although I think America shouldn't have declared war on Iraq, I think America should declare war on many European countries for refusing to repay their debts to America from World War 2.

Trolls strike again! :ok:

Indeed. Dream, stop trolling. It's not funny.

Keep on topic!!! :ot:

Who me? You're the one trolling. At least in this thread. But it's ok, everyone likes to troll so far it seems half of abandonia is either mentally retarded or trolling, so I joined the flow and since lobotomy is painful unnecessary and since I like my brain I decided to troll. But not in this thread.

What you said is so...very...wrong.

First of all, Russia plans to build new generation of nuclear missiles, they hardly did they part of the deal, secondly they did not agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons, they merely agreed to reduce their numbers.

They don't attack just "someone" who has nuclear weapons, for one israel has them.

They deal with North Korea and Iran to get off them in diplomatical way, both states are dictatorships, if they want to charge in with all guns blazing then I fully support them, who knows what can breed in sick minds of leaders of these countries?

They do something against USA? They do it against whole world. Besides terrorists and Iran and Korea are not the one thing, before saying something against USA, besides blowing up things in madrid is hardly just a sign of protest against USA being a superpower. If you want to do something against that, vote RALPH NADER!

God I wish people would learn something about politics and geography before spilling out such bs. [/b][/quote]
bush is a big supporter of saudi arabia, and thats a dictatorship as well

Ironic how someone goes off topic to tell people that they are off topic.

I think d-day is over-rated. Europe should be paying their debts to Russia who destroyed weakened the German army with blood. Russia lost more men in single battles then America did in the whole war on both fronts. WWII couldn't have been won without America but they aren't some sort of saviors.

God I'm so proud of you! Trolls like you make my day brighter! W00t for having such competent trolls here! :ok:

Don't worry though, I'm learning fast or so I think.

1. - iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. most of the hijackers were saudis. osama is a saudi.

3. excuse me?

Saudi arabia does not have nuclear weapons.

The only reason why USSR got to Berlin first was because Stalin was in a hurry to beat Britain and America there. As a result, more Russian soldiers were killed in hasty and poorly planned attacks on German positions. America and Britain were trying to get to Berlin to end the war as soon as possible, but they were trying to limit Allied casualties by planning effective attacks on German soldiers.

My God. Don't they teach history in Europe anymore?

Stop complaining about trolling and off-topic. Let the discussion flow.

Er no that is error of translation there is not "thous shall not kill" the jews are deeply offended by it, instead there's something like "thou shall not murder" or something like that stating that killing is sometimes necessary and inevitable. Unless you expect god to send all soldiers to hell... [/b][/quote]
actually people pulled that 'translation' out of their behind. are you a scholar of ancient hebrew and sanskrit? i didnt think so.
its "not kill", by most people's translation

so? NEITHER DID IRAQ. you just said usa should invade any dictatorship as far as you're concerned. im sure saudi arabia is on bush's hitlist. NOT

actually people pulled that 'translation' out of their behind. are you a scholar of ancient hebrew and sanskrit? i didnt think so.
its not kill, by most people's translation [/b][/quote]
So, we are allowed to murder people now?

Well, the Bible makes no sense anyways because they stone people to death in that thing for no apparent reason.

Whatever, is the exact translation - Christians interpret it as "DO NOT KILL". At least Catholics interpet it that way. The vatican is anti-abortion, anti-corporal punishment, anti-war. The Bible is pro-corporal punishment as people are skinned alive all the time.

i cant see that anything to do with WW2 has anything to do with this thread.
it ended 60 years ago.
america helped save the world from hitler..BUSH didnt. does that mean its ok for them to torture civilians? i dont think so. so lets keep it to this century, please!?

So, we are allowed to murder people now?

Well, the Bible makes no sense anyways because they stone people to death in that thing for no apparent reason.

Whatever, is the exact translation - Christians interpret it as "DO NOT KILL". [/b][/quote]
It seems you have a limited knowledge of the Bible. If you read the Gospels, Jesus tells his disciples that it is wrong to kill people. Have you not heard the expression "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone?" It was taken from the Bible.

ok so all of you or at lkeast almost all of you are for killing american soldiers so what your also saying is you are 1 for my dad being murdered 2 for some of my freinds brothers or parents to be killed do you understand that these ppl are very nice and most of these ppl dont even want to be in iraq nor do they support bush
saddam hussien was murdering inocent ppl evey day just like hitler and stalin and various other leaders.he needeed to be takin out

so all of you who support the insurgionsy

KISS MY behind!!!!

i dont support the insurgency. i dont think the soldiers shouldve been sent there.

side note.. the cost of the iraq was is scary. watch the numbers spin! http://costofwar.com/

Hate the government, not the people.

It seems you have a limited knowledge of the Bible. If you read the Gospels, Jesus tells his disciples that it is wrong to kill people. Have you not heard the expression "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone?" It was taken from the Bible. [/b][/quote]
Yes, but we were refering to the 10 commandments there not Jesus' teaching. Also, I think I have a pretty good understanding of the Bible as I used to be a Catholic and graduated from a Catholic high school. We are discussing the interpretation of sixth comandment written in Hebrew.

When Sadaam was killing innocent people USA was supporting him. For example the US supported Sadaam's gas attacks against Iranian villages. The US does not care about innocent people.

i was agreeing with you. i meant to type "not kill" insted of not kill. if you see what i mean.
most christians do think it is 'not kill' and its only the warmongering right who try and weasel out of it with 'murder' .. the same way their have lawyers try and say its ok to keep people in guantanemo with no geneva convention rights, or constitutional rights, or any rights at all

Niether does Iraq. :blink:

Bush is sucking up to Saudi Arabia so that America can still buy oil from them. Kerry promised to give the double deuce to the Saudi family if he was elected, and get scientists to develop new alternatives for oil.

Do you know how much of US economy Saudi own? :blink:

Their Embassy is most secured one in USA.

:whistle:

Why?

Now that's a pure lie!!!
And don't start about teaching history - because that's one of the things US really needs to learn - not just the government - but everybody over there!

And about the real reason why the Red Army got into Berlin first:
Churchil wanted the war to last as long as possible, to weaken the Soviets. He didn't want to provide help for them, because he was counting on Stalin geting weaker if the war would last longer. That's why he insisted on attacking Italy first, on being extra careful and so on. He knew that the war was won, but wanted to make sure, Russia would suffer as much as possible hoping to be able to start another counter revolution. That's not just a wild guess - go to the local library and read some of his books, where he describes why he did what he did.
He convinced western allies and Kraiowa army (Polish devisions loyal to the government in London) not to give aid to Stalin. But he miscalculated. Stalin got stronger and Red Army marched into numerous eastern European capitals thus creating a system of satelite states where they were able to force their communist governments (from Poland to Bulgaria).

So don't you teach anyone about something you just heard someone talk about. And if someone then it was the western allies who were charging Berlin in a blind push, because they saw that the Soviets are going to be there first!

America and Britain wanted to end the war with as little casualties as possible. Stalin wanted to be the man who conquered Hitler and quite possibly take control of Germany and the East European countries. Stalin's generals would have led the war much differently if they didn't have the fear of being killed by Stalin for disobeying him.

Aha - and that's why general Žukov directly disobeyed Stalin on numerous occasions...
Anyway most of the experianced Red Army generals were set up by Germans so Stalin had them killed as trators prior to the operation Barbaros (that's when the attack on Soviet Union began).
But maybe this should be a new thread...

About some other replys in this one:
There are many countries with regemes that aren't liberal - SO F**king what!!! If a country has internationaly recognised borders AND MOST OF THEM DO, then it's unexsaptable to attack those countries breaking their sovregnty. Otherwise I could simply say - I dislike the government of Andora and would round up some voulenteers to go and overthrow it. That's outside interfearence - and that's somethikng US does a lot - WAY TOO MUCH. That's also the main reason why it's US that's the main target of terorists. I really doubt terorists would attack let's say Iceland because of their expensionistic tendencies or their interfearing with the internal policy in the middle east!

Well nearing the end of the Third Reich Hitler's advisors did say they should ally themselves with the allied forces and to defeat the "eastern hordes" that way.

Stalin killed his generals because they were around before he rose to power. He figured that they might use the military to overthrow him. The generals who replaced him, however, were younger and more obediant to his word.

But it means "do not murder" in Hebrew
Oh and I do know modern and ancient hebrew

Stalin had a deal with Hitler so nazis trained their pilots in Soviet Union before the begining of the second world war (even before the Molotov-Ribentrop packt). In that time the Gestapo planted some incriminating documents and some of the pilotes testified that they got top secret information about Soviet military. Stalin led an investigation that most of the army high command was againt, because the charges were ridiculos, so they became the prime suspects.
That's one of the things Stalin regreted most. That's also why this was the last great purge among experts in a certain feild in Soviet Union.
Those new generals were loyal to Stalin - but so were the mases. They truly believed he was their great leader who'll bring them the better world and that he was their closest friend (that's what Tovariš - Commrade means). They were loyal to him because he represented their homeland and the party that saved them from the opression of the feudal monarchs, not because they feared him (you could also say they were brainwashed to be loyal to him).

But it means "do not murder" in Hebrew
Oh and I do know modern and ancient hebrew [/b][/quote]
Thank you for the explenation, but that still doesn't help, because we're talking about the bible now. And what Jeses (if he ever lived - it's not proven yet!) did was this: He made a new interpretation of the Jewish teachings. So christianity - the folowers of Christ - in this case Jesus should listen to his words - not to the commandments writen before him. Jesus was the one who told them how to interprid the commandments, so to understan them differently would drive them a part from Jesus.
So to a christian it shouldn't matter what the original says, just as it shouldn't matter to Jews how Jesus translated it.
There is however another law - the constitution (of every single country - they have them you know - it's not just the US) - that gives everybody the right to live. Not to mention numerous international agreements that call for unity of the world and global peace...

Jesus' existence has been proven, but whether he is really the Son of Man has not been proven yet.

How and when???
There have been numerous people claiming to be the mesiah in the time that Jesus should have lived. The story of his birth in Betleham is made up, so is the episode with the Pilatus. There are many other sections where there's just no sense in what his life was suppoesed to be - not to mention that the baby born in a bar disapeares from the face of the world at the age of 8 and then returns as a 33 year old man...
Give me proof!

But it means "do not murder" in Hebrew
Oh and I do know modern and ancient hebrew [/b][/quote]
looks like you need to study a bit harder.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/thou_shalt_not_kill.htm

The exact Hebrew wording of this biblical phrase is lo tirtzack. One of the greatest scholars of Hebrew/English linguistics (in the Twentieth Century) -Dr. Reuben Alcalay - has written in his mammoth book the Complete Hebrew /English Dictionary that "tirtzach" refers to "any kind of killing whatsoever." The word "lo," as you might suspect, means "thou shalt not."

Sorry xoopx, but the old Hebrew never used vocals - so the word would be writen without them. It would there for be: L trtzck at best! I'm not an expert, but I am a linguist and a historian. There's no 100% certain way to know how they pronounced the word and what it meant at the time it was writen down. There are only guesses - more or less scientifical ones.

Please don't patronize me xoopx.
According to the Torah a man is allowed to kill in defence. There are a LOT of rules outlining the borders of "defence" but a man is allowed to kill in defence according to the torah.

So its impossible the torah forbids killing of any kind since it would be contradicting itself.
There are actually very few rules in the torah that nail an issue down, without any exceptions. The onlything I can come up with is about trees, in a time of war a soldier isn't allowed to cut any trees down. It doesn't matter if these trees belong to the enemy or your side its not allowed. There is a long reason for this.
But anyway the torah is far far too sophisticated to simply say "don't kill"

Oh and I believe Hebrew does have vocals. Some also claim the hebrew letter Aleph (first letter of the hebrew alphabet, pronounced as A) is an earlier form of our modernday A (or the Alpha)

there is an O sound which is the hebrew letter vav with a point on it (so it looks like in i)

then we can agree that its hard to tie the meaning down for certain. i think in terms of the christians wondering which one to pick, its probably safer to pick the meaning that wont have them sent to hell if they break it!

Of course as long as you're the one trolling.

MY GOD you're great at it! But sure eh don't let me disturb your trolling. Go on. :angel:

Of course as long as you're the one trolling.

MY GOD you're great at it! But sure eh don't let me disturb your trolling. Go on. :angel: [/b][/quote]
I think this is spaming. Dream, we're having a discusion here. You joined in a while ago and are welcome to keep speaking your mind, but please - stop this non-sence it's way :ot: .

I don't think the US will attack Iran, they have too big of military power and are quite fanatical, I think that by attacking Iran the US(and allies) would have far greater casualties than in Iraq, I would say that they will attack Siria rather than Iran.

Point well taken :ok:

@Nick:
Do you really remember those old days :whistle:
But seriously - you're talking about muslim world as being nothing but a training base to produce terorist that will kill everybody who isn't muslim. Thet's just silly. Yes - there is a lot off terorism going on and that's BAD. But I have a question: "Do you know why there's so much terorism?"
In my opinion it's very simple (and I can even understand it - NOT SUPORT, just understand). That region of the world now known as the Islamic world once had some great empires (Persian & Otoman are just the most famous). So they have a history that can make them proud in some way. But for a couple of centuries now they have been treated as somebody elses peice of land, that can be turned over to a new owner with all the people living there (it was a part of land that was under the control of: Turks, English, Frenc, Russians (at least some parts for some time) and now apearently US. They are treated as third rate countries - the third world - no one takes them seriously. They are just a part of the bet in some big poker game world superpowers were playing in last 200 years. So I bet they have to be really pissed off and the religion is probably the only thing that can unite them - that's why they are uniting under the call for holy war. That's BAD, but there's no real alternative... What do you thing Russian heroes like Aleksander Newsky were called - they were considered terorists in those days (same as American trappers fighting the red coats, or even freedom fighters in world war 2). But the terorists of today have gotten more bloodthursty, more violent and are killing inocent people (in much larger numbers then ever befor - but then again, the world never had so many people).
That's just a though - so next time you're saying - all muslims are terrorists out to kill us, just remember that it's the "developed and civilized" world that hasn't taken them seriously until they resorted to terorism...
That's no excuse - TERORISM is BAD, but stopping it is a whole different matter. [/b][/quote]
Well, I have the same opinion as you have. But I don't think, that Turks or some Islamics were accumulating anger on us for all that time. Well, of course, it probably had place, but this is not the reason, why they attacking 'developed and civilized' world. I think they attack this world just because it is 'developed and civilized'.
I think, that this world gives us information without filtration. There is lot of lechery and other things, that are showing us on TV. But I disagree with such method of struggling with it, that terrorists using - the terror. Yes, I think, that they are lighting themselves up with their religion to fight with this evil world.
But I didn't say, that all Islamic world train terrorists! Of course, there is good people even in Palestine or USA. But I said, that Muslims are very sensitive to the preaching based on their religion. That's why they are potential terrorists, like I said. People are very impressive, when they are young and know very little about what is right or what is wrong. And in this age they could be persuaded easy like you want it. On this based the upbringing. And more, if one way of comprehension of the world is not understood clearly, such as religion. But Muslims had inverted situation. They lived all the time, since couple of years after death of Mohammed (VII century), with their fanatic loyality to their religion. Christians and more Protestants are don't pay much attention to the postulates of their religion (except radical Protestants, like Puritans, but I don't know, how they act themselves nowadays). So Muslims are listening to the preachs of their priests and it is very hurting theme to them, when they heard about how bad they are living, about US domination and so on. And, mixed with religion, probably sppeches about Mohammed, grandeur of former Ottoman empire, it could have the influence needed on some radical groups of people.
So, you probably noticed, that all women-suicides-terrorists are young. When we had tragedy in "Nord Ost" those women terrorists were about 20 years old (if I remeber correctly). But this is my opinion too about potential terrorists. Maybe I exaggerating.

Sorry for not reading 122 topics so i may repeat sth :D

Actually president Canalis Analis is starting to destroy the whole world.
If he attacks iran, their might be a civil war in amerika, cause time
for hippies is over and cnn just made the last hippy angry :wall:

Then nearly the whole world is against amerika so nobody will help
them with their problems. exspecially not if someone finds out that
the twin towers are destroyed by pentagon. :whistle:

and if amerika is down nobody can take care of europe any more
so islam will come and bring war to us (holy war :bye: )

:cry: poor world :cry:

not very likely U watched too many movies

you will see, you will see
(if you dont die further) :D
the attack to iran is yust a matter of time

I know that they are going to iran but there won't be a civil war in amerika and i hope that i won;t see islam coming and bringing war to us but if they do i am ready :rifle:

I see...You even trained your cat LOL

I read Nostradamus and the book says so

Nostradamus says that there will be a christian prince that will rise and stop the islamic expansion but :cry: that alredy happened when charles martel stopped the islam in toledo less than1000 years ago

Dont know about that

But maybe there might be a big hero who avoids bullets and carries the sword of power (Excalibur)

Fantasy+Hope

from far away :whistle:

it seems that i was wrong you don't watch too many movies u play too many games :D

Yes, yes, yes :bye:
Television is stupid!

one nostra damas was a crack head i dont care if they didnt no what crack was back then i still think he did second dont bring fantasy and the excalubur into this conversation

If this world will be destroyed
someone have to find this sword again
so its not off topic

then why do you bother posting here? You're obviously not interested in the topic - otherwide you'd read at least most of it. Do you really think anyone should repeat their arguments only for your sake? Better not, you probably wouldn't read them anyway.

Oh and thanks for obviously brining this topic to an end.

I guess some peple might find him funny.... :not_ok:

Apparently this is not end of the topic, so who won?

???
Was there a fight?
We were just stating our opinions. They were different at the begining of the post and they are different now also.

No one struck out - infact it wasn't even a game day!

What was the first price? :D

I'm sure we (USA, as I'm living here :)) will spread the freedom around the globe. LOL

Just imagine that Bush's ceremony costed $40 000 000, and parts of this country are destroyed rescently, economy is in collapse, and more soldiers are needed if there will be another war....

3. world war is just a matter of time...
so why disguss about that muck it only makes you angry
if you are a good guy, dont worry youl be saved!!! :bye:

we have democracy but can we really change anything
by choosing only between a couple of people? :crazy:

changes can only made to your heart and not to the world :wub:
all things have their own adjustment :ph34r:

i normally dont bother arguing politics and religion anymore.
noone ever changes their position one inch.. this was a bashing bush post and i put my 2 cents in, thats all! if someone posted a pro bush post id probably ignore it. theres no point.

@ xoopx

agree

anyway political disgussions are normally dissolved by war only :bye:

i can't agree more except on one thing:
GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes GO!!! As soon and as far as possible :D

I understand you want to test your cat in real war
but i thing war is not that funny as on your computer

I know war isn't funny. Lucy for me Slovenia only had a 10 day agression period that I really wouldn't count as a war...
Anyway I'm a pacifist at heart and in my deeds. That doesn't mean however that I'll pass up a chance for a good joke like that one before :sneaky:

Ok, look on the bright side of life :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

Yeah and only Croats died in that agression <_< , and we sufferred for a few more years.But believe me THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR A WAR, IT IS JUST A STUPID IDEOLOGY THAT MAKES RICH PEOPLE STAY RICH!!!

TRUE STORY:
My country just came out of a 10 year long civil war and no one knows what that was all about except msulims killing christians and vice versa its kinda sadisticaly funny :evil:

PS:no rich guy of any kind stayed rich

Yeah and only Croats died in that agression <_< , and we sufferred for a few more years.But believe me THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR A WAR, IT IS JUST A STUPID IDEOLOGY THAT MAKES RICH PEOPLE STAY RICH!!! [/b][/quote]
That was a joke? :blink:

I think US should think about how they would feel if muslim values were imposed on them. :whistle:
I mean ,do they expect to invade a country that's been under totally oposite infulace in pretty much every aspect of life,and to be welcomed as saviours? :wall: :kosta:

Well there is a joke here in Croatia, that Slovenes will be in war until last Croat, but it is true!

Good point Balvan, maybe terrorists think that the americans live in imprisonment of decadency, and they live a life of infidels, so it makes me conclude that Americans are terrorists too, they also don't obey the international law(Geneva convention=Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo and who knows how many more, let's not talk about cluster bombs which are forbidden because of civilians but America use them ruthlessly) all I can say is that the US government(not the people,although some are) is very hypochrate.

Tulac,
I was thinking that balkan is biger then Croatia and Slovenia. :blink:


Balvan,
i think you're right. Have you seen Farenhait 911??

I don't understand you very much but I'll try to answer: I was reffering to the Serbian agression on Slovenia, not the whole war.

Well I really don't think any croats died there (unless if they were serving army duty in Slovenia at the time). You must know that the army movements done in Croatia at the time had nothing to do with the agression in Slovenia. The JA knew they don't have a case in Slovenia (no theritory had a sufficent enough number of Serbian population to "protect") and because Croatia was independent at the time they had to go through one independent country to attack another. They knew the war in Slovenia would not bring them anything but trouble so they decided to use it as a mobilisation of forces, that should seem to go to Slovenia but would stop at the targets in Croatia they wanted to attack.

It is however true, that Slovenia would be in really deep muck if it weren't for the fact that Croatia was a sort of a buffer between Slovenia and Serbia. Actually Slovenia was the only republic that didn't border on Serbia and that's the real reason why there was no real war here - just that 10 day agression.

Sorry about that. :blink:

You are right, the USA are not able to attack the iran look what happens in Iraq they are loing easly the war in iraq right now , the Iraqi people kicking the Americans Soldiers , the USA has no chance in IRaq and now think what happens in Iran!?
The iranis are true Patriotic People (not such overfaked Show Patritots like the most Americans)

Every irani would fight , and it would be much more suicied for America to attack the iran as it is already for them in iraq!

So they are not able to attack iran and White house knows that!

if you hate America its the best you wish that they are so stupid to attack Iran because that is the last step to the end of the USA!

If you like the USA then pray they are not stupid to attack !

And the topic china.... I think china knows what is to do, especily china will be the next World Domination Might...

maybe the president likes to loose (soldiers)