Okay, okay, I'm going to start off by clearing up a few misconceptions:

First of all, the war in Iraq. We've all heard it said, "There were no WMD's over there, so this is all some crusade to fix daddy's mistake." Granted, Sadaam should have been out of power fourteen years ago. However, we were only doing what the UN SHOULD have done. You see, after the first Gulf War, Sadaam was told, not only to destroy his WMD's, but to GIVE EVIDENCE to the UN that he had done so. He never did. Therefore, on paper at least, he still had WMD's, and the UN SHOULD have moved against him. (Personally, I am not convinced that there still aren't WMD's over there, as they have an entire desert to hide them in, but still...) So, in this regard, we were justified in moving against Iraq. "But," some may ask, "couldn't we have just given sanctions more time, like the UN always says we should?" To that, I say that we TRIED giving sanctions time, and France, Germany, and others, broke the sanctions, and made them ineffective.

Okay, now for New Orleans. I was in Florida when it happened, and I was watching the news every day as the storm approached the coast. The mayor of New Orleans did not issue evacuation orders until the day before the storm hit, which is nowhere NEAR enough time to evacuate the entire city. I mean, in Florida, where our cities are ABOVE SEA LEVEL, they STILL order evacuations well before the storm hits, even for hurricanes half as strong as Katrina. But, I suppose the real debate is what happened afterwards. To start with, I couldn't care less who has taken the blame, or who says who is at fault, and whatnot. Saying you were wrong doesn't make it so. That being said, from what I read and saw, the federal government HAD troops and supplies ready to move in shortly after the disaster, but because of regulations, they were unable to move in and take control of the situation unless invited by the governor of Louisiana. The governor for some reason did not extend this invitation until WELL after the storm had passed.

That's all I've got for now, so I'll try to respond to flames as they come.

I couldn't agree with you more. >.>

Like I told Elza, we have a kick ass government system, just the people running it atm, suck.

The UN barely does anything. >.> They just sit and babble and go "Don't do that or else...or else...or else..." until another country (Take America for example) goes and says "Christ, fine, we'll deal with it."

Then afterwards, of course we're criticized with disobeying the UN. =p

I always have mixed feelings about this war you know. >.> I mean, yeah, Sadaam was a pretty evil man who liked to watch victims take showers in acid while his sons just raped random women and shot their heads afterwards. Yeah, those kinda of people, in my opinion, don't need to be in charge. Someone really did have to do something, but perhaps, let's take America being pissed off at England in 1776. Prove that the people do want lots of change and yes, can do the change. We needed help of course, thank you France, to win our war, but we don't need to start wars, especially ones that we never thought about the years afterwards. Maybe I'm not saying what I mean right though. >.> Sorry if it sounds weird. :(

The 9/11 thing, the um, whole, "Well yes, we did have reports that Bin Laden was going to attack in New York by hijacking planes." Well, I gotta say, I would of had airports beefed up security before hand, once I got that report rather then you know, after the matter.

Meh...I usually don't like discussing politics in general, but there's one thing that's kinda been bugging me.

Don't we have more nukes than we know what to do with? Who gave us the right to have WMDs and not other countries? Yes, you might say that we're not a dictatorship and because we're the good guys that gives us some moral right to own crap that could blow entire countries to hell. But that's by our own standards. Some of these countries hate us with a passion due to some underhanded crap we've pulled - just because we aren't tourturing our own citizens dosen't mean we aren't doing it. Or you might say the reason why we can have them is because we're not going to use them. Except - why have them in the first place? Trying to scare someone? If anything, it'd make it more likely that we'd get the crap bombed out of us in some other country's self-defense. And finally, dosen't it only take just one nuke to destroy a small country? Why do we need a few hundred thousand?

I'm no tree-hugging hippie, but I don't want to be vaporized anytime soon either - I think anyone having WMDs is dangerous and that Iraq isnn't the only country who should probably be disarmed.

I suppose I can kind of see where you're coming from, there. However, the way I see it, America is probably the last remaining military superpower (sure, China's getting there, but for the sake of argument...) That being said, I feel that with that power, we have a responsibility to use it for the rest of the world. Sure, that sounds cheesy and Marvel comic-ish, but I feel that's the way it is. Because if we don't, who is? The UN? I'm sorry, but I honestly don't think they're up to the task.

As for WMD's, and the right to have them, what gives the police the right to wear guns out in public, or the air marshal to take a gun on a plane, when the rest of us civilians don't have that right? The answer, is because they've taken the tests and proven that they can be responsible with it. Now, I know that being a world-wide policeman is more of a self-appointed role, but still, from looking at history, I feel we've shown ourselves to be at least a little more responsible than, say, countries that thrive on terrorism.

I understand these answers aren't going to satisfy everyone, but that's the way I feel towards these issues.

To my point of view, it was both the governor's and government's fault. If what all you said was true, then I'd say the governors.

Okay, Governor Blanco did ask for help from the government. Maybe not too quickly, but right after the storm had passed. No help from the government was given to her until days and weeks after. Furthermore, they couldn't have more troops going down to Lousiana because they were in Iraq? <_<
Besides, even if my information is all screwed up, [Though I'm 100% sure Blanco asked for help the day the storm had passed] if she didn't ask for help, it's common sense that Lousiana needed help. You can't just say "Well she didn't ask for help." Because that's stupid. And it's obviously a lie. She was only late with asking for help.

It might seem as if I'm favoring the governor, but there were also papers found with her that had evacuation plans with buses, but the plan was never used. Why? No idea.

The government, and her, are just stupid.

...Yeah. It's to make the American's feel as if they're safe. It's backfiring though, isn't it?

Say... Maybe that's why we have the US has one of the highest number of murders by firearms than most countries!...
Here you go.
Or perhaps you'd like to see who has the highest number of murders: assaults...?
Hm...?


Maybe I misunderstood something from you? I hope not. Don't flame me! D:

First of all...the Govenor of Louisiana didnt send for help straight away because she is of an opposing party to Bush...(Im not big on American Government Structures but I know she wasnt the same wing as Bush...)...although it seems petty because of that, she refused to ask for help...secondly, when she did, it was after the place had been flooded, NOT before the storm which would have been the opportune time considering the death toll...thirdly, and this is the stupid part about it, those papers that included the evac plans werent put into action because of HER!!!

Oh, and on the point of just going in, its not possible due to your constitution...and why you people dont know this is beyond me...but from what I have read, the US government does not have the power to authorise military backing in one of its states unless the state government gives the go ahead...so whether or not he wanted to, Bush couldnt send help until the governor gave the right to...and therefore, because she didnt send for help due to her position in the government as opposed to Bush, she should be gotten rid of because she clearly cannot handle her position...



On the point of WMD's, I can see both points of view...but the fact of the matter is, if America gets rid of their WMD's then you will then make it possible for America's enemies to take control...so far, by having the stockpile there, they are preventing Nuclear war...here's why:

-If Russia, China, or any other country with WMD's start firing at USA, then America is going to retaliate...
-The only way to effectively retaliate a nuclear assault is to counter-assault with nuclear warheads at the present time...
-Considering that America's stockpile alone can wipe out the planet quite a few times over, then having 2 assaults at one time makes this a lose-lose for everyone...and everyone knows this...

However, if America gets rid of their WMD's, then every communist government, dictatorship, or enemy government of the US can fire their nuclear arsenal ON the US without the fear of retaliation...same goes for Britain and Australia too...so, therefore you cannot get rid of them...simple as that...



As far as the UN goes, what they need is a complete shake up...countries like France, Germany and the like are holding them back and making a complete mockery of the UN, which is supposed to be a World Order...In otherwords, the UN Peackeepers should be able to keep the peace...which they cant do because their hands are tied...think about it:

-They arent allowed to get involved in a battle (which I might remind you is not peace) because they are merely supposed to keep the peace, not engage in warfare...
-In extreme circumstances, they may only engage an enemy if in fact they are fired on first, which is stupid because it conflicts with the first rule...
-They arent allowed to fire on civilians, even if said civilians are the ones causing the goddamn trouble...which conflicts with the first 2 rules...because if they are fired on by a civilian, what do you do?

Its a basketcase of an order...hell, the Antarctic Government probably has a better peacekeeping force than the UN...In my mind, unless they get a leader who can set up proper peacekeepers, and keep the Frenchy's and them at bay, then they are a waste of time...


Finally, I never thought the war on Iraq, or the war on Afganistan were bad ideas...in fact the reality is, someone was going to have to invade these places eventually, just that Bush did it now...Maybe his timing was off a bit, but either way, it had to be done...and Im totally in favour of that decision, as I am with the decision of John Howard, to go in with him...I believe ol' Johnny has done a great job as PM and it shows...

Everyone here knows that. Based on the constitution the US is trying to maintain a federal system, other than a unitary system like the United Kingdom, or France. One of the reasons why they broke away from Great Britain and wanted independence, right?
To my point view, we're already turning into a unitary system. Our national government does things without the state's consent anyways, and we overpower the state. I just don't see why it's okay to invade a foriegn country randomly, but it's not okay to help people just in a different state in your own country. I figured, if it's okay, to do invading, it'd be okay to do that. Besides, in a hearing, Blanco put it bluntly and simply,
"If my people are dying, why would I not want help?"

Maybe, but still. Like I said, she asked for help when the storm had gone on that day. Even so, if the backup was already ready, as JJ48 had said, then they should've been able to reach Lousiana by the next day and help people. But they didn't. The forces came after days and weeks. And why they came so late, "is beyond me."

By the way, am I the only person that sees a replica of the Vietnam war to the "war" Iraq?
And hey, what about the information leaked out from the government about the war in Iraq? That Bush had no plan after going into Iraq? =o

>.> I hope so. The war in Vietnam, after studying it for so long, if I was alive in that time, just like 2/3 of America, I would of supported the war. America's "Mission" for so long has been to spread through democracy throughout the world, while at the time of, the 60s-70s Russia's main mission was to spread Communism. Thus The more democratic nations would arise and join together (UN) while Russia would make the communist nations join together (Warsaw Pact)

If you look at Communism, it's effin bad. xD IMO at least, So if we let Vietnam become Communism, then the domino effect would go into play, have most of south east asia turn into communism. More communist to join in the world, would be bad for America and other Democratic governments. The more people to join communist would most likely a bigger army for the Communists. So of course we had to at least try and stop Communism before it started in Southeast Asia.

The fact that Vietnam was never ran right, that's thanks to Congress, they had to keep holding the armies back. We could of secured all of Vietnam, and had taken care of it easily, but Congress would always stop the armies. >.>

Anyway, before I go more off topic, the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq, are in fact different.

If you would like any more information, and I'm not singling you out Shaydah xD I'm saying anybody who thinks this way to read more facts and think differently. Like, Here

All of this is of course opinionated. At the moment, I can't see to much cause to support this war, while I can see plenty of cause to support Vietnam.


The war in Iraq is already said and done. Yes, it wasn't the best move to go in there and get rid of him right now, but it's done, and bush is elected for 4 more years, that's done. We can't just leave Iraq anymore. And it's in my opinion, Most of Iraq wants us there. Iraq likes that they now have democracy. 2/3 of Iraq voted in the main election last week. Sure, if 1/3 voted and 2/3 were trying to blow up everything, then yeah, that may be different, but for about a 66% of a country to vote, that's the majority and well in Democracy, majority rules. Of course now if you watch Fox News and CNN, the only people you will ever see are the ones going "We hate America!!!" and blowing up something, so I would hope we all know the news can't really be trusted. -_-

Since we're already there and it's said and done with, instead of bashing what happened in the past about it and where things went wrong and pointing fingers, there should be more thought about what to do in the future. That's the thing that is the worst in America, everytime something happens for a long time all the senators just go "YOU!!! IT WAS YOUR FAULT!!! OMFG WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO FIX IT JESUS CHRIST YOU SUCK"

How about, instead of doing something like that, why not go "You know what, that was a bad decision man. >.> Anyway, let's try to fix it." It's so much shit, it really is. So many people bashing everything, just fucking fix it.

The whole Katrina thing, how long on the news did you see "New Orleans receieves no help. In other news Senator blah blah says that FEMA is to blame for all of this!" Shut the fuck up and make plans to help. >_> You know, instead of sitting in Washington why don't the Senators who have the money take a damn plane down and help instead of taking 2-3 weeks to bash and then go "Oh yeah....well you gonna help them? o.O"

I know that's what Vietnam was based on. xD
And like you said, "they now have a democracy." Look, see how we changed their type of government?

So ... How is Iraq any different? We invaded Iraq, named it "war on terrorism", and we put Saddam out of power. Now we're regulating elections in Iraq, probably to make sure the right person is elected, then you know, if the right person is regulated, we can get all the oil we want. Am I right? :lol:

Whoops, did I just say that outloud?

Iraq is different. >_> Didn't you read my post? ; ;

Communism vs Terrorism.


We take out the Terrorist, with our High Tech equipment, we have to know where they effin are. >_> So we take them out and bam, Iraq is done mainly.

Jesus Christ, we seriously have to know where they are xD I can't believe we don't.

Communism, is a much larger problem than Terrorism will ever be I think.

And look Shaydah, I'm sure we coulud care less about the elections because, if we wanted oil, invading Iraq was enough for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and we have enough oil to do what we want. So the elections are mainly for the people of Iraq I think. You know, the president doesn't exactly want to go down as the worst president ever. So giving people elections, bam, that's something good. He gets a point. xD Even though in points he's probably in the negatives.

could* xD

By the way, I won't even say anything about that. Because holy cow. @_@ We totally do not have enough oil.

And by the way, are you suggesting that we're actually fighting a war on terrorism? Because that's really funny you know. Sure, Saddam killed lots of his people and such. But hey, aren't we? We're trying to disarm everyone of nuclear weapons violently, and half-assedly, and disarming everyone except ourselves, and this is supposed to make the world feel safe? Make them think that U.S is the hero of the world? Because we invade countries, disarm them of nuclear weapons, and leave ourselves with the only nuclear weapons? But, let's also take into consideration that US was the only country in the world to use their nuclear weapons on another country.

[sarcasm]I feel totally safe![/sarcasm]

As for elections; obviously our opinions differ on the importance of them. So I won't say anything. I still think that our sole purpose was to get a president there, that will let us have their oil.

Sorry we aren't all perfect typers Shaydah. >_>

[20:45] Shaydah: and you're all STUFY
[20:45] Shaydah: YES
[20:45] Shaydah: yes
[20:45] Shaydah: stufy*
[20:45] Ben: wha
[20:45] * Shaydah sighs
[20:45] Shaydah: I dunno
[20:45] Shaydah: I mean to put
[20:45] Shaydah: Yes*
[20:45] Shaydah: and
[20:46] Ben: oh xD
[20:46] Shaydah: stufy withou the (
[20:46] Shaydah: GAH
[20:46] Shaydah: _@
[20:46] Shaydah: ...
[20:46] Shaydah: O'm af ailure at lfie
[20:46] Shaydah: :/
[20:46] Shaydah: oh dear.
[20:46] Ben: Nah, you aren't.
[20:46] Ben: but what is stufy?
[20:46] Shaydah: ._.
[20:46] Shaydah: I meant to put stuf*
[20:46] Shaydah: :/
[20:46] Shaydah: stufy*
[20:46] Shaydah: stfu*
[20:46] Shaydah: yeah

Anyway,

[12:25] Ben: You know what's funny though
[12:25] Ben: 60 years ago, people like saddam people would of been like "*shrugs*"
[12:25] Shaydah: shrugs for what?
[12:25] Ben: for killing so many of his own people
[12:25] Ben: Like
[12:25] Ben: Hitler for example xD
[12:25] Ben: Killied tons of his own people
[12:26] Ben: and people just kinda went "Yeah...okay...o.O"
[12:26] Ben: but when he went into poland people went "OMFG WTF MAN"
[12:26] Shaydah: xD
[12:26] Ben: That's why in the 80s
[12:26] Ben: when saddam killed his own people
[12:26] Ben: we went "Yeah...okay"
[12:26] Ben: but when he invaded Kuwait, triggeres the "omfg...etc"
[12:26] Ben: but thats the other things
[12:26] Ben: thing*
[12:27] Ben: I think it has to do with the whole revenge for dad thing

It's easier than typing again. =/ But that's my opinion.

If you need another example of leaders who killed their own people but the world didn't do much, Stalin. >:P

...wtf shaydah? Did you not read what I said about this??? Ok, if you didnt, here is why America still has their WMD and why they are keeping them while they get rid of others, as well as why you should feel safe because you have them...

Therefore if you keep yours, then get rid of everyone else's, and then get rid of yours...then everything will work out...but while everyone still has theirs, then Nuclear War is still not a option, and wont be because everyone knows nobody wins a Nuclear War...

I'll address the Vietnam issue first, as that one I've heard many times from many different people.

Now, I'm more for studying WWII than Vietnam, but I do notice several things. In Vietnam, we went to war for several years, lost thousands of soldiers, and had basically nothing to show for it (i.e. Vietnam was still in the hands of the commies). In Iraq, we've only fought for a couple years, lost FAR less men, and we've taken out a dictator, set up a democracy, and if gas prices go down in the process, hey, I'm not complaining.

As for WMD's, I stand by what I said before that countries like England and America have proven themselves to be responsible. And as for having them in the first place, well, we already have them left over from the Cold War, so why not keep them? It's kind of like the Secret Service around the president when he's out in public: they're there if they're needed, but their mere presence probably deters some people from trying anything.

And I think I have a solution to the whole UN problem. How about if America, England, Japan, Israel, and all our other allies just pulled all of our funding and support from the UN, and formed our own international alliance? (You Aussies can come chill with us, too.) Let's see France, Germany, and Russia try to do much governing without any of our money or troops.

On an unrelated note, please try to not attack other posters. If you're responding to someone's argument, that's one thing, but I think we can do without the spelling and grammar critiques. (No, "I'm the better member..." and all that sort of thing.) <- you so stole that from the forum description o_o (Which is why I put it in quotes)

Aww...Ben and I were only playing! ^_^ Look see! *Shaydah uber-hugs Ben innocently.

Anyways.

No no, I read it. And I read it a 3rd time after you quoted it again.
But as I am famous for,
I quote myself,
again,
I don't get it.

Here's a dose of America for you.

Part I

Part II

So...Senators knew what was going on, yet only when the news reaches the public, they quickly point the hand at somebody other than themselves? -_- What crap.

Somebody, please, tell me I need to read something else and that I'm missing something because if not, then, geeze >_> I don't even know.