we need another 9/11 Options

[Seeker]

according to this dipshit: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists...other_9_11.html

[impala454]

what a douchebag

[James]

He means well, but his methods aren't exactly conventional.

[Oasis]

That's like saying we need another Holocaust to combat overpopulation. Dipshit.

[FORSAKENR320]

That's like saying we need another Holocaust to combat overpopulation. Dipshit.

i actually agree with it
take out a country



or continent



fuck it, get rid of africa. they aren't contributing much

[RitalinJunkie]

To me it seems like the guy is just saying it the wrong way....its obvious that he doesnt MEAN that he wants another attack to happen....in an overly cynical way, hes using the example of the 9/11 attack to show how unified the country could be, and how we have forgotten as a country what is important. He is actually dead on with the comments about how "americans like fast". He fails at sarcasm, but thats because its still a little too soon to use 9-11 as a legitimate reference point to the state of our country without inciting a lot of anger and hate (somewhat rightfully), although its "ok" to make fun of the event for cheap laughs =(

[impala454]

well this country was completely and totally spoiled by the first gulf war. ever since then people think wars should only take six weeks to win. now people want wars won in six weeks with zero civilian casualties with everyone singing kumbaya around the campfire by the eighth week.

[Psykopath]

well this country was completely and totally spoiled by the first gulf war. ever since then people think wars should only take six weeks to win. now people want wars won in six weeks with zero civilian casualties with everyone singing kumbaya around the campfire by the eighth week.

In all honesty, how long do you think is an acceptable time for us to be in Iraq?

10 years, 20 years, forever?

[impala454]

as long as it takes

what do you think?

[Inferia]

Define acceptable.

[RitalinJunkie]

Define acceptable.

Define an appropriate reason for being there in the first place.

[impala454]

Define an appropriate reason for being there in the first place.

are a you a democrat running for president or something? "what do we need to do there with our current situation?" : "we shouldn't be there in the first place".

[RitalinJunkie]

are a you a democrat running for president or something? "what do we need to do there with our current situation?" : "we shouldn't be there in the first place".

ha ha....one, im an isolationist for the most part, two, i agree saddam needed to be taken out, but the whole WMDs thing is pretty much bullshit. I would have had no problems if our govt had just said "we're taking this guy out cause hes a dick and fucking his people" but no they couldnt do that. We need to pull out of there as soon as possible whithout leaving the Iraqis hanging out to dry and (one thing ill give the democrats) setting up a timetable is the only way to do that. If you dont give yourself time restraints you just end up wasting time and money that the govt could be using for better things.

the priority of America should be America...

[impala454]

so do you think if the entire area was stablized that would be good for america?

[Psykopath]

as long as it takes

what do you think?

"As long as it takes."

If you're going to call Glen a 'democratic candidate' with what he said then you are just another douchebag republican candidate with that statement.

I still hold by my original belief on the war: we should never have gone in.
So we invaded because Saddam was killing his people? Well, where are the 130,000 soldiers that we need to send to Africa?

Not going to turn this into another Iraq bitch fest. Done.

so do you think if the entire area was stablized that would be good for america?

ha! define "stabilized"?

[rabble]

we need a national draft so that this shit finally hits home for everyone and we can do something about these fuckwits wasting our resources on this "war"

And yes, I would serve.

[impala454]

"As long as it takes."

If you're going to call Glen a 'democratic candidate' with what he said then you are just another douchebag republican candidate with that statement.

because that's the only logical answer, unless you know of some time machine I haven't heard about. name a war where the countries went in and publicly defined a time table for pulling out, broadcast to everyone (including their enemies).

I still hold by my original belief on the war: we should never have gone in.

that's wonderful, but it wasn't the question. the question is how long do we stay since we're there. my allusion of the other guy to a democratic candidate was in reference to their uncanny ability to completely ignore the question put to them. "we shouldn't be there" doesn't answer the question.

So we invaded because Saddam was killing his people?

no, we invaded iraq because we had intelligence showing they had weapons of mass destruction, and because saddam refused to abide by UN regulations requiring him to allow weapons inspectors in.

Not going to turn this into another Iraq bitch fest. Done.

oh come on sure you are

[impala454]

ha! define "stabilized"?

less terror cells over there. iraqi government in full control of their country. a working democracy.

[RitalinJunkie]

I agree with zack on that.....if we are going to send troops to ANYONE it should be africa. those people have been under rediculous amounts of persecution and oppression for far too long. If we are going to "police the world" as a lot of liberals like to put it, then shouldnt we be helping the ones that need it the most?
And exactly what do you mean by "stablized"? If you mean with a good economy, successful trade, a world class education system, and a peaceful political system...it will never happen until the Iraqi people want it...that seems to kind of make us staying there any longer kind of unneccessary other than for the sake of training the Iraqi people to protect their government. This is my problem with going in....your setting up to help someone thru all this stuff when you cant secure it for your own people.

As of yet (and Im not saying this to piss anyone off...im just legitimately curious) all I have seen you do is ask "what would you do?" and slap down what everyone else has to say. What is your opinion of what should happen there?

[impala454]

I've already said it (although you might have been typing while I was I guess).

Stabilized = less terror cells over there. iraqi government in full control of their country. a working democracy.

We need to stay there until that happens.

[THECHICKEN]

Africa would me much harder to justify and be successful at.

Iraq violated international law, violated previous surrendering provisions, and was a general threat to its neighbors (though the degree of threat was wrong in hind-sight).

With Africa you are dealing with PURELY humanitarian reasons to send in armed forces (Which IS NOT supported under the U.N. charter for reasons to go to war). Under the U.N. charter the only way to legitimize a war in Africa to prevent genocide is to get a resolution for war passed by the U.N... and in the U.N.'s entire history it has only approved of 2 out of the 150ish wars fought (before the wars took part). The other way that a country can justify war under the U.N. charter is with Self-defense or "collective" self-defense.

Plus in africa much of the killing is purely civil war type killing. As in, the Rwanda killings being 2 sides just taking turns murdering each other. Those are the HARDEST types of killings to stop.

So it is easier to say we should stop the african genocides before middle east problems, but international law and world security make the other wars easier to sell (over purely moral justification).

[chook]

i'd say 10 years it would stabilize, but it would be a shit hole till then.

[FORSAKENR320]

crater the middle east.

set fire to africa.

if it makes my life the slightest bit more convieniant, i don't care.