The Decomposition of Modern America

Yet our armed forces love him more than most presidents.

The troops never turned and looked clinton in the eye when they saluted him... its not required but watch when they salute Bush they are focused on him and are proud to be in his presence.

I love how people who never have been in the military and hate the military pretend to know how he treats them and what they feel to him....

before its posted, yes some troops will whine about it, but those are mostly troops that just joined for money for college without believing in it and it being what they really wanted to do. Moral is if you don't want to go to war and fight for your country don't take the free money.

JV

BTW I do agree that Bush senior is a much better diplomat, W. made me cringe by a few of his actions, but he is a hell of a lot better than clinton.

Actually, no... the original investigation was about a real estate deal, and when that failed they tried to do it over consentual sex... and apparantly conservatives are so horrified by sex that it actually almost worked (of course by then the republicans had wasted millions upon millions of dollars on the coup attempt... as republicans are so good at doing... oh, like in California for example).

I personally find invading a foreign country under false pretenses to be far more serious than have oral sex with an intern. The first is against international law... the second is just bad judgement but not illegal. Bush's bad judgement has killed thousands of innocent people in two countries (three if you count our own servicemen and women). Clinton's just caused the republicans to waste millions of dollars and helped Hillary sell a lot of books.



Not necessarily... I'd probably look at US history and figure out what a bad idea that motto is... look at all the enemies of our enemies we put in power... Noriega (we installed him and gave him CIA training), the Taliban (we gave them billions because they were fighting the Russians), Hussein (we gave him the biological agents that we're suddenly so afraid of), and Bin Laden (we gave him CIA training). I think I'd steer clear of my enemies enemies.

Also considering we helped secure Saddam in power and gave him lots of his weapons we had an obligation to remove him. That was a blackstain on our record, ever citizen he murderd was a stain on our country, we did the right thing, thats really all there is to it.

JV

Those black stains tell me the opposite... the ends almost never justify the means.

BTW... you're fun to argue with JV

A few things.

I never said I hated the military. Do not put words in my mouth.

Second, I find it interesting that you seem to know how many or what percentage of our solidiers love Dubya.

Third, Bush has a history of having his audiences hand picked beforehand, so that his loyalists are in front, and his detractors are peeling potatoes or something.

Your comment about troops "that just joined for money for college without believing in it and it being what they really wanted to do" was just wrong. These men and women are putting their lives on the line because Bush wanted to shore up votes for the 2002 midterms. Its a shame that they are getting killed because Bush (who was AWOL the last year of his National Guard hitch) is such a piss poor diplomat. Yes, they should expect to get killed or maimed, but not like this.

do we have authority over the world?




by who? why weren't they on our side?

I have a bumpersticker on my car that says "DISGUSTED REPUBLICAN: ANYONE ELSE IN 2004"

My my we forget history quite quick when we want to eh? Yes Whitewater was the first scandal, in which many of the people under the Clintons went to jail for, and your telling me the Clintons had no involvement? Most of the people that were under the clintons and in jail for these illegal dealing were pardoned in clintons midnight pardons. Some people involved mysteriously died? come on. Secondly sexgate was not about consentual sex, it was started with Paula Jones whom Clinton sexually harrassed during his years as Governor, They uncovered all the other women to show that he had a history of this to prove the case... This is a common tactic in trials, if someone has done similar things a lot of times you use that as evidence, that is where Monica came into play. The crime (besides sexual harrassment) was that he lied under oath about his relations with Monica, now you say thats none of our business anyways, well when he is being investigated for sexual harrassment as gov. it is our business and he lied under oath.

These are just the publicized scandals, what of the the rape charges by Jaunita Broaderick, her description of him biting her lip when he raped her, was consistant with White House interns who said he attacked them as president and tried to have sex with them he bit their lip too. The best part of it all is neither of these women knew of the others story, yet they both described the same behavior, Bill Clinton was a sexual predator and if he was a republican you all would have screamed for him to be in jail. Thats the difference I don't care what party you are in if you are a criminal you are a criminal. I need to find the list and when i do i will post it, but there is a list of all of Bill's enemies that were audited by the IRS during the scandals. You know the odds of an IRS audit are very low, and most of these people were in the least likely to be audited categories. Now lets fast forward to Hillary's race in NY, a week or so before the election the IRS audits her opponent over a 10,000 dollar gain in the stock market. A miniscule profit which would never have been investigated without prompting, after the IRS investigation it was found he did NOTHING at all wrong, but the scandal lasted just long enough to blow any chance he had at winning the race.

Then of course there are the famous midnight pardons that were bought from the clintons.

This is just a short list of the CRIMES the Clintons have committed.

One thing I will never forgive George W. Bush for is not prosecuting Bill and Hillary when he took over. There were many more chargeable offenses, but he wanted the war against bill to be over and he thought they were gone so it didn't matter. He was wrong and his mistake could put another Criminal Clinton presidency in office.


As to your second point, yes working with your enemies enemies is not the best idea but just the fact that you can compile such a long list of it occuring proves it happens and its a common strategy. They both know that the US i their biggest threat, not each other, to team up and defeat us still serves both their causes before they can go at each others throats.

and remember Osama isn't one of the fools killing himself, he's probably a very very smart man, he knows that it would be in his best interest to befriend the enemies of America.


Your comment that his bad judgement killed innocent people in 2 countries shocks me. Do you mean to say we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan as well? I dont' ever think I've heard anyone say that yet. Iraq I can see some points while i think the points for it are more substantial but Afghanistan?

We know Osama was behind the attacks, he runs the org. they all work for. The taliban protected him and let him train his terrorists there and we told them to turn him over. We could have just attacked without even that warning, we gave them a chance. How do you figure we shouldn't have gone there if thats what you meant by your comment?

BTW fun debating with you too... even if your my mortal enemy

If you really want to have some fun debating, come to www.protestwarrior.com some people there are much more informed than I and they might rip you to shreds but if your respectful and just debate we are usually pretty civil to the liberals

JV

Technically we should have authority over the UN at least, we pay more than 50% of its budget and put the majority of troops and equipment into action when it is needed.


You would know by who if you read my message, i said that the resolutions were the condemnation and the sentencing was if he didn't do what he was supposed to the UN was supposed to invade.

like I said 16+ nations aided us, they just didn't all fight.

JV

i'm shocked that anyone would say that.

and the U.N. never decided to invade. who gives us the right defy them when we don't get our way?

sheesh...what was the point of the U.N. in the first place?

You're forgetting that after years of investigation and millions of dollars wasted on the witch hunt, they couldn't convict him of a single thing. I guess you must know things they didn't?

As for Paula Jones... like she has any credibility at all? She managed to get the republican party to pay for her plastic surgery and then went on to pose for playboy and box with Tanya Harding on TV. She got exactly what she was after... her fifteen minutes.



Conjecture without a shred of proof is not a justification for war... unless you're the Bush administration.



Yep, that's what I'm saying. We had the sympathy of the world in a completely unprecedented way. If we had simply reacted by expressing sadness and not started throwing around words like "crusade" and dropping bombs on civillians head and shooting up wedding parties we might have kept that sympathy. If Al Queda had struck again the entire world would have been behind us. We blew it by playing cowboy. And what is Afghanistan now? It's an anarchic haven for terrorists, just like it was before. Apparantly we have no intention of rebuilding it. Oh, and now Iraq is an anarchic haven for terrorists too... it wasn't before we invaded. Not a very effective war on terror I'd say. We may as well have just built al queada recruiting centers for them. It would have been cheaper and achieved the same results.

The terrorists who attacked us commited a horrendous crime, not an act of war. I don't believe us losing 3000 civilians was grounds for us to kill tens of thousands of innocent Afghanis. Conservative estimates of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq are 30,000+ so I guess "100 eyes for an eye" is our motto. And where are Bin Laden and Hussein? We didn't even catch them "dead or alive" as cowboy Bush would say.



and we trained Osama so he could train his terrorists and helped the Taliban get control in the first place... that was our first crime against the Afghans... the second was going in to undo our mistakes, at the cost of thousands of innocent lives. Whoo hoo! We Americans sure do spread peace and love in the world don't we? *cough* That might be your idea of justice, but it's not mine.

I'm not going to bother replying of you won't read my messages first.

I have explained the problem with the UN already, but i'll recap it here.

The UN in theory is great and I fully support that, and when it is found that there is a way for it to work in practice I will support that.

The problem with the UN is governments who don't care or hate the US have a vote on the US's foreign policy. When dictators and Nations that have horrid human rights records are able to vote and even run the human rights section of the UN something is very wrong.

France and Germany were owed money by Saddam, thus their main reason for not wanting war.


Oh really, well the UN DID decide to pass a resolution saying that if Saddam did not fully comply that force would be authorized. Refer to previous posts and above to see why they didn't back up their own resolution.

JV

My god, come on. We should have learned from OJ that just because someone isn't convicted doesn't mean they aren't guilty. Also when witnesses end up dead, like Hillary's boyfriend Ron umm is it Brown? its hard to convict.


Wow so your saying that every single woman that came forward was just looking for her 15 minutes? Well Monica's story was true... If you read some stuff from their former security guards he has some great stories about wife swapping swinger parties the Clintons had.... So there is a history of sexual misconduct. I'm sorry but I tend to believe Paula over Bill, Bill has lied under oath before Paula hasn't, but thats typical defend Bill even as he has the bloody knife in his hand.

Conjecture? Read my posts again my friend, it was not just conjecture. Saddam and Osama have been seen meeting with each other before. Saddam donates money to Hammas, there was a terrorist camp in Iraq when we invaded. Saddam has definite links to terrorists and its more likely than not that he supported them to take out their mutual enemy.



Well not sure if you meant it this way but it sickens me. Yes we had the sympathy of the world, but then you say that if we were attacked again the entire world would have been behind us. That is sick. So your saying Bush's strategy should have been lets wait for them to hit us one more time so that we can get the world behind us? Well We have been attacked no less than 5 times already, where is the world? Is it possible they don't care if we get attacked? It was your sort of mentality that let 9/11 happen in the first place. If Clinton had been stronger during the terrorist attacks of his reign of porn perhaps they wouldn't have been in a position to launch that attack.


Actually it was an act of war, in this day and age where groups act with or without their gov. approval, and most enemies will not be a government but a multinational group, we must update what an act of war means. They consider this a war against us, Osama has said many times that he has declared war on the United States, we will not win as long we keep thinking of it ias isolated terrorist attacks, we must fight a war.

I have heard no reports that afghanistan is a terrorist haven, I know we still have troops their rooting out Taliban loyalists and unfortunately the Heroin crops are in full bloom again, but nothing about terrorist haven... Show your sources. Let me ask you something isn't it better that the terrorists go to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight our troops who are equipped to deal with it than launching attacks on America? The more of them that go there to attack us the more that die.

Not an effective war on terror? Are you kidding me, we have captured hundreds of terrorists and killed many more. there has not been another attack on US soil since 9/11. Your proposed Idea admittedly needed another attack on us.... and you dare say that this isnt' an effective war.


We may not have found Saddam and Osama yet, but guess what we will, there are many criminals and maniacs that are not found all the time, its hard to search the whole world for somebody that does not want to be found and has allies willing to hide them. Its not the same as it is here where they will be in cities and spotted, they can camp in deserts in mountains, underground with people who will die for them. We did find Saddams sons who if they had taken power could quite possibly have been worse than Saddam. Don't worry it will happen, though it doesn't need to, Saddam will never have power again.


Yes we did put Osama and his cronies in power and we did train them, Hindsight is 20/20 but forsight is not, how are we supposed to know they would become our future enemies. The biggest mistake someone can ever make is judge past actions by todays standards, that my friend is wrong. We were fighting the soviets and we helped aid Afghanistan in defeating an invading army.... That my friend was the right thing to do. Afghanistan's government was bad, they would not turn over Osama, people die in war but that is not a reason in itself not to go to war. Do you even remember what a real war is? You want to talk about death think the World Wars, Vietnam, hell the Civil War. Wars today have such a low death toll by comparison, and if you look at Saddams 20 year history I garuntee more people died under his rule than in the wars against him. That my friend IS justice and the right thing to do.

JV

I work for the Department of Defense, so I can tell you that a lot of service members were very vocally supporting General Clark - until he made public appearances with that blockhead governor of California. That kinda cooled off a little of the fervor. So long as he in the future avoids the company of such losers like the plague, I believe he can count on the military supporting him, rather than the President.

I don't doubt that actually, and don't forget Clark is a republican just running as a democrat so he can have a shot.

That does not mean that soldiers do not like their president but it is natural to pick a military man, especially a general over one that is not.

JV

It's obvious that you would condemn clinton as being a criminal no matter how many facts to the contrary you were presented with. Several points in your last post make it clear that you have no interest in facts.




Ahhh yes... anyone having consentual sex and enjoying themselves MUST be "misconduct." I seriously doubt this is true, but if it is... so what?!



Yeah, defending the man that brought us eight years of economic boom, prosperity, and peace. That bastard!

The porn years? how sexually repressed are you JV? Or are you a typical conservative that pretends to be holier than everyone else when they're not wanking off to their own porn collections?



Uh, what planet are you living on JV? There's not a shred of truth to that. You should really make yourself aware of the facts. It has never been claimed that Hussein and Bin Laden met. What WAS claimed was that Mohammad Attah (sp?), one of the 19 hijackers was reported to be seen meeting with an Iraqi defense minister. This has since been disproven. He was in the US at the time the meeting was supposed to have taken place.



The so called terrorist camp was in the Kurdish controlled north... our allies territory! Hussein had no control over that part of Iraq.



Okay, you tell me JV... what exactly have we accomplished besides killing tens of thousands of people who didn't deserve to die, turning Iraq into a haven for terrorists, pissing off all of our allies, and almost destroying NATO? Have we caught the people responsible for the terrorist attacks? nope. Have we stopped Al Qeuada? nope. If anything we gave them more reason to hate us. Our government doesn't actually WANT to win the war on terror. After the cold war they needed to find a new "them" to make perpetual war on, to justify funding the war machine. What happened on 9/11 was a criminal act committed by an organized crime syndicate. It should have been dealt with accordingly. Should we invade NYC the next time the mob acts up?




You're wrong. When you get flies in your house do you use napalm to try and kill them? Do you go deer hunting with an aircraft carrier?



ahahaha... I see you're doing a perfect job of spouting the party line. Now that we can't find any WMD suddenly the rationale for the war was to draw the terrorists to Iraq so we could fight them there instead of here! That's pure spin.



Yes, I'd say that capturing a few hundred terrorists at the expense of 30,000 innocent lives is pretty damn ineffective... bordering on criminal.

Oh man, facts to the contrary? I've never seen facts to the contrary about the clintons, the only fact to the contrary is that they've never been convicted.


FACTS:

Clinton lied under oath - a very seriuos criminal charge it doesn't matter why he was there in the first place, you don't lie under oath if you are president, or anyone for that matter

Clinton has used the IRS as a weapon against his enemies - Women coming out against Bill recieved phone calls telling them to stop talking about bill or they would be audited, then they were audited, Audits are public record this is a fact.

Clinton pardoned... Mark Rich? was that his name, its been a while since i've read about it, anyways and then his wife made a major donation to the Clintons.

Clinton pardoned many of the people who went down withe Whitewater.

In the Clintons house in NY furniture from Air Force One was found.

Another fact is that many women claimed to have affairs with clinton, 1 woman claimed he raped her and another woman claimed he tried to rape her as president, I won't say that their accusations are true but it is fact they these actions were claimed to have happened.


That doesn't even take into account all the allegations that aren't provable... Bush decided when he took over that he just wanted the Clintons to be forgotten about and gave them a pardon on all their crimes and let them slip into history, he was wrong for it.


Come on, didn't we already discuss that Clinton didn't cause th 8 years of boom? Read my first or second reply to you again. You even agreed that a president doesn't cause the booms... yet now you claim it again....


Actually I used to be quite the slut, and liberal might I add but I grew up quick when i saw what was happening to our nation and I am engaged now and am devoted to her. What you can never understand is its not his affair with Monica that we cared about, though that does make him a bastard for cheating on his wife, its that his affair with her gave validity to the more serious charges of sexual harrassment and rape. It has nothing to do with sexual repression, hell I enjoy a good "hummer" now and then.



Actually it was claimed that Bin Laden and Saddam met, I'll have to dig out the article online, though you'd probably not believe it even if I did. Defecters from Iraq claim to have witnessed Saddam and Osama meeting once. Yes I know that the other allegation was proven false, but this one never was to my knowledge.


It was in the North? I could have sworn it was to the west, neighboring another nation... I'll look into it but I never claim to be 100% right, a true debater can admit when he is wrong.


What have we accomplished? Are you that thickheaded? We have captured and broken up many terrorist cells in the US and World wide. There has not been a terrorist attack on US soil since? What more do you want? No we haven't found Osama but thats not the most important thing, even if we find Osama it will still go on, there will be someone to replace him, especially if we kill him for then he will be a matyr. Catching Osama to me isn't as important as breaking up the cells and preventing attacks since its not Osama that attacks but the cells that have infiltrated many nations accross the world.


Good anology, to a degree, I agree operatives could go against small terrorist groups without war on nations, but what of the nations that support terrorism and fund terrorism? Thats like a huge whole Island of flies and you gotta drop a big pesticide bomb to kill them. Don't even bring up Saudi Arabia, my thoughts on that are they have been our "allies" supposedly and claim they are dealing with their terrorist problem but if they don't I think we should reevaluate our relationship with them and mark them as a terrorist state as well.



Did I ever say that was the rationale for war? I said its better to be fighting the terrorists with the military then let them come to America and attack. I don't think i've ever heard that one from the "party" I am actually capable of independent thought. I already stated my rationales for the war previously I will not go over them again.



to your last point, it is utterly rediculous. Afghanistan we did more than capture a few terrrorist in exchange for innocent lives, we destroyed their haven, the state that supported them the most and that funded, protected, and gave them a place to train, that was one of the greatest protections we could do for our nation. In Iraq how many people have died under Saddam? Millions, losing 10,000 or so civilians to rid themselves of someone who killed more than 100 times that is a good trade. Now I'm not saying polls are accurate for the most part they aren't especially in a country messed up like Iraq is now, but I should still point it out. The first Gallup poll in Iraq was completed and it stated that over 60% of Iraq's believed the harships they faced because of the war (including losses of loved ones) were worth it to rid them of Saddam and have a chance at democracy.


JV

ok i didnt read the whole thread so forgive me f anything was already discused heh.

well first off we've so far found trace evidence of WMD,but if everyone was willing to give the UN years to find it why cant we have time aswell?

and tell me this,if someone kills 100,000 people with a gas attack or the same amount with regular small arms,is one really worse then the other?

we've found many many thousands of bodies in mass graves.

that is evidence of ACTUAL mass destruction,not weapons of mass destruction.

and btw polls taken in iraq show about 60% of iraqi's DO support us,and they officially have said they want us there another year atleast.

i can go find you 3 forum pages worth of posts on positive things we've done or are doing in iraq if you like.

every month its estimated that a few thousand iraqi's are alive because saddam is gone.

he killed over 2,000,000 of his own people directly or indirectly in the last decade or so.

he openly supported terrorism,such as the numerous training camps we found and he was giving $10,000 to the families of every palestinian suicide bomber.

he may not have had anything to do with 9/11,but the bush administration NEVER said he did,he DID however have links to al qaeda.

it was NEVER a reason for going to war,there were many reasons this was not one of them EVER.

bin laden may not have been found but thats really not important anymore,if you consider that out of some 15,000 or so known terrorists with alqaeda links all but a few hundred are dead or captured bin laden has lost most of his power.

he has lost 2 safe havens for his operations.

iraq was a war of its own not linked in any way really to afghanistan,there were so many reasons why we should attack iraq that it was stupid not to.

EVERYONE knew there was a problem in iraq,but many would be content to leave it for a few years till we lose a few thousand people,or even leave it for another generation to deal with an have a more powerful enemy to fight.

the UN would've given him antoher dozen resolutios to break without doing anything because france germany and russia had far too much money and in the case of russia and france illegal arms sales involved in iraq.

the intent of the action is not as important as the outcome,and the outcome is thousands of living iraqi's and millions living free with very little cost to us.

btw no one said anything about clinton and kosovo when THAT wasnt UN sanctioned,and also that really was not our fight yet we went anyway.

and no one said anything when clinton bombed iraq without UN support and without accomplishing anything but killing inoccent civilians.

BTW i can go find you quotes from gore,clinton,and various other top democratic officials of the time where they said back in 98 that iraq was an imediate threat that had to be dealt with.

Thanks Chauncey, I was wondering when you would come in and back me up

JV

no problem

I''d like to know a lot more about how that poll was conducted, who was polled, and how they were distributed across the country. It's easy to do a poll to support a specific claim, even if it isn't actually true. (3 out of 4 dentists recommend... of course they had to ask 20 dentists before they decided on that specific 4).



I have no doubt that we're doing some good things there. That doesn't change the fact that we had no business going in in the first place.



That's quite a cliam. Who estimated it and how? Give sources please.



We didn't find any training camps, except one in the kurdish controlled north... an area that's been essentially under US control for years.



No he did not have any proven links to al queda. There is no evidence supporting this claim. If you know something I don't please cite your source (right wing propoganda rags excluded). And the Bush administration very deliberately suggested the Hussein link to 9/11. They've used some of the most creative language in government since Clinton said "it depends on what your definition of is is." Same kind of deliberate BS.



Who knows what the actual reasons were. We were never told. We got handed a big fat steaming pile of BS instead.



There's wishful thinking if I ever heard it. There will be 20,000 to take their place.



He hasn't lost any havens. Iraq was never a safe haven for Bin Laden. Ever. That was an invention of the Bush administration that has yet to be backed up with a single shred of proof. And Afghanistan is still controlled by warlords and the tiny amount of troops we still have there are not sufficient for us to in any way make the claim that Al Queda is gone from there.



There's a lovely video of Colin Powell from 2001 speaking at a press conference after meeting with a middle east leader where he says that there is no evidence at all that Hussein was reconstituting his weapons programs and that sanctions were keeping him safely contained. The only intelligence that's been made public since then has all been proven false.



There is no evidence of illegal arms sales by either the french or the russians to Iraq. None. Zip. And as far as I know no one except you is making that claim. There is evidence that North Korea agreed to sell them missiles that would have violated the UN sanctions, but North Korea stiffed them... they kept the money and never sent the missiles.



Tell that to the families of the 30,000 people we killed who now have no electricity or water and are dealing with looters.



I was against that too.



LOL... so when it's something Clinton did suddenly you care about the innocent civilians? Typical.

Forgive my simple-minded post here, but one thing always nags me when I read posts like this.

When a doctor has to treat a patient, he doesnt start up a smear campaign against the malady, he looks for the root cause and treats it, which admitedly sometimes involves wiping out the life of some germs/viruses/bacteria/whatever.

My point is, there must be some reason why terrorists hate our countries (lets see: US, UK, France, Germany, China, etc, etc, etc... so many countries to mention that have suffered terrorist attacks, I shan't even bother trying).

Lets figure out what all our leaders are doing wrong, that makes so many people want to kill us, and FIX IT! Hell, if that means limiting the power of politicians to prevent them from doing such terrible things on their road to fame and riches, lets do it.

Too many people forget that it's the politicians that cause all the trouble in the first place. THEY are the root cause of the ill's of all our countries - lets find the cure for THEM!

(feel free to flame me, it only tickles )

The fact that the war between christianity and islam has been waging for centuries doesn't cross your mind? Oh yes the ancient Bushimites must have caused that too.

Yes they don't like us in Saudi Arabia, but isn't that Saudi's choice and not Bin Ladens? Just because he doesn't like us there doesn't mean we don't have a right to be there or have to leave.

In some schools and with some radical muslims they still use the term crusader to describe us so if you think the holy wars of our ancesters does not effect their decisions still then you are wrong. But the really interesting thing is look who attacked first, the Crusades were to retake the Holy Lands not take them for the first time.


But no you are right, I think I'll call up Bin Laden right now and ask him what we could do to make him happy, but I have a strong feeling he'd just say die. The problem is if we did everything we could to please them it wouldn't be enough, because without us as an enemy they have noone to blame their miserable lives on. that is what the princes and kings and leaders of the fundamentalists do, they are rich and powerful but the people suffer, so to keep the people in line they tell them to blame america.

It won't end until we are all dead, they are all dead, or the mideast gains prosperity and education (i'm not saying they are dumb at all, but i'm saying they need education that doesn't train them to hate America). That is partly what Iraq is about, if it can be a succesful democracy and gain wealth it will be a shining example in the region which hopefully can spread peacefully throughout.

JV

JV - take a breather, man You sound like Eddie's post attacked you.


Sadly, yes it's all religion, I'd say. It doesn't help anything when religious texts instruct its believers to do their best to kill certain other groups. Even the Old Testament contains such messages.

Also, the US could close their borders and be complete isolationists, like Japan used to be, and terrorists would still attack it, cause it's so big. Even taking a shot at the US is proably a status statement among terrorists, whether the shot suceeds or not.

Yep, they think we're a hungry monster after they're holy land, which we want to rape. And knowing how Jesus is the devil and all, they're going to have to make sure we go to the underworld and bathe in pools of multen lava for all eternity. Man, this is worse than Woodstock!

My question is, if they're so eager to get to Alah with they're suicide bombings, why don't we just speed up the trip? They can get they're 72 virgins!