Controversy inside.

Then perhaps you'd like to elucidate a bit more? At a casual glance, it appears that you think 'America' (in quotes, because America is not a single entity, and the will of the people is not always reflected by the actions of our electorate) is 'awesome' because it is engaged in a war that was entered under either false or mistaken pretext, and is now still engaged in said war with no legal justification for remaining so.

If someone clubs you from behind, takes your wallet, and spends your money on Pokemon cards and Zima, are they awesome?

I agree with you Dianne. I am a Native person. We are a recovering society--recovering from being "conquered" still 500 years later. The view that what Native people knew and practiced and believed should be "purged" to make the world better sickens me, and yes, I know I'm focusing narrowly on that particular point.

I think that the original poster needs to go back and learn something of his/her Native culture before expressing a completely ignorant opinion based on little more than what he/she learned in American history textbooks. History is written and taught by the victorious. Doesn't mean it's accurate, just that they have the power to decide what "history" is passed on.

Also, because I can't just let it drop..."technologically advanced" needs to be properly defined. Prior to invasion, Native people had technology in the form of a healthier, greater variety of foods and medicines which led to longer mortality rates for Europeans (Read Jack Weatherford). Native people had/have advanced knowledge of the solar system, higher mathematics, science, and calendars (read Vine Deloria, Jr.); Native people had/have intimate knowledge of the earth and animals so they were able to live without damaging their resources while still having plenty for all (Jack Weatherford again); Native people had belief systems that allowed them to exercise control of their populations, social order, economies, governmental systems, etc. (Daniel Wildcat). Native people had/have deep philosophies that continue to be meaningful and relevant today.

Our weapons were useless against the "technologically advanced" Gatlin guns, but it has been sufficiently proved, I believe, that guns have served no useful purpose for the world's population at all except to threaten and cause meaningless death.

I believe in the end the Iraqi people will not be better served by American interference in their lives and cultures. Look at American Native people today and you look at the future of Iraq.

So because the guns are used to threaten that makes their purpose any less important? And I expect there's a hell of a lot of people who'd be quite pissed off with you calling their deaths meaningless if they weren't, um... dead. I expect it's probably just the way you've used the words, not ignorance, but I had to say something. It's not that the world wouldn't be better without wars, it's just that they're gonna happen and while they do guns have a purpose and not all death in them is meaningless.

First sentance: probably. Second sentance: I'd say very unlikely.

If you want to trust cyborgs, thats up to you. Personally, I still remember the Alex J. Murphy incident back in 1987. They say they're safe now, but do you really want to take that risk?

Sorry, but OCP clearly had no idea what they were doing - they couldn't even make decent robots. The biggest problem they had with their cyborgs, imho, is that they insisted on using the whole brain when selected parts of it would have been far better.

Basically Aspen is an advocate of ethnic cleansing by the better armed. How does he propose this displacement of the indigenous populace. Should we simply gun people down ih the streets, or should we operate extermination camps.
In 1945 the world said never again, sadly, it still goes on, and as long as we have individuals with beliefs as vile as Aspens, it will continue.
Well Aspen in 20 or however many years when China is the main economic and military power on earth, what will you do if the chinese administration decide your attitude is right and cleanse North America.

Not such an appealing idea to you now Aspen, eh?

Oh no, ! forgot, Aspens cool with that, the Genocide and cultural eradication of native americans (and as he said he,s half native) was a good thing in his books.

Yea, I guess you're right. There is a large part of America that isn't very awesome. A lot of really whiny people that are disconnected from reality and want to believe that it's possible to have a world without war. Actually, those people are only obsessed with a world without war when there's a Republican President. Isn't that weird?

The war in Iraq happened for many reasons, one side of the debate has decided to pretend that the WMDs were the entire reason, so they can feel like they're right about something while they're wrong about how much of a disaster they think Iraq is. Sure, all of Iraq has decided to get on board with democracy, but what about the WMDs?! There were 22 other major reasons given for the war. Go back and read all of the speeches, the main goal of the Iraq war was to help the entire middle east get on board with the rest of civilization. Brutal dictators inspire people to want to blow themselves up to get virgins. Getting rid of those dictators is how we're winning the war on terror.

But you probably don't believe the war on terror is real. It's a big conspiracy, right? Boogy boogy boogy!

You have no understanding of the "legal justification" for wars. Countries are not people, and there are no official rules of the world. Go ask most of the people in Iraq if they would rather go back to living under Saddam. Oh no, you skip all of the news articles like that, right? It's just propaganda!

America is so evil! We need to wait until we have a Democrat president before we can help other countries that are screwing up the world! People in the US with that view should leave. The America you dream of will never exist. There are too many intelligent people here. Go to Europe, then you can watch close up what your little dreams lead to.

Interesting thought:

Should the leader of a country's first responsibility be to his/her country or humanity as a whole?

Heck yeah, just look at LBJ's reelection bid in '68. No peaceniks complaining about war then.


Yes there were lots of reasons given, but none of them warrented circumventing the UN. The WMD arguement was the only one that was persuasive enough to get the support needed.
I also recommend getting laid to prevent people from blowing themselves up to get you.


I think we need to do something to prevent terrorist attacks. Afghanistan was done right, with support and for a reason. If the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terror then I think the administration is batting at ghosts and its time to find someone who can do a better job.


Yes, many people in Iraq are very happy Saddam is gone. Are we ready to spend the same money and lives in other places that need our help. From the standpoint of lives and money spent, I think we could have helped a lot more countries improve the well-being of their citizens. War isn't a good investment when you want bang for your buck.


Exactly!! Just look at the results of European Imperialism, look at the cost in lives and the drain on their economies it lead to, not to mention the world wars. At least some countries have learned lessons.

1968 was a very long time ago, before the Democrats lost their minds and decided that their political power is more important than America. I'm talking about the last 10 years.

It really doesn't matter if you don't believe that the other 22 reasons "warrented circumventing the UN." They certainly did. Also, people that religiously believe that Saddam had no WMDs because we haven't found them yet are pretty dumb. Just like the people that believe Bush lied about the WMDs. Listening to dumb people is a bad idea always.
Yea, good plan, let's help the terrorists get laid to prevent more attacks here. Are you a kid or something?

It's not necessary for the US to fix every crappy country. Sometimes it's a good idea, though. Like in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the entire middle east is growing up and recognzing that our way of governing is much better than their outdated way. That was the goal of the wars in the middle east. To wake them up. And it's working very well.

Haha, imperialism. You are a little kid.

Hey, pot, we've got a kettle over here!

I'm confused. People like Stankleberry are in charge in America. They hold the reigns of power in business, media, government, and the courts, and appear to be able to do so for almost eternity.

Why so bitter all the time? You'd think they're on the losing side . . .

[depressed]What has America come to be?[/depressed]

Nah, I'm not bitter, I'm just tired of listening to morons that don't know what they're talking about. It's not bitter to correct the incorrect. It is helpful.

Wow, such well thought out arguments displaying a commanding knowledge of history and facts.

Good job ignoring the rest of my post because you're so very sensitive.

Sorry, I didn't quote your entire post. I meant the response to apply to all of it.

Absolutely.

This makes no sense



But seriously, what makes you think they were? Lay them out and lets discuss.
To quote Monte Python:
Simple contradiction is not an argument.
Yes it is.
No it isn't!


I could make fun of the grammar here, but I'll leave that to Ulrika.
The evidence so far shows that there were none. What indications do you have that there are?


I agree here. I think that Bush really did think there were WMD. He has admitted that the problem was that he listend to faulty intellegence. (what I assume you mean by "dumb people"



You didn't read what I wrote.



What criteria that makes it a good idea? Economics? National security? What makes military intervention preferable to other methods? What other countries should we be helping, if any? and in what way?



Which improvements are you talking about?
The withdraw of Syria from Lebanon?
The withdraw of Israel troops?
The demands by Iran for the right to develop nuclear weapons?
or some other things?
How is this a result of the war in Iraq?


I'm not sure I follow this argument. Could you expand your description?

A large number of Americans believe that war should be avoided, because it is a horrible thing. That war is a horrible thing, in terms of environmental devastation and loss of human life, is a difficult thing to debate. War is inevitable, barring some bizarre leap of human evolution, but we as a race have a long history of trying to stave off the inevitable, particularly when the inevitable is horrendous. Trotting out the 'Oh, they're just upset because Bush is a Republican' ignore the non-Democrats (including myself) and Republican party members who are tired of the Bush administration's record of lies, greed, warmongering, stupidity, and outright lack of respect for opposing viewpoints or our peers in the United Nations.

The WMDs, along with suspected terrorist alliance, were the most persuasive arguments that the Bush administration had for a war in Iraq. Those arguments have not proven out. We are still fighting. 'We want to make things better for them' holds no water, as economic and political sanction provide means of pressuring foreign countries without waltzing in there and killing their citizens. Of course, economic sanction wasn't much of an option, since we want their oil really badly. And of course oil has nothing at all to do with the war, right?

I do believe the war on terror is real. I also believe that it is being managed just as successfully as the war on drugs. Terrorism is still there, drugs are still there, but our civil rights are in doubt.

The United Nations might like to speak to you about that whole 'official rules of the world' thing. And I seriously hope that the average Iraqi is happy that Saddam is gone, but I don't trust a damned thing I hear from the American media, on either side of the political fence.

Your last paragraph is difficult to respond to, as it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Ooh, this is fun!

I'm gonna keep off commenting on Stankleberry's posts unless I've got something funny to say, 'cause I think (s)he's probably too far indroctrinated to be helped by anything I've got to say and everyone else is doing a sterling job.

What I do fancy saying though, is:

Why don't we 'invade' Africa?

I guess I will have to start at the beginning with you folks. You are way behind.

*nods* You're getting better at humor. Good job.

How's the "war" on terror going?

Chair of the 9/11 Commission, former Gov. Tom Kean (R-NJ): "A lot of the things we need to do really to prevent another 9/11 just simply aren't being done by the president or by the Congress ... God help us if we have another attack and we haven't done some of these things..."

Goddamn Democrats.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said! Furthermore, I would like to add that if you're bored then it's probably because you're a terribly improductive and backward member of society! Therefore you must be shot and replaced by someone who works harder!

It's going pretty well, I think. There haven't been any attacks in the US in 4 years. Good job picking one little thing out of the 9/11 Commission and acting like that's all they said.

I'm sure you have all kinds of awesome ideas on how to do things better. It's easy to make giant organizations start doing things differently than they've been doing them for years, right? Sure.