Feeling Futile

[Dagodevas]

I'm starting to feel as if this war is kind of futile (to an extent). Don't get me wrong. Getting Saddam out of power really is what's best for everyone. However, the Arab nations just don't understand what we are doing. They don't understand that you can't fight a war without civilian casualties. I'm not saying we're wrong, I'm saying that we're misunderstood. Most likely, we're always going to be that way.

We’ve been doing our best to bridge the civilization gap over in the Middle East, but it seems that no matter what we do, things just get worse. I just saw on the news a group of protesters in Jordan who weren't just protesting the Coalition, but they were praising Saddam and calling for him to invade Kuwait! They were telling reporters "Whatever did Saddam do to deserve this?" It’s sad. No matter what we do, the Arabs will always hate us.

Maybe this is just how I feel at the moment, but damn I'm so pissed off at these people.

"What ever did Saddam do?" they ask...

Kazuo Kiriyama

[NEMESiSZ]

The Arab nations will never support it, the irrational protestors (not all anti-war, but people actually attacking police over it) will never change their radical views.

Because of this, we should stop worrying about surgical strikes and civilian loss, anyone who's on our side is there to stay, and anyone who isn't, won't likely be swayed over.

[BinLadenmustdie]

We're not going to change many minds during the actual conflict. Our actions after the war are most important in getting other countries to understand what is really going on.

Once the shadow of Saddam is definitely gone, you will see an abundance of Iraqis telling their horror stories over the last couple decades and how thankful they are Saddam is gone. Of course, while they are still uncertain as to Saddam's status and his henchmen are still breathing down their necks, they aren't going to say anything bad about him. A bad word or wave to our troops gets you killed by them.

[Jimsween]

On a lighter note, If you ever need to get an anti war person to be pro war, have them play Red Alert 2. This sounds like im joking but I'm serious, no matter how strong youre convictions are the introduction of the game will get you so PO'd that you'll want to bomb the Soviet Union personally err... umm I mean the Iraqi's.

[bumcheekcity]

if thats your opinion, then youre the kind of person that causes 9/11. its you, who dont try to understand people and constantly try to get them to obey, not like you, that makes terrosts attack the US. thts quite a shame cos i think the States is actually quite a good country, but it has too many enemies.

ive said it before but you can't stamp out terrorism. you have to be nice to them and then they wont bomb you because they like you.

[NEMESiSZ]

At 3/28/03 06:12 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
ive said it before but you can't stamp out terrorism. you have to be nice to them and then they wont bomb you because they like you.

Oh, you mean surrender? Gotcha.

[NSS-SEPP]

At 3/28/03 06:10 PM, jimsween wrote: On a lighter note, If you ever need to get an anti war person to be pro war, have them play Red Alert 2. This sounds like im joking but I'm serious, no matter how strong youre convictions are the introduction of the game will get you so PO'd that you'll want to bomb the Soviet Union personally err... umm I mean the Iraqi's.

C&C: GENERALs is more up-to-date

[Dagodevas]

At 3/28/03 06:12 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: if thats your opinion, then youre the kind of person that causes 9/11. its you, who dont try to understand people and constantly try to get them to obey, not like you, that makes terrosts attack the US. thts quite a shame cos i think the States is actually quite a good country, but it has too many enemies.

ive said it before but you can't stamp out terrorism. you have to be nice to them and then they wont bomb you because they like you.

Like I said, I'm not knocking the US here, I'm just distraught over the fact that our actions are under-appreciated. I don't see how that makes me responsible for 9/11. It's not my fault people don't understand us.

Kazuo Kiriyama

[NJDeadzone]

At 3/28/03 06:12 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

you have to be nice to them and then they wont bomb you because they like you.

what if they never liked you, and don't ever plan to like you. Naivete was the cancer of the later 90s and early 00s. There's no popularity contest in the world...the rule is don't get in the US's way, since it's the only superpower now. If the US goes down, the world does too. It was the depression in the US after WWI during the 20s that screwed every European nation's economy and led to fascism. Although the US is its own entity, the world and the US live symbiotically now.

[Anti-corruption]

it's their EXTREME ISLAMIC corrupted mullahs who spread the wrong idea to the public a few hundreds years ago. and that idea is to hate foreigners in taking or invading their lands and spreading their religion around. and this trend of hating Israel or jews and later on are Americans has gone for decades.

this thing can be stopping if bush overthrow the Saudi extreme islamic regime where a Christian who spread his faith there will be executed or stone to death. goodness.

and that also means if Americans really have the strength or money to overthrow Saudi corrupted regime in which there is little or no human rights which is exactly the same as the Talibans.

Do US has the ambition to overthrown Iran's corrupted regime too? Iran is simply no respect for the Americans.

they sold carpets with American flag or Bush's head on it and some of them even have vulgars on them. i come across one of the issues of Iran in Time magazine.

[bumcheekcity]

At 3/28/03 06:20 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:

At 3/28/03 06:12 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
ive said it before but you can't stamp out terrorism. you have to be nice to them and then they wont bomb you because they like you.

Oh, you mean surrender? Gotcha.

no, i dont mean surrender. please explain how you got to surrender from my short statement at the top. while youre there explain how killing people is going to make less people hate us and want to bomb us.

[NEMESiSZ]

They want us to let them do whatever they want, and stay out of middle east/israel whatever. If we do that just because they kill a few of our people, that's called surrender. Giving in to them is surrender.

If you don't like the policies of the united states move to a world it doesn't control.

[NJDeadzone]

At 3/30/03 02:24 AM, Anti-corruption wrote: it's their EXTREME ISLAMIC corrupted mullahs who spread the wrong idea to the public a few hundreds

ding ding ding! you got it. for anyone else that doesn't know what a mullah is, it's a Middle-Eastern religious leader who coincidentally is lso in charge of the education system.

[TheShrike]

At 3/30/03 10:53 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: They want us to let them do whatever they want, and stay out of middle east/israel whatever. If we do that just because they kill a few of our people, that's called surrender. Giving in to them is surrender.

No, waging war and then giving up is surrender.
Deciding to not push our nose into the politics of foreign states, deciding to not wage war over it... Is not surrender. Under your definition, we've surrendered to half of the world.

[NEMESiSZ]

Okay, rethink your reply, type it out so it isn't inane, then repost it.

[karasz]

At 3/30/03 03:22 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 3/30/03 10:53 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: They want us to let them do whatever they want, and stay out of middle east/israel whatever. If we do that just because they kill a few of our people, that's called surrender. Giving in to them is surrender.

No, waging war and then giving up is surrender.
Deciding to not push our nose into the politics of foreign states, deciding to not wage war over it... Is not surrender. Under your definition, we've surrendered to half of the world.

well ur both right... but shrike is forgetting the political game behind this... although it would be easy to just walk away from the mid-east the opponents of bush would say 'so the terrorists win' since one of the things they want is the US to leave the mid-east and their holy land...

although im starting to get sick of the whole fucking problem, i say we just outlaw all religious fanatics... there anyone that doesnt like it will also be shot... then no more problems...

[NEMESiSZ]

USA > The World

That's basically what it all comes down to.

[karasz]

At 3/30/03 04:19 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: USA > The World

That's basically what it all comes down to.

nemesisz the world could take us, i mean hell there are 300 million US citizens compared to 5.7 billion people in the world (excluding the US) that would mean a 19-1 ratio for THE WORLD... i mean i could take about 35-40 toddlers... but i mean the US doesnt have action heroes to take them all...

[TheShrike]

At 3/30/03 04:15 PM, karasz wrote:

At 3/30/03 03:22 PM, TheShrike wrote: No, waging war and then giving up is surrender.
Deciding to not push our nose into the politics of foreign states, deciding to not wage war over it... Is not surrender. Under your definition, we've surrendered to half of the world.

well ur both right... but shrike is forgetting the political game behind this... although it would be easy to just walk away from the mid-east the opponents of bush would say 'so the terrorists win' since one of the things they want is the US to leave the mid-east and their holy land...

I never said we should just up and walk away. That would be cowardly, but it would not be surrender.

I haven't forgotten the political game, I was arguing the definition of surrender.

And Nemmy, You should really start reading posts, then replying, not the other way around.

[Jimsween]

At 3/30/03 04:23 PM, karasz wrote:

nemesisz the world could take us, i mean hell there are 300 million US citizens compared to 5.7 billion people in the world (excluding the US) that would mean a 19-1 ratio for THE WORLD... i mean i could take about 35-40 toddlers... but i mean the US doesnt have action heroes to take them all...

Well... If we ever get that missle defense thing working we could take on the world. We DO have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and these arent wussy little a-bombs these pack 10,000 times the punch.

[TheShrike]

At 3/30/03 06:16 PM, jimsween wrote: Well... If we ever get that missle defense thing working we could take on the world. We DO have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and these arent wussy little a-bombs these pack 10,000 times the punch.

Imagine that. USA the suicide-bomber.

[karasz]

At 3/30/03 06:16 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 3/30/03 04:23 PM, karasz wrote:

nemesisz the world could take us, i mean hell there are 300 million US citizens compared to 5.7 billion people in the world (excluding the US) that would mean a 19-1 ratio for THE WORLD... i mean i could take about 35-40 toddlers... but i mean the US doesnt have action heroes to take them all...

Well... If we ever get that missle defense thing working we could take on the world. We DO have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and these arent wussy little a-bombs these pack 10,000 times the punch.

Russia has a larger stockpile than us...

and that missile defense thing will never be 100% right now i think the number is 75-80% effective... so that means 3 outta every 4 missiles will hit the US... ALSO the NMD (national missile defense) has never been tried against more than 1 missile attack, and we wait for good days to practice... SO if its raining and they send 2 missiles we be fucked...

[Jimsween]

Huh? When did I say anything about suicide bombing.

[Jimsween]

At 3/30/03 06:38 PM, karasz wrote:

Russia has a larger stockpile than us...

They do??? Even if they do they still dont have as many ICBM's as us.

and that missile defense thing will never be 100% right now i think the number is 75-80% effective... so that means 3 outta every 4 missiles will hit the US...

1 in 4, 75% effective means 1 in 4.

ALSO the NMD (national missile defense) has never been tried against more than 1 missile attack, and we wait for good days to practice... SO if its raining and they send 2 missiles we be fucked...

I didnt say it works I just said when we ever get it working we could take on the world.

[TheShrike]

At 3/30/03 06:38 PM, jimsween wrote: Huh? When did I say anything about suicide bombing.

I was refering to us using a-bombs to counter a worldwide attack.
It's suicidal

[karasz]

At 3/30/03 06:44 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 3/30/03 06:38 PM, karasz wrote: and that missile defense thing will never be 100% right now i think the number is 75-80% effective... so that means 3 outta every 4 missiles will hit the US...

1 in 4, 75% effective means 1 in 4.

and thats y im a fucking moron...

ALSO the NMD (national missile defense) has never been tried against more than 1 missile attack, and we wait for good days to practice... SO if its raining and they send 2 missiles we be fucked...

I didnt say it works I just said when we ever get it working we could take on the world.

well it would be a nice thing to have, but lets not forget its been like 23 years since reagan started it AND the US has not been attacked with a missile just planes...

[Jlop985]

The actions that we are taking right now are not futile. What about the democratization of Germany and Japan? That seemed impossible. We got it done though. We have to fight against tyranny in this world. Maybe not always through military action, but we must do something. We must also be less hypocritical in foreign affairs in order to raise our appeal.

[Jimsween]

At 3/30/03 08:31 PM, Jlop985 wrote: The actions that we are taking right now are not futile. What about the democratization of Germany and Japan? That seemed impossible.

Actually the people of Germany already had a democratic government, until the fear of communism spread and hitler used it to creat a fascist government.

[Jlop985]

Before the short-lived Weimar Republic, Germany was a monarchy, and before its unification, all the German principalities and etc were autocratically ruled. Democracy was perceived as a foreign idea. Monarchy was entrenched.

[Jimsween]

At 3/30/03 08:52 PM, Jlop985 wrote: Before the short-lived Weimar Republic, Germany was a monarchy, and before its unification, all the German principalities and etc were autocratically ruled. Democracy was perceived as a foreign idea. Monarchy was entrenched.

Youre right, I was thinking about them having alot of civil liberties.