Robin Williams for Pres

[killswitch83]

roflol, didn't know Redneck and Hick became languages all the sudden, rofl ; hell then I speak Yankee, rofl; ehhh forget about it and there's also get da f**k outta heeeh, lol (Guido Italian, rofl)

[Bio-Hazard]

Hey, out here where I live, Redneck and Hick is all that you hear, even from the teachers at the schools..................... And it wouldn't be good for your health to say anything bad about it if you were out in the area. These are some extremely proud folk out this way.................

[killswitch83]

I live in South Carolina right now, trust me, I know, lol. Lots and Lots and Lots and Lots of pride, lol. And I wouldn't want to piss one off because 1 in 3 own a gun, and they do know how to shoot, lol. The college teachers in SC are a little more civilized in speech than perhaps other parts of the South, but not in the high schools and pre-secondary schools, lol.

[-mogwai]

i disagree that the nukes iran wants to make are made so that they will be used against us. i think it's that they want to bust up israel. iran doesn't have any icbms, just like saddam didn't.

i think the reason why we havent gone into iran yet is because it'd be the dumbest move ever. we're already losing the battle in iraq... why do the same thing in iran? what we really need is to vlad lenin them... we need to instill pawns from our government over in iran to spark up a counter-revolution. there are already daily demonstrations and rallies in tehran (iran's capital)... all we need are a few key figures to tip the scales. unfortunately, the government gives the people sone rights here and there through legislation to keep them from being overthrown. the only thing we DON'T need more of in this world right now is war.

[Bio-Hazard]

You are living in a very trusting sheltered world my friend. If you think that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass distruction you need to take a look at my mmediical records, nerve damage fron the gas when we crossed the boarders during the first war.
And just who said that you need a ICBM to deliver a nuke, they can just carry it in on their back in a backpack.

[kenc51]

i disagree that the nukes iran wants to make are made so that they will be used against us. i think it's that they want to bust up israel. iran doesn't have any icbms, just like saddam didn't.

i think the reason why we havent gone into iran yet is because it'd be the dumbest move ever. we're already losing the battle in iraq... why do the same thing in iran? what we really need is to vlad lenin them... we need to instill pawns from our government over in iran to spark up a counter-revolution. there are already daily demonstrations and rallies in tehran (iran's capital)... all we need are a few key figures to tip the scales. unfortunately, the government gives the people sone rights here and there through legislation to keep them from being overthrown. the only thing we DON'T need more of in this world right now is war.

I'm obviously outside the loop a little (not being American), but aren't you talking about getting CIA involvement? That would be just as bad as war... Even if you get "legit" members of office to start a Coup D'etat... That is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done.. It will just strengthen the view that America is acting as a "bully"
Part of the prob is the muslim communities... It's their view of America, as judge/jury for the world... They see America as the land of the free... But also see America backing Israel... It doesn't take much for some Iman etc. to distort their views with Palistine or Iraq....

America is in a bad situation as you (and the rest of the world too), has to stick with the Iraq situation till the end to regain confidence.. the Israel situation also MUST find a peacefull end..

If America tries to "interfer" with another muslim country.. Then all hell will really break loose... and it will be unlikely a solution will be found..

I don't know the solution, but getting real support from the real conservative muslims with influence around the world is a must...

[-mogwai]

i disagree that the nukes iran wants to make are made so that they will be used against us. i think it's that they want to bust up israel. iran doesn't have any icbms, just like saddam didn't.

i think the reason why we havent gone into iran yet is because it'd be the dumbest move ever. we're already losing the battle in iraq... why do the same thing in iran? what we really need is to vlad lenin them... we need to instill pawns from our government over in iran to spark up a counter-revolution. there are already daily demonstrations and rallies in tehran (iran's capital)... all we need are a few key figures to tip the scales. unfortunately, the government gives the people sone rights here and there through legislation to keep them from being overthrown. the only thing we DON'T need more of in this world right now is war.

I'm obviously outside the loop a little (not being American), but aren't you talking about getting CIA involvement? That would be just as bad as war... Even if you get "legit" members of office to start a Coup D'etat... That is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done.. It will just strengthen the view that America is acting as a "bully"

dude, it's almost the same exact thing we did in iraq and afghanistan, except on a less bloody scale. we're already "the bully" to just about all countries in the world. sneaking in some covert operatives to start an uprising isn't bullying... it's manipulating. whenever germany did it, no one knew about it until many years later.

[kenc51]

yeahh but America have being doing that for years.... Everyone knows that.. The Muslim countries WILL go ape-**** if they found out..
FAR TOO RISKY!!

get legitimate support... it will get real trust and everone is happy.. without having to look over their shoulders all the time..

It's a tight rope... it woun't take much to get the current situation to get out of control.. at the moment most Muslims don't belive in the Jihad... Imagine if all the real Iman's order a worldwide Jihad? 1-2 more f*ckups and its all over

I think America needs to step back and let another country to take over, obviously america will still have to be envolved, sorry to say this but you started it (as far as their concerned), also if this all gets cleared up, america must be able to say they fixed it.. The UN needs to take their finger out.. If there is a real international group in afganistan/Iraq etc. then theese people who are creating propaganda for the "jihad" would have less ammo... Infact as you are too aware America is doing everything, it's your troops, hardware etc.. If all other countries join in America could uses some of the money currently used for this on helping you citizens directly..

[LVCapo]

trust me, and I think BIO would agree....if Iran can use a nuke on us...and ICBMs are only one of sevceral delivery methods.....then they will. We are not losing the battle in Iraq, thats a ridiculous statement. Why? Because foreign fighters from Iran, Syria, and other countries are fighting us, along with the Baathist leftovers?

[kenc51]

I never said anyone was losing!

What I was trying to say is get support,

THEN TAKE WHATEVER ACTION...

Iran is a problem, also North Korea...and as I said I don't know the solution

[killswitch83]

Once again, in those two areas, along with China if they start to escalate on us, we need to exercise a preemptive strike and take those f**kers out before they can take us out. I already know and understand in my mind that Kim Jong-Il plan to use their enriched fuel rods for nukes, and the resultant nukes will not only be used on us, but the rest of his enemies (read South Korea; all they would have to do is make a smaller nuke with limited fallout). Everyone start grabbing copies of the Anarchist Cookbook, because you'll need the ability to reclaim RDX from C-4 and also the ability to make Nitro, to really f*ck up those buttholes when they try and scale a worldwide invasion (talking about Iran, N Korea, and China, if that happens), not to mention you'll want to punch holes in the side of their tanks with Thermite and then use an automatic weapon to mow them down. I know, I sound cruel, but if we keep messing up like this, militant tactics by civilians will become necessary

[-mogwai]

trust me, and I think BIO would agree....if Iran can use a nuke on us...and ICBMs are only one of sevceral delivery methods.....then they will. We are not losing the battle in Iraq, thats a ridiculous statement. Why? Because foreign fighters from Iran, Syria, and other countries are fighting us, along with the Baathist leftovers?

no, that's not why. it's because we are trying to impose a democratic government in a country that a) doesn't have the economy or industrialization to handle it, b) we destabilized iraq badly that as soon as we leave, within a matter of months, iraq will resort to a civil war which will eventually pull other countries in on it in order to keep terrorists from taking over.

something that upsets me, however, is that we keep calling the insurgents "terrorists." people need to stop thinking of them as terrorists and start realizing that they are defending their land from, what they percieve, as an americanization and/or occupation. if china shock 'n' awed los angeles and constantly poured troops into the united states with millions more to spare, wouldn't you grab some ammo and kick some chinese asses? i don't like this very ethnocentric view the media has when it comes to this iraq war.

not only are we losing in the governmental aspect... we're losing the war as far as recruitment is concerned, too. with every step we make in iraq, the terrorist propagandists get to work and recruit more terrorists than we catch, per capita.

also, this war is costing us much money and will continue to cost us much money for years to come.

i dunno, man.... i really am quite pessimistic (realistic) about iraq's future. if we get out, terrorists will take that piece over. if we stay, terrorists will keep coming in and we'll keep losing soldiers. the whole situation's a big clister f**k....

we should never have even invaded iraq... but, whatever. too late, now. i just hope someone can figure out how to fix this (unlike bush and his grade-a squad) so that things will get stable, maintain stability, and flourish.

[sbohdan]

Once again, in those two areas, along with China if they start to escalate on us, we need to exercise a preemptive strike and take those f**kers out before they can take us out.

aren't you a little aggressive? lol, when I was your age I kind of was the same but as time passes you will cool down too and think little more before you just kill everyone. this kind of thinking was common during cold war and it almost led to a nuklear holocaust of the whole earth. I mean- if you think you should nuke them first and they also think they should do it first then everybody will just fire the nukes and get this planet cleaned of biological life alltogether. don't forget -nuks have lasting effects like radiation that will spread everywhere (also the country that issued them). unfortunatelly the problem is never black and white and cannot be solved just by a simple act.

[Bio-Hazard]

And I guess you call what was going on before the war stable. All that was going on there was behind closed doors stuff that was making certain members of the UN rich.

[killswitch83]

Once again, in those two areas, along with China if they start to escalate on us, we need to exercise a preemptive strike and take those f**kers out before they can take us out.

aren't you a little aggressive? lol, when I was your age I kind of was the same but as time passes you will cool down too and think little more before you just kill everyone. this kind of thinking was common during cold war and it almost led to a nuklear holocaust of the whole earth. I mean- if you think you should nuke them first and they also think they should do it first then everybody will just fire the nukes and get this planet cleaned of biological life alltogether. don't forget -nuks have lasting effects like radiation that will spread everywhere (also the country that issued them). unfortunatelly the problem is never black and white and cannot be solved just by a simple act.

yeah, I'm the reincarnation of Ares, the God of War, lol. I don't mean nuke them for the hell of it, because there's usually subtle signs when a country is going to attack another (example, when the terrorists nailed us on 9/11, something similar happened in the early 90's when Bin Laden bombed the Towers I think for the first time, but they were able to rebuild); I believe the government cannot ignore those small signs, because a good deal of the time, they lead up to exponentially more violent situations, where more people are killed, innocents mainly. All I was saying was that we only nuke them, of not at least deliver a couple H-Bombs (which has limited fallout and limited environmental ramifications) to quell their attacks. And if that doesn't work, then Nukes are all we have, IMO. What can I say, I've been a violent soul for many many many years.

[sbohdan]

I don't mean nuke them for the hell of it, because there's usually subtle signs when a country is going to attack another (example, when the terrorists nailed us on 9/11, something similar happened in the early 90's when Bin Laden bombed the Towers I think for the first time, but they were able to rebuild); I believe the government cannot ignore those small signs, because a good deal of the time, they lead up to exponentially more violent situations, where more people are killed, innocents mainly.

I agree on this

[-mogwai]

honestly, when the hell did diplomacy and decency take a back-seat to bad ideas? "get them before they get us"? how many times has that ACTUALLY worked between two bigtime nations throughout the course of history? not to mention that we're way beyond the age of catapults and swords. it'd be nukes mcgee and no one would win.

[-mogwai]

And I guess you call what was going on before the war stable. All that was going on there was behind closed doors stuff that was making certain members of the UN rich.

uh, yeah? it was. people had jobs, money, healthcare, and cars. right now, people are struggling for jobs and they don't have crap. about 70% of the country wishes we never invaded iraq and they wish they could go back to saddam. they're just so sick of all the war and killing and, to them, there's no end in sight.

i mean, yeah, they didn't have freedom of speech, but at least they had livelihoods.

and, yeah, saddam did use biological weapons on his own people... but it was our government who indirectly okayed it. whenever he got the weapons from rumsfeld, he wanted to know if they really worked. rumsfeld told him to test them out. as far as the u.s. government was concerned, it wasn't our problem. if he used it against his own people, good. if he used it against the iranians, good. it was a win-win situation.

[killswitch83]

you're right concerning my recent comments about the nukes; diplomacy needs to come first; however what I was saying is that extreme caution would have to be used in utilizing them. I'm not saying use them right out of the box, I'm saying wait until they're absolutely needed, but with some countries a warning shot is needed, thus the necessity for either an air strike or drop a couple of H-bombs (if it's a large region that is) as a stark warning, and if they are pigheaded enough to start prepping their nukes to nail us back, then we need to use them. I don't advocate using them as a first-response, because then it would be as you're talking about, every country on Earth would use them, and it would be all over. There's cycles for everything: first diplomacy and summits designed to disarm the countries with the nukes, then sanctions when they refuse to stop their nuclear programs, then a warning shot (H-Bombs/airstrike) when things are edging extremely close to the edge, where they're close to using them; and finally, when they're preparing (within 72 hours) to launch them, we launch our nukes (of course we need to have our nukes ready before we fire the "warning shot" so that this plan could work); after that, God help us all, haven't thought past that point, I would guess some degree of damage control would need to be put in place.

[kenc51]

Even if you nuked the whole region, it would make it worse
Thats apart from the enviromental damage etc.

The enemy is propoganda! Thats always the enemy in war
It's not the "normal" type of war tough.. feck your soldiers are killing combatants who @ 2pm are farmers and to feed their families @ night they take pot shots, lay roadside bombs etc.

They hate america because they feel you let them down..

AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE -> they belived that.. they belive you were coming to free them.. They now have no power, food, water etc. they live in fear of being either being lifted as "terrorists" or being shot by terrorists

When saddam (this applies to afganistan too) was ruling, they feared being picked up (just like now), but were able to walk down the road and had food and water..
If that region was wiped... that WOULD cause a REAL JIHAD...
the middle east is not the only place muslims live

IF you nuke korea, the exremist muslims will used that to scare more people to attacking the us

as I said b4 I don't have any solution.. but all out attack is not the answer without proper backing!