Iraqi War officially negated.

We arent exactly inspiring an uprising against terrorism with fighting this battle

When you start with the world already against you because of your success (or more accurately, lack of utter failure) and then do things that shake up the status quo, you usually don't get on people's good sides.

Let us rephrase. There is nothing wrong with islam itself...it is the islam fanaticals doing in that area of the world and it is due to sick mistranslations of a holy text that teaches the same beliefs as Judaism and Christianity. There is one god, be nice to people, and everything will work out. And actually out of the 3 systems, i prefer the idea of the islamic god because he is forgiving and once you have atoned for your sins you are forgiven, rather than just automatic forgiveness or raining fury

I don't know what any of this has to do with anything. If you want to follow Islam, that's your business and has nothing to do with this thread at all.

Anticipating what you'll say though is taking umbrage at the accurate assement of the "war against Islamism" because of your own lack of understanding. Practicing Islamism and practicing Islam are two seperate things. You can be Islamic and not Islamist, but you can't be Islamist without being Islamic (well, I suppose you could, but that would be weird) they're related, but not necessarily the same.

YES IT IS separate. They are different military operations.

Then Iwo Jima had nothing to do with World War II, as it was a different military operation than the Normandy landing, which also had nothing to do with World War II as it was a different military operation than the Battle of Stalingrad, which also...

We heard a DIFFERENT story each week about why we went over there: it started as Saddam HAVING WMD's, when we found that faulty Saddam could've had the ability to make WMDS (which i'm not going to doubt and we did find some proof), and when people started disagreeing...THEN and ONLY THEN did it become "well saddam needed to be out anyway" IF Bush had started out saying: "we are the world super power, therefore have a responsiblity to end this evil" i would've said "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" and not worried about who we pissed off.

I don't get this idea that there could only be ONE reason to remove Saddam, instead of many reasons. The international law fetishists required the focus on WMDs. (Note: focus.) THE ENTIRE WORLD believed Saddam possessed WMDs, and he did nothing to disprove that idea. (Which was the requirement of him not facing "serious consequences" as the burden of proof was always on him, not us.) It was the one thing the world agreed upon, that he had WMD (or at least WMD programs), that he was a jerk either didn't matter or was disputed by at least half the world.

If you believe removing Saddam was right because he was evil, why would you not agree with the idea of removing Saddam just because the US focused on the WMD angle in a failed attempt to persuade the UN to be relevant.

Also about the sanctions etc.: we're doing it now with N Korea, so why did we not do it with Iraq? that is what i am truly asking.

We did. During the 12 years of cold war between 1991-2003. Did you miss that? Did you also miss that the "world" (France, Russia, China, Osama and The Left leading the way...) was pushing for the end of sanctions in Iraq? Sanctions of Iraq were on the verge of collapse in August of 2001. Had the Bush Administration not pushed the issue, we would have a sanctionless Saddam-led Iraq today.

Why is there no such thing as consistency? I know we have limited power, but the fucker over there literally said "when i get a bomb, america's gone" we have yet to find bombs confirmed to be Saddam's....

I don't understand what your point is? The point was to remove Saddam before he acquired that capability. Done. We had to pick one insane fuck to take out first, we chose the one who we'd been at war with for twelve years.

not a partisan shot: I dont like the electoral college system where some states are all or nothing and some give pieces etc. If there are (hypothetical) 100 electoral votes, 50% vote republican, 49% vote democrat, 1 % vote independent, it should be broken down that way. It'd be the best melding of the two systems because i will admit the popular vote theory is flawed in itself...hell if Ahnuhld could run for prez, i'd fully expect him to win because so many idiots would come out of the woodwork just to vote for the terminator....

Maine and Nebraska can split their electoral votes but never in history have. All states are all or nothing, for the same reason we have a Senate, to make states other than the biggest have some importance. The system was designed to equalize population centers with the rural areas. All Presidental elections would be decided in the largest cities otherwise. Why should someone running up a 20% margin in large cities automatically matter more than someone who won by 35% in all of the rural areas? Especially in a nation comprised of semi-independent states.

It's partisan to whine about it now, after Gore lost only. Like I said, nobody complained when Clinton won despite 57% of the country voting against him. Before the 2000 election everyone though Bush would win the popular vote, but Gore the electoral vote. If that HAD happened would you still be against the founding institution of the electoral college?

World Powers i guess you are right are US and China...and JUST maybe Britain. I tend to forget that world powers dont truly exist since the fall of the USSR and the like...My mistake on this one...Let me rephrase this as Nuclear capable countries since that is the take i had on it...how many in the list helping us actually have nukes? Yes we have 3000 more than everybody else...but that is my point. I am not meaning to disparage the help we are getting, i just think no one but us really strikes fear into anyone "bad guys" from the list. Once again no offense taken, just my view of the world which i very well admit could be young and naive and wrong.

No one strikes "fear" into anyone unless they do something. When the United States removed Saddam, it struck fear into Libya and Syria. It stopped rolling people up, it no longer strikes fear into anyone.

Nuclear-capable is becoming less and less relevant from a nation standpoint. A nuclear Iran doesn't threaten the US with defeat or annihilation. It threatens world cities with nuclear detonations by "non-state" actors. Nuclear weapons are really impracticle in modern military situations. If some nation has nukes it matters a lot less than if they're able to deploy resources. Germany could (does it? I don't know or care to find out) have nukes, but that doesn't really matter when they rent old rusted Soviet planes from the Ukraine in order to get their handful of resources to Afghanistan.

Benji, they need to fix the misnomer. There's nothing wrong with changing a name, it doesnt change the operation.

I remember when Bush tried to change it, there was an uproar that he was attacking "Islam" and everyone said "we're fighting terrorists/al-Qaeda!!!"

Worrld war IV? when was III?

Cold War. It was fought all over the world. And did get lukewarm: Vietnam, Korea, Suez Canal, Latin America. Worldwide conflict between ideologies.

Communism-great idea bad execution....

Yeah...that kinda reveals that you are in fact young and naive...

Just because it's loudly repeated a lot, doesn't make it true.

We have no failures? Our complete skewed view of morals? (yes even in my own views on things i know) Vietnam? hell we have failures...we just tend to not look at them as much as our success....

Normandy + Iwo Jima are both part of WWII. The iraq thing was going to happen whether or not we had been attack on 9/11 i believe, it was just a matter of time.

About the ONE reason thing...now i'm not saying we only need one reason...but the constant backpedaling when we found out our information was wrong is what pissed me off...how the story kept changing each week, and it still continues to do so. But the saddam stuff obviously doesnt matter now, he's gone and i'm hoping it puts a little damper on the insurgency so we can get out sooner.

We stopped our war on communism when? We stopped butting in to stuff that doesnt invovle us because of our power when? Thats what i'm saying: if we are going to go, we need to go all out. We did have to pick one insane fuck to get first...we got him, now its time to take care of the other 3 (osama's still there somewhere)

The electoral college thing i do think is bullshit, no matter who wins. Any system where someone can get 57% voted against him and win needs to be looked at. There is something wrong with it. Hell i wouldnt've even voted for gore and as far as bush's FIRST term aside from the Iraq thing, i have no real beef. As for the big cities controlling the vote...i think they already do that and making the votes split up would actually even that out....Chicago for instance always votes liberal and therefore dominates the state due to sheer amount of population in that area while all the farmer counties in IL vote republican: yet none of their votes ever count because they didnt agree with the big city.

Bush needs to find a less offensive term. They managed great spin with the Iraq war titles...Rove is a genius, he cant think up a better one?

Alright first time i've heard the cold war referred to as III....i'll keep it in mind....

Oh come on, dont make me get into the communism debate. as an idea its fantastic: what is wrong with everyone contributing and receiving the things they need provided completely by the people? The problem is it can never work in the real world. That is truth and you are greatly misled about what communism is if you believe otherwise.....

We have no failures? Our complete skewed view of morals? (yes even in my own views on things i know) Vietnam? hell we have failures...we just tend to not look at them as much as our success....

The United States has not suffered setbacks or collapse like the other states that existed in 1787. There is no utter failure in American history. "Skewed view of morals" (whatever that means...) have not destroyed the Republic. Vietnam? Most of us brushed it off within five years.

Normandy + Iwo Jima are both part of WWII. The iraq thing was going to happen whether or not we had been attack on 9/11 i believe, it was just a matter of time.

Afghanistan and Iraq are both part of the War against Islamism/WWIV. The "Iraq thing" was the necessary resultant of the events preceeding it.

About the ONE reason thing...now i'm not saying we only need one reason...but the constant backpedaling when we found out our information was wrong is what pissed me off...how the story kept changing each week, and it still continues to do so

The original Congressional measure contained 19 reasons, of which one was WMDs. "The Story" never kept changing just because you weren't aware of the entire thing from the start.

We stopped our war on communism when?

When it ceased to be legitimate. Just like fascism and monarchism.

We stopped butting in to stuff that doesnt invovle us because of our power when?

When the death of an Archduke led to a World War, isolationism ceased to be a viable option in the world.

Thats what i'm saying: if we are going to go, we need to go all out. We did have to pick one insane fuck to get first...we got him, now its time to take care of the other 3 (osama's still there somewhere)

He's also irrelevant or dead. Anyway. Then your point makes no sense. You're whining about how we went into Iraq because we "butted into other people's business" and now you want to invade Iran and North Korea? You're a fairweather friend I guess. Supported Iraq before it wasn't a walk in the park, now against it. Probably would be the same with an Iranian operation. Speaking of which...

But the saddam stuff obviously doesnt matter now, he's gone and i'm hoping it puts a little damper on the insurgency so we can get out sooner.

Yes, hopefully via a renaimed Imam Khomeini International Airport.

The electoral college thing i do think is bullshit, no matter who wins. Any system where someone can get 57% voted against him and win needs to be looked at. There is something wrong with it.

It's worked just fine for 200 years. I see nothing wrong with it working the way it's supposed to.

As for the big cities controlling the vote...i think they already do that and making the votes split up would actually even that out....Chicago for instance always votes liberal and therefore dominates the state due to sheer amount of population in that area while all the farmer counties in IL vote republican: yet none of their votes ever count because they didnt agree with the big city.

Their votes do count, they just have to outweigh the city, which occasionally happens. Engler never won Detroit, but the rest of the state overwhelmed the city and elected him Governor three times.

The big cities may tip the states, but not the country. Eliminating the electoral college eliminates the states representation, which are supposed to make up the union.

Splitting electoral votes leads to even more problems and a routine constitutional crisis. Look at 1996. Clinton won with 49.23% of the vote, in a split system it'd look like this:
Clinton - 265 (D)
Dole - 219 (R)
Perot - 45 (RE)
Nader - 4 (G)
Browne - 3 (L)
Phillips - 1 (USTP)
Hagelin - 1 (NL)

No one recieves a majority of the electoral vote, sending the vote to the House. Which was controlled by Republicans. This could've (and had a good chance) led to Dole winning the election and becoming President with just 40% of the popular/electoral vote.

1968 would've been the same:
Nixon - 234 (R)
Humphrey - 230 (D)
Wallace- 73 (AI)

Democrats control the House and definately would've given the election to Humphrey.

1948: Truman: 263 - Dewey: 239 - 3rd: 29, Republican House
1888: Cleveland: 195 - Harrison: 192 - 3rd: 14, Democratic House
1880: Garfield: 178 - Hancock: 178 - 3rd: 13, Democratic House

Rove is a genius, he cant think up a better one?

He's not a genius though. He's completely misread the events of the 1890s.

Oh come on, dont make me get into the communism debate. as an idea its fantastic: what is wrong with everyone contributing and receiving the things they need provided completely by the people?

I'm sorry, I like individuality and am against dehumanization. I like ownership and advancement. Everyone's not the same and I don't want sameness enforced on them. (Actually, what you described is capitalism. Everyone contributing and recieving what they need AND WANT from the people. Capitalism also provides the option to not contribute and not recieve what you need or want. A much more free system, than being forced to contribute to the society as society desires you to.)

And it's not provided by the people. But by the state. Yes, that's not "true" communism, but that can't happen so there's no reason to talk about it. (The elimination of humanity nevertheless exists in the "true" form. Being forced to work to acquire only what I need is not an enticing and exciting life. I don't need a Wii, but I want one, so I am likely to agree to perform more tasks to acquire that Wii. In even a "true" communist society that would not be an option as I would be going against the tide of society.)

I understand that, and that's why I consider it a terrible idea. Why should a hundred million perish trying to enact a "great idea"? Doing something over and over against expecting different results is one definition of insanity, thinking communism is a great idea implies you'd like to try it again, because people try good ideas. They don't say, "you know that's a GREAT idea, but let's not try it because things will get better then."

It doesn't work, so it's a terrible idea.