• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The War President

ILikeDubyah said:
Great idea, make all Muslims into Christians. Then we will have won the war on terror but lost the war on child molesters. Ann Coulter only talks to hear herself speak, just like other animals.


Wow, that was the dumbest thing I've ever read! So you're saying to be a Christian you have to be a child molester, or to be a child molester, you have to be Christian? Enlighten me, please!
Click to expand...

Alright, my point was not very clear. I was trying to say that not every Muslim is a terrorist just like not every Christian is a child molester. To say that the way to win the war on terror is to convert Muslims is putting every Muslim in the label of terrorist and this is not true.
 
Burns said:
It helps to know a problem before you speak on it. The Nuclear Treaties were esstablished after WWII to control how many a country could produce! Their is this ENTERTIANMENT thoery that who ever the president is can hit some "Magic button" and the world will be abliterated, now I have yet to see it proven true, But are you refering to that?
Click to expand...

I believe my dear Burns, when saying that Nuclear Treaties were established after WWII is like saying "I patented my product after I invented it". Right it makes sense, considering Nuclear weapons didn't exist til the end of World War II. I love how you can be both pathetic and right at the same time! "After World War II" means anytime between the end of the war and the present.
Notice the using of "we" in my post, I never said "The President would shoot nuclear warheads" now did I? When I say "we" I mean more than one person, maybe you should freshen up on that aspect of the English language.
I don't think I've ever seen a movie where a President did shoot a nuclear weapon on his own..

There is no interogation when they drive into you and explode is there? Interogation commence! EXPLOSION!
Click to expand...
I can't even respond to this it doesn't make sense. "Eye for an eye" doesn't mean we get as much information out of them before they kill us... please elaborate. <3 Spell check.

I see you have read the book on "War Made Easy!" Now tell me General Arch Enemy, how many years should it have last? I'll give you 3 gold stars for an answer! Or should I strip rank, decisions, decisions!
Click to expand...
How long should the War have lasted? Um, it shouldn't have started!
"War Made Easy" is a best seller, obviously your precious President didn't read it, then he would have noticed the chapter devouted to "Exodus Plan". He's dug us into a hole, a hole which we shouldn't be in.

Arch you say that we are expanding, then you mention Englend could take us over, but I refer to your own post, WHO WOULD GO UP AGAINST A COUNTRY WITH 50% OF THE WORLDS NUCLEAR ARMS! Countries are welcome, but I don't think they would do it! The last time a COUNTRY attacked us was Pearl Harbor attack!
Click to expand...
But if you actually referred to my post then you would understand I'm not talking about modern times. The even called "American Expansion" mainly happened after the Revolutionary War, we didn't even have Nukes then. Maybe you should also add "learn Manifest Destiny" on your list of "to do".
Another thing I hate about the typical "United Statesian" mentality, the idea that "we're all big and bad, no one can stop us". That my dear friend is not true. I hope you're not serious, if you are then I'm disgusted to call myself your fellow American. You want America to be feared, that we should be the bully of the world?
 
alex said:
Alright, my point was not very clear. I was trying to say that not every Muslim is a terrorist just like not every Christian is a child molester. To say that the way to win the war on terror is to convert Muslims is putting every Muslim in the label of terrorist and this is not true.
Click to expand...

First, I don't believe it's right to TRY to convert anyone, if they ask about your religion, tell them about it. Aside from that, leave them alone, to each his own. Secondly, no, not every Muslims is a terrorist, but pre-US invasion, and even now, what were non-terrorist Muslims doing to stop the terrorist Muslims? Sure, it's not their job, it's not my job to stop a purse snatcher or mugger on the street, but at least I'd TRY.
 
Good Point.

But I don't think its not that they don't try, it's that the "purse snatcher" also has an Army to back him up, with automatic rifles, bombs, and the will to kill everyone who opposes them. I think it's a thing of fear, not as much as them not caring.
 
Another thing I hate about the typical "United Statesian" mentality, the idea that "we're all big and bad, no one can stop us". That my dear friend is not true. I hope you're not serious, if you are then I'm disgusted to call myself your fellow American. You want America to be feared, that we should be the bully of the world?[/QUOTE]

You're looking through rose colored glasses if you don't believe the rest of the world already fears us as a "bully." Frankly, I couldn't be more happy with the situation. We've been on top for the last 230 years, and what do you think has kept us there?
 
We're going to fall and we're going to fall hard. Look at all the other major super-powers, when they fell that fell hard.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Good Point.

But I don't think its not that they don't try, it's that the "purse snatcher" also has an Army to back him up, with automatic rifles, bombs, and the will to kill everyone who opposes them. I think it's a thing of fear, not as much as them not caring.
Click to expand...


Well, what about now? You know we're in Irag, Afganistan, etc....we're there protecting the people, and in return we ask them who the terrorists are, and they all shrug their shoulders & say "I don't know"...Granted, not everyone there knows a terrorist, but you'd figure in the 4 yrars we've been over there, SOMEONE would come clean. (I'm aware we have been led to some, but what about the rest?)
 
ILikeDubyah said:
Well, what about now? You know we're in Irag, Afganistan, etc....we're there protecting the people, and in return we ask them who the terrorists are, and they all shrug their shoulders & say "I don't know"...Granted, not everyone there knows a terrorist, but you'd figure in the 4 yrars we've been over there, SOMEONE would come clean. (I'm aware we have been led to some, but what about the rest?)
Click to expand...


I don't think they all shrug their shoulders, they have been giving vital information.
I think the main problem is that we're not a 24/7 Babysitting service, as soon as they get out the information, some one is going to rat on them and the insurgency WILL find out. The insurgency finds out things too well to be a band of angered citizens.
 
Arch Enemy said:
We're going to fall and we're going to fall hard. Look at all the other major super-powers, when they fell that fell hard.
Click to expand...

All things must come to an end....Entropy is the way of things, and there is no avoiding that, BUT even if we were to change now, people would still look at us for the way we "used" to be. Also, if we were to change now, who's to say it wouldn't be seen as a weakness, a weakness that will allow an oppertunist country to take the position at the top of the hill?
 
If it's not just a band of angered citizens, that should make them more easy to find, they'd be more conspicuious (sp), and we'd have more leads, wouldn't we?
 
ILikeDubyah said:
All things must come to an end....Entropy is the way of things, and there is no avoiding that, BUT even if we were to change now, people would still look at us for the way we "used" to be. Also, if we were to change now, who's to say it wouldn't be seen as a weakness, a weakness that will allow an oppertunist country to take the position at the top of the hill?
Click to expand...

I think the "Top of the Hill" (good restaurant as well) isn't just America. Yes, we're one of the greatest Super-Power of all time, but if certain other countries would just disappear, then we wouldn't last. (think trade)
 
ILikeDubyah said:
If it's not just a band of angered citizens, that should make them more easy to find, they'd be more conspicuious (sp), and we'd have more leads, wouldn't we?
Click to expand...
I think you and I know very little of all the leads they get. If you watch the movie "Gunner's Palace" you see that the military is getting too many leads, most just end up bogus information or information that might have been helpful... two years ago.
 
I totally agree, and actually I think that trade is going to be our downfall. But for now, we have everyone right where we want them. Trade will be our downfall, as if EVERYTHING is going to be made in foreign countries, and we move all desk jobs to India, like tech support, how are we going to be able to pay the people in other countries to perform these tasks. If these jobs are all sent overseas, the product will have to stay there, because out of work Americans won't be able to afford the products once they're imported.
 
ILikeDubyah said:
I totally agree, and actually I think that trade is going to be our downfall. But for now, we have everyone right where we want them. Trade will be our downfall, as if EVERYTHING is going to be made in foreign countries, and we move all desk jobs to India, like tech support, how are we going to be able to pay the people in other countries to perform these tasks. If these jobs are all sent overseas, the product will have to stay there, because out of work Americans won't be able to afford the products once they're imported.
Click to expand...

I don't think it'll be trade itself that will lead to the downfall, I think that it'll be the lack of "fair trade" that'll be our down-fall. Of course, that combined with other important areas for the qualifications of "super-power".
 
Arch Enemy said:
I don't think it'll be trade itself that will lead to the downfall, I think that it'll be the lack of "fair trade" that'll be our down-fall. Of course, that combined with other important areas for the qualifications of "super-power".
Click to expand...

There is only 1 qualification to become a super-power....Capital, but Capital invested wisely.
 
ILikeDubyah said:
There is only 1 qualification to become a super-power....Capital, but Capital invested wisely.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I believe that a super-power needs to have means of influence, yes Capital is a great way to influence nations around you, but you can't have influence on the means of Capital alone. A strong military is a nice addition (nuclear power puts it over the top) as well as a grand culture.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I think you and I know very little of all the leads they get. If you watch the movie "Gunner's Palace" you see that the military is getting too many leads, most just end up bogus information or information that might have been helpful... two years ago.
Click to expand...

Yes, Yes, and we're getting leads from the good little citizens...I wonder if they check into the people that give the leads, It's my theory that a vast majority of the leads given are given just to keep us busy elsewhere.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I disagree.

I believe that a super-power needs to have means of influence, yes Capital is a great way to influence nations around you, but you can't have influence on the means of Capital alone. A strong military is a nice addition (nuclear power puts it over the top) as well as a grand culture.
Click to expand...


Capital invested wisely is a strong military, and as for culture...The Huns had culture???
 
ILikeDubyah said:
Yes, Yes, and we're getting leads from the good little citizens...I wonder if they check into the people that give the leads, It's my theory that a vast majority of the leads given are given just to keep us busy elsewhere.
Click to expand...

From what I got from the movie, most of the leads were in hoping that the information would actually work to have better relations with the American troops, therefore a possible "pay-off" whether it be of monetary value, or of protection.
 
Arch Enemy said:
From what I got from the movie, most of the leads were in hoping that the information would actually work to have better relations with the American troops, therefore a possible "pay-off" whether it be of monetary value, or of protection.
Click to expand...

Yes, better relations at that time, and maybe they did get a pay-off to boot, but how much between when the information was given and the lead was run down, did the informant have to disappear with their "pay-off"?
 
They can't disappear.

If you're talking about being a traitor to America and giving false information to create and "run around" then I don't think they could get past American check-points. I'm pretty sure their names are written down and sent to every outpost, just in case if it was a fraud.

If you're talking about them trying to disappear from the likes of the insurgency, then I believe they can never hide from a hidden enemy. The hidden enemy will find them.
 
Arch Enemy said:
They can't disappear.

If you're talking about being a traitor to America and giving false information to create and "run around" then I don't think they could get past American check-points. I'm pretty sure their names are written down and sent to every outpost, just in case if it was a fraud.
Click to expand...

Not in a mocking way, but what is to prevent them from switching a few vowels & consanants in their names? And I'll bet the ID's are in Arabic....Americans run the check points?
 
Also, I meant maybe some of the leads given are by the enemy themselves.
 
I think that each check-point would HAVE to have an Arabic Speaker. It's just common sense to have a translator at such a place.
 
Arch Enemy said:
I think that each check-point would HAVE to have an Arabic Speaker. It's just common sense to have a translator at such a place.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, I'll bet, but one that took Arabic classes at community college, or a native?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom