Moment of Silence for 9/11

[Lyrs]

wow, this is getting boring.

[moonslayer]

I think we could all use one of these.

[imadude]

1 can be serious watch

A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR THE HISPANIC MAN WITH THE HORN IN HIS ORIFICE......................................

[SSJVegita0609]

Your philosophy is so strikingly similar to the violent terrorists you so passionately hate... Maybe some innocent "raghead" who's brother you kill will use the same excuse to kill you one day.

Why should we have to play nice, when the UN and those third-world fuckers get to walk all over us? If they won't play by the rules, why in the hell should we?

First off, I dunno what you mean by the UN "walking all over us", last time I checked we're ignoring the fuck out of them anyways. And now of course we go crawling back to them begging for help that we really do need.

Second off, how is playing by the terrorists' rules going to stop terrorism? It's not. Why do people blow themselves up to destroy something? BECAUSE THEY HATE IT. And how is being more violent going to stop people from hating us? It's not, plain and simple. If hatred continues, so does terrorism. Your philosophy promotes this continuation, and therefore you yourself are implying that you want more devestation to occur. What we need to do instead is simple focus on preventing terrorism defensively while at the same time proving the terrorist groups wrong (and thus cutting off their support) by expanding our sphere of influence and causing the world to like us instead of hate us.

[El Banana]

1 can be serious watch

A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR THE HISPANIC MAN WITH THE HORN IN HIS ORIFICE......................................

Y'know, I'm happy for the bull.

[Toecutter]

Granted, violence won't stop terrorists. However, it may make them think twice knowing there's a higher probability they'll be killed before they can do any damage.

The U.N. has already begun to throw away our Constitutional rights. Kofi Annan, for example, has confiscated MP-5's owned legally by American citizens in New York, in order to arm his bodyguards, because he "doesn't feel safe" riding around in his armored limo.

The Kyoto Treaty allows uncivilized nations to pollute as much as they want, while we are put under strict environmental regulations.

Whenever there is a peacekeeping mission, we Americans are always deployed first, and sent home last. We supply all the troops, equipment, logistics, and food/medical aid, while the U.N. gets all the credit. We're still in Germany (although the Cold War clearly ended decades ago), the DMZ in Korea, and Japan, but there is no need for our military presence there!

If that isn't enough, Libya, along with a slew of anti-American nations known for crimes against humanity, are in charge of human rights issues in the U.N.

Increasing our sphere of influence is what took away 3,000 lives in the first place! We've been occupying Saudi Arabia since the first Persian Gulf War (which is what pissed UBL off enough to use Al Qaeda for the Islamic Fundamentalist movement). If you want to passively stop terrorism, we need to screw these other nations, take away their food/medical aid, and leave them be. It is only by letting them govern themselves, that they will either thrive or die off.

Why do you think our troops are being killed off in Iraq? We're disarming the citizens, instilling martial law, and running Iraq with a puppet government. That does not win over more support. We should have defeated Saddam's military, addressed the people, and gotten the hell out of Dodge. We could have easily done another Marshall Plan, and allowed American private corporations to rebuild the nation for a discount price (money, not oil). As soon as the Iraqis realized we really weren't after the oil (which we weren't in the first place, but it's still a wonderful ploy the liberals use to blame Bush for everything), they would be more than open to free-trade with American industry, stablizing both our economies.

From there, we could cut our reliance on OPEC, Saudi Arabia, and these other anti-American nations.

The secret to getting along with other nations is simply to not interfere, and allow international corporations to do as they see fit. That is what capitalism is about.

[SSJVegita0609]

Granted, violence won't stop terrorists. However, it may make them think twice knowing there's a higher probability they'll be killed before they can do any damage.

The U.N. has already begun to throw away our Constitutional rights. Kofi Annan, for example, has confiscated MP-5's owned legally by American citizens in New York, in order to arm his bodyguards, because he "doesn't feel safe" riding around in his armored limo.

I for one think the 2nd ammendment should be ratified anyway. Why do Americans need guns anymore? All it does is cause trouble. You know how many accidental gun deaths there are a year in this country? Over 5,200. Japan, Canada, and Britian (all of whom have banned guns) combined have less than 60 a year.

The Kyoto Treaty allows uncivilized nations to pollute as much as they want, while we are put under strict environmental regulations.

First off, we never agreed to the Kyoto Protocal. So how does that mean the UN is pushing us around? Second off, think about this one logically. The US is responsible for about half of the world's CO2 emmitions. FUCKING HALF. We're just one country that containes maybe 1/20 of the world's population. We need to cut that down regardless of what LDCs (lesser developed countries) are allowed to do. Plus it is implied that the LDCs are meant to switch to more fuel efficient methods of transportation after their economy stabalizes.[/quote]

Whenever there is a peacekeeping mission, we Americans are always deployed first, and sent home last. We supply all the troops, equipment, logistics, and food/medical aid, while the U.N. gets all the credit.

Not true, the people in LDCs who get drafted by the UN (like my Kenyan teacher's brother for instance) tend to get the really shitty stuff. Over 2/3 of the UN forces currently on peacekeeping missions in Africa are African. And many of them don't get nearly as much coushining, funding, equipment, or support as the American peacekeepers do.

We're still in Germany (although the Cold War clearly ended decades ago), the DMZ in Korea, and Japan, but there is no need for our military presence there!

Germany provides us with some sort of military outpost in Europe. Plus there aren't nearly as many troops there as there used to be since the wall fell. We need the troops in Korea to keep the North Korean's from invading again. And finally the troops in Japan were originally present for keeping Japan from rebuilding its military after WWII, and I must agree with you there, its useless to still have them in that country. However, I can't imagine there's terribly much of them.

If that isn't enough, Libya, along with a slew of anti-American nations known for crimes against humanity, are in charge of human rights issues in the U.N

And our nation, who once had slavery, now goes around "Liberating" other cultures. Libya is not really in charge of anything at the UN, they were given that postion so they would feel important. The UN does the vast majority of its aid provision in coalition with IGO's like the Red cross.

I'll get to the rest of your post later, but I'm getting really late for class.