• 95 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by SuperTide (15600 posts) - - Show Bio

I know some people(and I'm not saying they are correct or not) believe that the United States shouldn't have gone into Iraq and/or Afghanistan. If you agree with that, then what do you think the United States should have done instead?Thanks.

#2 Posted by moywar700 (2775 posts) - - Show Bio

calm and rationally.

#3 Posted by SuperTide (15600 posts) - - Show Bio

@moywar700 said:

calm and rationally.

Question:"What do you think the United States should have done instead?" Answer:"Calm and rationally."Uh, looking for a more specific answer than that.

#4 Posted by ChaosBlazer (3930 posts) - - Show Bio

keep our noses out of those places, work on fixing our problems at home instead. We engaged in a war, when we should have tried to promote peace. Sure we've done alot of good over there, but I think it would have been better to keep our young men in the country and work on other problems we have here. We spend alot of money on our military that I don't think we need to, and the government is spending alot of taxpayer money on some things now that we could do without.

#5 Posted by cameron83 (6416 posts) - - Show Bio

@ChaosBlazer said:

keep our noses out of those places, work on fixing our problems at home instead. We engaged in a war, when we should have tried to promote peace. Sure we've done alot of good over there, but I think it would have been better to keep our young men in the country and work on other problems we have here. We spend alot of money on our military that I don't think we need to, and the government is spending alot of taxpayer money on some things now that we could do without.

i say that's about it...don't waste our money on war...one of the problems with americans is that we are so protective of our country to the point that if the flag has 1 spec on it than it is put on the news (just saying how our people react).And other problems,like the stupid liberal vs conservative war that has been going on for like FAR...but that is a whole other subject i don't wanna touch (mainly because of people).

#6 Posted by ChaosBlazer (3930 posts) - - Show Bio

@cameron83: oh yeah. Definitely don't want to start a huge argument on that stuff here.

#7 Posted by SuperTide (15600 posts) - - Show Bio

@ChaosBlazer said:

keep our noses out of those places, work on fixing our problems at home instead. We engaged in a war, when we should have tried to promote peace. Sure we've done alot of good over there, but I think it would have been better to keep our young men in the country and work on other problems we have here. We spend alot of money on our military that I don't think we need to, and the government is spending alot of taxpayer money on some things now that we could do without.

So the United States shouldn't have retaliated at all?Not disagreeing by the way. Just asking.

#8 Posted by TERMINATORXX (3899 posts) - - Show Bio

The United States did what they've done the last 11 years....They have faught and they're paying those f***ckers back for what they've done to us.

#9 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

Find the killers and make them scream. That's my response.

#10 Posted by Dark_Vengeance_ (13865 posts) - - Show Bio

@TERMINATORXX said:

The United States did what they've done the last 11 years....They have faught and they're paying those f***ckers back for what they've done to us.

They are going to hang you for that but I agree.

Online
#11 Posted by menaceforever (3696 posts) - - Show Bio

I know I am the only who will think this but we shouldve threatened them with nuclear bombs and take over the world by threatening other countries with nuclear bombs.

#12 Posted by TERMINATORXX (3899 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkKnightDetective said:

@TERMINATORXX said:

The United States did what they've done the last 11 years....They have faught and they're paying those f***ckers back for what they've done to us.

They are going to hang you for that but I agree.

They can go head and hang me, I'll break out of those roopes and take my big TERMINATOR finger and nail em:)

#13 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkKnightDetective said:

@TERMINATORXX said:

The United States did what they've done the last 11 years....They have faught and they're paying those f***ckers back for what they've done to us.

They are going to hang you for that but I agree.

Why hang him and who? The insurgents? Or our own government? (wouldn't be surprised if it was the US government, since the pres has been apologizing to enemies since day one for protecting our own asses and helping others.)

#14 Posted by TERMINATORXX (3899 posts) - - Show Bio

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@DarkKnightDetective said:

@TERMINATORXX said:

The United States did what they've done the last 11 years....They have faught and they're paying those f***ckers back for what they've done to us.

They are going to hang you for that but I agree.

Why hang him and who? The insurgents? Or our own government? (wouldn't be surprised if it was the US government, since the pres has been apologizing to enemies since day one for protecting our own asses and helping others.)

LOL True..................................

#15 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

@TERMINATORXX:

Lemme guess...you no big fan of Obama either? ;P

#16 Posted by ChaosBlazer (3930 posts) - - Show Bio

@SuperTide said:

@ChaosBlazer said:

keep our noses out of those places, work on fixing our problems at home instead. We engaged in a war, when we should have tried to promote peace. Sure we've done alot of good over there, but I think it would have been better to keep our young men in the country and work on other problems we have here. We spend alot of money on our military that I don't think we need to, and the government is spending alot of taxpayer money on some things now that we could do without.

So the United States shouldn't have retaliated at all?Not disagreeing by the way. Just asking.

Maybe that is the right thing to do. I mean, we should have raised our airport security and other national security measures, and maybe tried to get more UN peacekeepers into the area, etc But no, I don't think direct involvement in the area was the best idea. Of course, hard times call for hard decisions. The president did what he though was right and he deserves respect for that. I feel that Bush has been blamed for a lot of things lately which is pretty unfair.

#17 Posted by ChaosBlazer (3930 posts) - - Show Bio

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

Find the killers and make them scream. That's my response.

Do you think all people who kill other people should be killed or tortured themselves?

#18 Posted by Vortex13 (12156 posts) - - Show Bio

We shouldn't have gone to war against Iraq. It's been proven that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, the UN even told the US this before we went to war with them. Now we can bring out all the other arguments that he was a monster, which he was, and how he was oppressing his people, but the fact is that is not the reason the government originally gave, their reason was that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda which he wasn't As for the war against terror where we went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan I was all for that, we just shouldn't have done such a piss poor job of it and we should have tried to make arrangements with the countries leaders as to not basically invade their country while looking for one group.

#19 Edited by sesquipedalophobe (4637 posts) - - Show Bio

It's all hindsight. For one, the United States shouldn't have involved itself in the affairs of Bin Laden. They shouldn't have trained his group. They should have gotten out of the middle east when they were told to get out. Then there was a U-Boat attack the Clinton administration ignored, had they taken swift action (getting out) they might have prevented more aggression, maybe. It doesn't particularly matter because it's done. (Sigh.) It's just that once you're in the crosshairs of certain groups, myopic critical what-ifs and wearing camouflage hardly seem to matter at this point. 

#20 Posted by TERMINATORXX (3899 posts) - - Show Bio

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@TERMINATORXX:

Lemme guess...you no big fan of Obama either? ;P

Not really.... He's dangerous, Some people see him as the Antichrist which I think they're fos, but Obama has some really good speeches, he really does, but I don't see it in him to be the president to turn this country back to where it needs to be.

#21 Posted by ChaosBlazer (3930 posts) - - Show Bio

@sesquipedalophobe: true. Captain Hindsight comes to mind (from south park).

#22 Posted by Crimsonlord53 (1210 posts) - - Show Bio

All but one of the 9/11 high jackers where sadui's. The US should have stared with sanctions and then a navel blockade.

This from a canadian.

#23 Posted by ChaosBlazer (3930 posts) - - Show Bio

@menaceforever said:

I know I am the only who will think this but we shouldve threatened them with nuclear bombs and take over the world by threatening other countries with nuclear bombs.

lol

Cold War anybody?

@TERMINATORXX said:

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@TERMINATORXX:

Lemme guess...you no big fan of Obama either? ;P

Not really.... He's dangerous, Some people see him as the Antichrist which I think they're fos, but Obama has some really good speeches, he really does, but I don't see it in him to be the president to turn this country back to where it needs to be.

How do you feel about Obamacare?

#24 Posted by Pwok21 (2111 posts) - - Show Bio

@menaceforever said:

I know I am the only who will think this but we shouldve threatened them with nuclear bombs and take over the world by threatening other countries with nuclear bombs.

Dear God, how can you come up with such an idiotic comment.

#25 Posted by TERMINATORXX (3899 posts) - - Show Bio

@ChaosBlazer said:

@menaceforever said:

I know I am the only who will think this but we shouldve threatened them with nuclear bombs and take over the world by threatening other countries with nuclear bombs.

lol

Cold War anybody?

@TERMINATORXX said:

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@TERMINATORXX:

Lemme guess...you no big fan of Obama either? ;P

Not really.... He's dangerous, Some people see him as the Antichrist which I think they're fos, but Obama has some really good speeches, he really does, but I don't see it in him to be the president to turn this country back to where it needs to be.

How do you feel about Obamacare?

Never heard of it, because I don't watch that stuff.

In my opinion, Obama wont be any better than Bush was.

#26 Posted by ChaosBlazer (3930 posts) - - Show Bio

@TERMINATORXX: Bush was mediocre at best. Without the entire military conflict going on he would have been decent. He didn't increase the national debt by too much, on the other hand Obama has increased our national debt to 15.9 trillion dollars. Our public debt is almost the same.

we also have 12.5 million unemployed people, and less than half of our 314 million people pay income taxes.

#27 Posted by TERMINATORXX (3899 posts) - - Show Bio

@ChaosBlazer said:

@TERMINATORXX: Bush was mediocre at best. Without the entire military conflict going on he would have been decent. He didn't increase the national debt by too much, on the other hand Obama has increased our national debt to 15.9 trillion dollars. Our public debt is almost the same.

we also have 12.5 million unemployed people, and less than half of our 314 million people pay income taxes.

That might be so, but off and on Gas keeps going up, the Prices on Cigarettes keep going up and Jobs are still very hard to find.....

#28 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

@ChaosBlazer:

Eye for an eye. The modern justice we see in the US rewards criminals. At least the military judges them accordingly.

I'd say, find the group responsible and let the armed forces have at them. I don't intend for civilians to be harmed, just the psychos who are convinced God tells them to murder their fellow man. I'd tell the same thing to the guys who killed women and children people during the Spanish Inquisition/Crusades.

#29 Posted by HBKTimHBK (5210 posts) - - Show Bio

They should have done something, preferably not got caught up in a mess of WMDs, but something needed to happen.

#30 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

@TERMINATORXX:

Not that anti-Bush stuff again. The guy's been out of office 4 years. Give blame to the idiots in charge now, rather than dredging up a minority leader (minority being Republicans.)

#31 Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy (7118 posts) - - Show Bio

I agree with how America responded. 9/11 was horrible. It would be idiotic to try and negotiate peace after that happened.

#32 Posted by sesquipedalophobe (4637 posts) - - Show Bio
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@ChaosBlazer:

Eye for an eye. The modern justice we see in the US rewards criminals. At least the military judges them accordingly.

How does the United States reward criminals, exactly?
#33 Posted by ShootingNova (13028 posts) - - Show Bio

@menaceforever said:

I know I am the only who will think this but we shouldve threatened them with nuclear bombs and take over the world by threatening other countries with nuclear bombs.

No offence, but that's a hideous idea.

#34 Posted by ChaosBlazer (3930 posts) - - Show Bio

@sesquipedalophobe said:

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@ChaosBlazer:

Eye for an eye. The modern justice we see in the US rewards criminals. At least the military judges them accordingly.

How does the United States reward criminals, exactly?

we don't really reward them, per say. but most criminals that rape and murder don't go through the pain they have caused. They go to jail, have 3 meals a day, work out, etc. Of course some of them get raped in prison, but whatcha gonna do.

I think what Lycanthrope is saying is that we go too easy on our criminals.

#35 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

@sesquipedalophobe:

Removes death penalties for being too painful. Allows sex offenders and murderers out early. Spoils rotten inmates on death row who basically live out the rest of their lives in comfort.

#36 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

@ChaosBlazer:

Yup. Pretty much.

An example of being too easy was when an illegal alien gangbanger was released early from jail. The next day, he pulled a gun on a kid and shot him because he was wearing a spider-man backpack. I think his lawyer had him plea not guilty because he thought the kid was a rival gang member and was targeted so as to get a good rep in his own gang. (this happened a few months back so I don't know if there's still a news article about this case)

#37 Edited by sesquipedalophobe (4637 posts) - - Show Bio
@ChaosBlazer: Pedophiles generally get the better thrashings in prisons. My brother recently bragged to me about curb-stomping one (although given that he's still allowed to make phone calls, I sort of doubt it). Also, pedophiles who hide it well in prison, generally narc everyone out for a more comfortable atmosphere and a lesser sentence get special privileges. That's... really on the judges and officials who are shady enough to cut deals or guards dumb enough to tell the entire prison what they've done to be there. On food, it's part of their daily regiment. We couldn't just starve them, anyway. Tax dollars have to go somewhere.
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope: Hm, but lethal injection isn't painful at all. I can understand eye for an eye, but why torture someone in the process? It really depends on the sycophants and fools that are picked out as jurors, the judges, the people who elect these judges and so on. I had a point somewhere. But thanks for the feedback, I was just curious.
#38 Posted by ChaosBlazer (3930 posts) - - Show Bio

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope: Yeah. Its disgusting that people like that are even alive.

@sesquipedalophobe: actually, in some cases it is more expensive to put somebody down than to keep them in prison. Also, while in prison, inmates may often carry out menial tasks such as making license plates. The pedophiles, rapists and murderers really don't deserve life, but I don't think that us common people deserve to kill them either. The USA has a pretty tight legal and judicial system, but still every now and then somebody slips through the cracks.

#39 Posted by SC (11951 posts) - - Show Bio

Countries are countries. Not so much should do as could do. So how could the United States have responded to 9/11? The same way as all countries could and should in that context. Maybe not so much emphasis on the could and should in hindsight and address proactive thinking and proactive solutions. Prevention. Knowledge and intelligence tend to help, but until such things are considered sincerely more important than a persons perceptions of being right or their opposition being wrong, ignorance will reign. Its a similar argument with many things like punishment versus rehabilitation. Humans are naturally ignorant lazy and selfish. Naturally egocentric, vengeful and petty. Which means not as many will try to help by doing a lot of hard work from preventing the weaker and more vulnerable members of society from falling, but when they fall or once they offend them in a personal way, they call for blood, ignorant of the reasons leading up to such actions.    

Moderator Online
#40 Posted by _Black (2302 posts) - - Show Bio

I think the country's actions were good and bad, like almost everything the government does. It's good to try to help out other countries and eliminate terrorism, but of course we have our own problems at home. I do think sending troops was the best thing to do though.

#41 Edited by sesquipedalophobe (4637 posts) - - Show Bio
@ChaosBlazer: I just really don't want people to suffer any more than they have to for the majority's morality and fragile sensibilities. Think of it this way, with what you said about deserving life. People are told they're given freedom, but trample on another's freedom and that right is taken away. America is an eggshell that can easily be cracked and the yoke is the aftermath. Walking on eggshells is how a criminal might think of it when it comes to living in society, so we gave them their own society. My brother calls it his resort, but even in the resort he still has to tread carefully. 
I can walk to work tomorrow and get stabbed/shot to death and they may never find a killer. However, if they found him and tried him for murder, it takes something away from my death. I don't want that. I know it sounds corny, but in a way it could be prevented. Society makes killers by giving them choices. Letting them listen, speak, act, choices, choices, choices. Limit those choices and you'll have the same types of rebellions in other countries that require the aid of countries who know how to fight said power. Eye for an eye is great, which makes me wonder if death is a necessary and appropriate action for someone who commits a sex crime? But I understand completely.  
Politicians and generals commit extinction (of a group) and they're never tried. Collateral damage. No one does a damned thing to them because they wear the veil of patriotism. But that's another subject!
#42 Posted by The Stegman (20733 posts) - - Show Bio

keep our noses out of those places, work on fixing our problems at home instead. We engaged in a war, when we should have tried to promote peace. Sure we've done alot of good over there, but I think it would have been better to keep our young men in the country and work on other problems we have here. We spend alot of money on our military that I don't think we need to, and the government is spending alot of taxpayer money on some things now that we could do without.

yup
#43 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

@sesquipedalophobe:

California was or is about to lose the death penalty because a judge claimed it hurt the people being injected. In my opinion, it didn't hurt enough.

And you're welcome. :) Sorry if I sound bit harsh in my responses; criminals skirting their dues makes me wild with anger.

#44 Posted by sesquipedalophobe (4637 posts) - - Show Bio
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope: That's understandable. Most social systems are designed to fail, anyway.
#45 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29330 posts) - - Show Bio

Maybe fight the correct country instead of Iraq.

#46 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

@ChaosBlazer:

There are cheaper ways to execute criminals. The cocktail used in lethal injection is pretty pricey, but firing squad is cheaper and extremely effective in Texas. Hanging works, but you need to be careful in case the rope doesn't do the job. Decapitation was stopped in the 80's I believe.

#47 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

@sesquipedalophobe:

I just hope it doesn't mean the complete destruction of the US.

#48 Posted by utotheg38 (18883 posts) - - Show Bio

lol people in this thread are hilarious.

#49 Edited by sesquipedalophobe (4637 posts) - - Show Bio
@Necrotic_Lycanthrope: I think it means the restructuring of its moral code. Yes, I agree that pedophiles and murderers shouldn't have it easy. But it's a non-issue according to those in power. Since the United States is already beefing up security, trying to climb itself out of a hole and playing the big [little] brother, it would make sense to improve its foundation. I'll give you a quick example: in an area of Nevada if someone kills your dog, you can lynch them on your property. This is loophole for revenge and the law still exists to this day. Here are a few game plans I think might help.
  • Churches should be taxed. They take donations to fix their churches, but the minute some crackhead does this in front of K-Mart they're loitering and panhandling.
  • Free education, clothing and food for military personnel, however since they enlist they're basically volunteers: strip them of paychecks. Then we'll see who fights for whose country.
  • A heavy decrease in salary for public officials. With good reason. It would be a good way of keeping track of heavy spending, kickbacks and so on. If they can track movements in a meth dealer's household, surely it could be applied to politicians.
  • No Edison, private or Catholic-type schools. Education is defined by the people and, in this case, the government.
  • One mini-gun per household.
  • Above all else, propaganda needs to go.
#50 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

No on the private schools and mini-gun thing. I don't have a problem for civilians owning guns, as long as it's solely for hunting or defense. Mini-guns are huge and can kill many people in a single go.

Private schools are expensive, yes, but they function as an alternate method of studying. To get rid of them is like getting rid of home education.

The church barely has enough money to cover anything anymore (mainly because people handout only pennies or avoid church altogether). The churches in Italy, for example, are disgusting on the outside because there isn't enough there to fix them.