The United States.

[dreamcrusader]

This entire thread makes me want to cry. I'm only going to quote one statement because everything else was just so repetative.

This amuses me:



Christianity also does not condone terrorism. And I don't know about you, but I would call Hitler a "Christian terrorist."

Anyway, about the actual topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but dreamcrusader, your main argument seems to be that the war on Iraq is a good thing because we're fighting terrorism. This argument is flawed for a reason which someone (I forget who) pointed out early on. Unfortunately, no one seemed to take this into account. I'll restate it for you.

If the war in Iraq is simply to fight against terrorism, not for oil like "all the asshole liberals" claim, then why aren't we fighting terrorism in Saudi Arabia? I'm not trying to be anti-Bush (why I don't like him has very little to do with this war), but the only logical explanation is this: There is no profit in Saudi Arabia. If you can come up with another explanation, please share it with me.

Also, even if Iraq had had anything to do with 9/11, our attack on it isn't justified because 9/11 caused the deaths of about 2,000 people (not all of whom were even Americans) and so far, we have caused the deaths of at least 20,000 Iraqi people (though some estimates put the number at a figure as high as 100,000). Many of these people were civilians who were probably just fighting to protect themselves, their families, and their homeland. Who wouldn't fight for these things in the same situation? Are their deaths justified?

When it comes down to it, the United States is a hypocritical nation. We claim to be waging a war on terrorism when we ourselves have slaughtered tens of thousands of people. I'm sure as hell the Iraqi people think of us as terrorists. It's all about which point of view you're looking from.

I made this topic saying that the reason alot of other countries (france, canada, germany) are afriad of Bush is because he is actually taking action and the others are scared of that. But of course this topic went back to the War in Iraq and I just dont feel like re-stating myself time an time agian. If you want my points, their all up there. Look for the ones in Bullitian form.

 

[TrongaMonga]

About that. Being a foreign as I am, I am not scared of Bush or the American Army. I know for a fact that if they tried to attack Europe, or any other country, they'd have two choices. They'd either retreat, or start World War III and get utterly owned. Because not even the strongest army in the world could ever try to defeat the rest of the world. Not yet.

What I am afraid of, is that WWIII really happens. Either it is the USA in the dark side, against the rest of the world, or it is Middle East against the rest. But that won't be that much of a great war. Even though million of people may die...

 

[dreamcrusader]

About that. Being a foreign as I am, I am not scared of Bush or the American Army. I know for a fact that if they tried to attack Europe, or any other country, they'd have two choices. They'd either retreat, or start World War III and get utterly owned. Because not even the strongest army in the world could ever try to defeat the rest of the world. Not yet.

What I am afraid of, is that WWIII really happens. Either it is the USA in the dark side, against the rest of the world, or it is Middle East against the rest. But that won't be that much of a great war. Even though million of people may die...

But then how can you explain France or Germanys reactions? Im not saying all of Europe, hell England is our best freind right now, and I doubt a WW3 would start soon. I dont think any country is in the place to be able to support it through their economy, their people, or their military.

 

[Kamikaze]

I made this topic saying that the reason alot of other countries (france, canada, germany) are afriad of Bush is because he is actually taking action and the others are scared of that. But of course this topic went back to the War in Iraq and I just dont feel like re-stating myself time an time agian. If you want my points, their all up there. Look for the ones in Bullitian form.

we aren't afraid of you... if anything, you're the ones who are afraid.

 

[dreamcrusader]

Yeah you got me on that quote.

But about the link, if i find the link that says that Michael Moore was correct and analyzes his movie, would you believe that link?

Good for you then, go fight. Although i doubt there will be a war in few years, you will probably spend time sitting on your ass somewhere in Germany while i am gonna FIGHT in Chechnya, you people don't fight a war on terror, you fight a war on money.

I just saw this. But seroiusly Kuzmich, if you find me a link that analyzes the movies points I would be VERY intrested to read it. I just doubt you would find one.

 

[Iliaran]

cxoli

but I would call Hitler a "Christian terrorist."

no, I wouldn't. Christianity doesn't support what he did. Genocide=wrong in every single religion.

apart from that, bravo, great post.

dreamcrusader:
(seeing as to how we've sorta gone off on a tangent bashing each other, here's something related to the original topic of this thread)

gimme one thing good about Bush being president. I just want ONE reason. Don't go listing a million. Just gimme ONE reason, and support it.

ehm...

 

[Tipsy]

That's an oxymoron. Islam does not condone terrorism. Therefore, one cannot be both a terrorist AND a muslim at the same time.

Christianity also does not condone terrorism. And I don't know about you, but I would call Hitler a "Christian terrorist."

Actually in both of these cases it is the religion teaches against what the actual person is doing. Heres another example, John Kerry claims to be catholic, yet he supports all but partial birth abortion.

About that. Being a foreign as I am, I am not scared of Bush or the American Army. I know for a fact that if they tried to attack Europe, or any other country, they'd have two choices. They'd either retreat, or start World War III and get utterly owned. Because not even the strongest army in the world could ever try to defeat the rest of the world. Not yet.

Actually any country with enough of a nuclear stockpile could "take on the rest of the world", they'd just have to basically destroy the possibility of human life on earth. So in a sense the United States could take on the world, it would just destroy it.

Either it is the USA in the dark side, against the rest of the world, or it is Middle East against the rest. But that won't be that much of a great war. Even though million of people may die...

The dark side is in the eye of the beholder.

Now to the main reason for my post:

gimme one thing good about Bush being president. I just want ONE reason. Don't go listing a million. Just gimme ONE reason, and support it.

I got this one covered, the main reason why I actually voted for Bush. The national election poll stated that 22% of all people said the most important topic was moral values (followed by economy and jobs at 20% and war on Iraq at 18% or 19%)
Heres two quotes for you:
"President Bush is the most pro-life president in history. On his first day in office President Bush Reactivated Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy which prevents international organizations from receiving federal funds for performing or actively promoting abortion. He has signed into law the Born Alive Infants Act, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and Laci & Connor Peterson’s Law."
(and he supports a constitutional ammendment to ban virtually all forms of abortion, thats not in the quote so I added it here)
and

"President Bush believes in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, and has endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment. To prevent activist judges from unilaterally legislating the definition of our most fundamental social institution, the President has called on Congress to pass an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife."

The reason I voted for Bush is regardless of whatever everyone may believe, I think of any type of abortion as murder, and in my mind that means there are 1.3 million legalized murder every year in the United States. I believe that we have to defend the weakest people in all the world, the babies who are not yet born more than anyone else. This is just my opinion, I'm not stating that everyone has to believe it, but this is why I voted for Bush.

Note: I posted both of these because they are both covered in "moral values".

 

[Iliaran]

Actually in both of these cases it is the religion teaches against what the actual person is doing. Heres another example, John Kerry claims to be catholic, yet he supports all but partial birth abortion.

You're reading between the lines. the words "does not condone" (my words) do not by any means imply that the religions in question don't 'teach against' "what the actual person is doing".

you voted for Bush because he opposes abortion and gay marriages? right...

gay marriages: whilst Bush opposes gay marriages, Kerry believes that individual states should be allowed to decide (though he DOES oppose gay marriages). The US passes itself off as a "free" nation opposed to freedom-haters(see your post where you referred to "freedom fries" (the stuff about the french)). The word "free" implies ubiquitious freedom in EVERYTHING, including but not limited to stuff like RELIGION. Heck, The Declaration of Independence refers to Americans as "a free people". Laws should thus NOT infringe on one's freedom to choose a partner.

During a debate:
Kerry:

"because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.

You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.

Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they're proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately. "

in light of all this, your words:

Heres another example, John Kerry claims to be catholic, yet he supports all but partial birth abortion.

don't really mean much. Religion, shouldn't have any effect on the elections.

Kennedy once said:

I'm not running to be a Catholic president. I'm running to be a president who happens to be Catholic."

In response to a question about homosexuality, Bush said:

"Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners,"

Note the word "sinners".
Thats right, Mr. Bush, it's a sin to be homosexual. I guess that means I'll burn in hell (I'm bi). Bush supports the Church, so vote for Bush! ehm...

You can't impose YOUR religion on other people. You can't just ban gay marriages because your religion doesn't support it. You can't discrimate against gay people by not allowing them to get married. You speak of moral values? Where's the morality in the discrimination here?

Furthermore, morals are much a personal thing. While you might think being gay is immoral, I don't. Just as you can't impose your beliefs on me, President Bush should not be able to impose his beliefs on the American people. Moreover, president Bush's definition of marriage as a " legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" stems from religious beliefs.

but...guess none of this matters anymore...with discrimination legalized and all...

Abortion:
and what of abortion for medical reasons?
should a woman have to suffer just because of some law?

This entire argument boils down to a single question:
Where does life begin?

Bush argues that life begins at conception. I question that claim.
Why conception? Sperm cells are alive. So are eggs. So why isn't masturbation illegal? Wait a sec, christianity opposes masturbation. President Bush doesn't support any anti-masturbation laws. So would I be wrong to use your own words with a few words switched ?

"John Kerry (Bush) claims to be catholic, yet he supports all but partial birth abortion (masturbation)"

so I ask you this: have you ever masturbated?

oh, and president Bush also said:

I will continue to promote abstinence programs.

Abstinence? Wait a sec, by extention of my examples above, by abstaining from sex, wouldn't I technically be killing 'potential' children? Abstinence should be illegal!

Furthermore, just as a couple can decide whether they want to have children or not (ie. sex), they should be able to choose UNTIL a child is actually born.

Bush:

"also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion."

Normative statements have no place in an election.
and:

Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no?

No. It's not simple. There have to be exceptions. As an example: if a child's birth could cause the mother to die, should the mother be allowed to abort?

President Bush is the most pro-life president in history. On his first day in office President Bush Reactivated Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy which prevents international organizations from receiving federal funds for performing or actively promoting abortion

Forcing your own beliefs onto one country's people is one thing. Forcing your beliefs on the international community is another.

and note how the "pro life" bs above contradicts Bush's promotion of abstinence.

Kerry's position:

I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.

so tell me,...why's Bush's position better than Kerry's? And you think Bush'll actually stop abortions from happening? People will simply turn to back-alley abortions performed by god knows whom. Personally, I'd rather have people having abortions in hospitals as opposed to back-alleys.

 

[dreamcrusader]

In response to your Gay marrige comment. A liberal on theis forum(and he admited to be liberal) opposed gay marrige and brought up an excellant point. He said that its like a seperation between church and state. Basicly in the last few years liberals have been whining about all sorts of this religious. They try and perrty much make the word "god" a banned word. Out of the pledge, our money, our parks, our courts. Because it was a seperation between church and state. So why is it now that the state(meaning the liberals in congres) are now trying to change the church into allowing gay marrige. Isnt that "seperation between church and state"??? They are only contridicting themselves by saying that.

 

[Iliaran]

dreamcrusader, quick question before I respond to your post: how old are you? (i'll edit this with my response)

 

[dreamcrusader]

It dosent matter how old I am. I know that one way or another you will use it to flame.

 

[Kuzmich]

In response to your Gay marrige comment. A liberal on theis forum(and he admited to be liberal) opposed gay marrige and brought up an excellant point. He said that its like a seperation between church and state. Basicly in the last few years liberals have been whining about all sorts of this religious. They try and perrty much make the word "god" a banned word. Out of the pledge, our money, our parks, our courts. Because it was a seperation between church and state. So why is it now that the state(meaning the liberals in congres) are now trying to change the church into allowing gay marrige. Isnt that "seperation between church and state"??? They are only contridicting themselves by saying that.

If you are refering to me, then i don't really care what goes on in US, but i don't like you being ignorant.

 

[Sakuhta]

we aren't afraid of you... if anything, you're the ones who are afraid.

Lmao, afraid of what?

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Afraid of terrorists, countries that don't make a massive deal out of it will get less stick than America. Iliarian may I complement you on a excellent answer to his post.

President Bush is the most pro-life president in history.

Is he ****. What bullshit have you been listening to, if that was true he would of signed the treaty to lower pollution, thousands of deaths each year are linked with it. YOU HAVE THE HIGHEST EMISSIONS IN THE WORLD. YOU POLLUTE MORE THAN AFRICA AND EUROPE COMBINED. PEOPLE EVERYWHERE ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THE SHIT WE GET FROM YOU. Pro-life my ass. Why the hell did he kill thousands of Iraqis needlessly when the U.N was negiotiating and Iraq was disarming weapons.

Ok because pro bush ******s cannot take more than one thing on board I will post one argument at a time for this.


[size]Why do you support Bush when he breaks records with your national debt and deflicit?[/size=5]

 

[Laharl]

Afraid of what? To my knowledge, you barely have food to feed yourselves. And that problem is only going to get worst.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Who barely has enough food to feed themselves? You think all terrorists are poor people in the middle east?

 

[Laharl]

Who? America.

Not ALL Terrorists are poor. Bush himself is a terrorist, by the most accurate use of the word. Look it up in a dictionary.

 

[Tipsy]

You're reading between the lines. the words "does not condone" (my words) do not by any means imply that the religions in question don't 'teach against' "what the actual person is doing".

The point is you can't pick and choose which of the teachings of the church you follow, you either attempt to follow them all of you choose not to be in that religion.

gay marriages: whilst Bush opposes gay marriages, Kerry believes that individual states should be allowed to decide (though he DOES oppose gay marriages). The US passes itself off as a "free" nation opposed to freedom-haters(see your post where you referred to "freedom fries" (the stuff about the french)). The word "free" implies ubiquitious freedom in EVERYTHING, including but not limited to stuff like RELIGION. Heck, The Declaration of Independence refers to Americans as "a free people". Laws should thus NOT infringe on one's freedom to choose a partner.

There is virtually no difference in the sense that you are trying to make. Bush supports the constitution of the United States to be ammended and Kerry support having each state ammend their constitution to ban it or not. They both do not support it, but Bush is taking a bigger step towards getting it removed from the whole country, not letting each little state decided for themself.

don't really mean much. Religion, shouldn't have any effect on the elections.

My religion is a bulk of what I believe in what is right and what is wrong and what I believe on many matters. You are basically saying that my values should not have any effect on who I vote for.

Note the word "sinners".
Thats right, Mr. Bush, it's a sin to be homosexual. I guess that means I'll burn in hell (I'm bi). Bush supports the Church, so vote for Bush! ehm...

Bush supports what he believes is right, and to back to your Kennedy quote, and he just happens to agree with the church.

You can't impose YOUR religion on other people. You can't just ban gay marriages because your religion doesn't support it. You can't discrimate against gay people by not allowing them to get married. You speak of moral values? Where's the morality in the discrimination here?

Once again, this is the same as before, it is either the national constituion ammends it or each state will choose to ammend it (Note: 11 states had the opportunity to ban gay marriage on Nov 2, and all 11 banned it. John Kerry wants the states to do it, Bush wants the entire country to do it as a whole. Bush has a more aggressive stance on it).

Furthermore, morals are much a personal thing. While you might think being gay is immoral, I don't. Just as you can't impose your beliefs on me, President Bush should not be able to impose his beliefs on the American people. Moreover, president Bush's definition of marriage as a " legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" stems from religious beliefs.

If I believe that I have a right to go around and randomly shoot people that doesn't mean it is right or wrong. Most people would probably think that it is wrong just as I think gay marriage is wrong.
(Not implying gay marriage is like shooting people in any sense)

Bush argues that life begins at conception. I question that claim.
Why conception? Sperm cells are alive. So are eggs. So why isn't masturbation illegal? Wait a sec, christianity opposes masturbation. President Bush doesn't support any anti-masturbation laws. So would I be wrong to use your own words with a few words switched ?

A sperm cell and an egg seperately do not have the ability to independantly make a human being without each other. They lack the chromosomes to create a human being indepent of each other (Pretty sure thats the right word, Bio class was quite awhile ago). So masterbation only effects sperm cells, not the sperm+egg with the ability to create human life. Masterbation is wrong for a different reason which I'm not going to get into because that is all church teaching and nothing to do with this election.

And the switched words:

"John Kerry (Bush) claims to be catholic, yet he supports all but partial birth abortion (masturbation)"

I have not once heard that Bush says that people should be masterbating. John Kerry says he suppots a woman's right to choose, aka pro-abortion, in his campaign.

Abstinence? Wait a sec, by extention of my examples above, by abstaining from sex, wouldn't I technically be killing 'potential' children? Abstinence should be illegal!

Furthermore, just as a couple can decide whether they want to have children or not (ie. sex), they should be able to choose UNTIL a child is actually born.

This argument makes no sense at all. It is basically saying that if I take a gun, shoot a random spot where no one is, only because someone who doesn't exist is there, could I be killing someone. You are not killing anything if it was never there.

And the second part:

they should be able to choose UNTIL a child is actually born

Thats an opinion.

N

o. It's not simple. There have to be exceptions. As an example: if a child's birth could cause the mother to die, should the mother be allowed to abort?

Notice the words "virtually all abortion", not all abortion, virtually all.
Even the catholic church supports killing the baby to save the mother if by the birth niether will live (just an example).

Forcing your own beliefs onto one country's people is one thing. Forcing your beliefs on the international community is another.

and note how the "pro life" bs above contradicts Bush's promotion of abstinence.

Abstinence is nothing like abortion. You are basically saying everytime I see a person of the opposite sex and do not attempt to have sex with them it is a sin and it is the opposite of pro life. I will reitterate, abstinence is nothing like abortion.

so tell me,...why's Bush's position better than Kerry's? And you think Bush'll actually stop abortions from happening? People will simply turn to back-alley abortions performed by god knows whom. Personally, I'd rather have people having abortions in hospitals as opposed to back-alleys.

I really don't think people are going to have 1.3 million back-alley abortions per year, but hey, thats just what I think. I think abortion should be enforced to stop occurring in the United States because I believe it is murder.

Let me sum everything up.
You asked for people to tell you a reason Bush is a good president. I have read everything you have said and it has disproved none of my beliefs. All you can do is attack what I believe by saying someone else may believe something else. Well then, maybe that other person doesn't support Bush, but I have given you the reasons why I voted for Bush and why I believe Bush is a good president. I voted on my morals and values and when I looked into it, Bush's beliefs are closer to mine than John Kerry's are so I voted for Bush.

If you are refering to me, then i don't really care what goes on in US, but i don't like you being ignorant.

Not to pick on you specifically Kuzmich, but this is just a statement addressed to people not in the United States. You may not like Bush because what he does outside of the United States that effects your daily lives. I voted for Bush because he will make my daily life better in the United States with the positions he holds on various topics. The War on Terror definately wasn't why I chose which canadate I voted for.

Is he ****. What bullshit have you been listening to, if that was true he would of signed the treaty to lower pollution, thousands of deaths each year are linked with it. YOU HAVE THE HIGHEST EMISSIONS IN THE WORLD. YOU POLLUTE MORE THAN AFRICA AND EUROPE COMBINED. PEOPLE EVERYWHERE ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THE SHIT WE GET FROM YOU. Pro-life my ass. Why the hell did he kill thousands of Iraqis needlessly when the U.N was negiotiating and Iraq was disarming weapons.

Ok because pro bush ******s cannot take more than one thing on board I will post one argument at a time for this.

I think you just don't understand what pro-life means here. These terms refer to abortion and abortion only. There is pro-life meaning anti abortion and pro abortion (pro choice) meaning pro abortion. It has nothing to do with anything else. Just to point this out.

Why do you support Bush when he breaks records with your national debt and deflicit?

Because I prefer a defecit over 1.3 million legalized murders per year.

Not ALL Terrorists are poor. Bush himself is a terrorist, by the most accurate use of the word. Look it up in a dictionary.

Anybody can call anyone else a terrorist, as I used the phrase before, terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[B~E]

Isnt something realistic? Most of the wars in the Ancient and some in the industrial era were over religion. Just goes to show how much you know about history.

I said that religion war are unrealistic because you need extraordinary mean to finish them. Yet, you tell me something completly irrelevent to what I said. This, and plenty of other replies by you, show how much you can't seem to read for shit.

And I will not take that qoute out of my sig. All wars are fought over words to an extent. And that sentace which i qouted shows how completly stupid you are on a war topic. If your agianst the war on terror then lets just let them countinue to attack us in airplanes and see what happens. If your agianst the war on terror than lets just go ahead and all kill ourselves because we will get beheaded anyway. If your agianst the war on terror then you are as coward as a person can get. Period.

I earlier said I supported the war on terror, yet, your saying I dont. Read damnit, READ.
If you think you'll get beheaded by muslims living on another continent, who have no mean to effectivly bring the war to us other than by rare terrorist act, this goes to show how much you know about the situation.
And according to your logic, I'm going to let myself get beheaded, YET I am a coward ? Doesn't make an ouce of sense. Plus, people who dont participate in the War on Terror are much less likely to have terrorist act on their country.

And to kamazazi I think Black Enthusim would be better compard to a monkey because he would run and scream in terror(just like monkeys do) when he is getting chased by a terrorist and going to be beheaded.

Right. Your as wity as your a tought argumentative person.

And your "religious wars" Just a few anyway:

British revolution and civil war? Religious. Puritians came to the American colonies from England because they were being persacuted, so that can be a Religoius tension that eventually leads to our revolution. And your country never jumped on one that did nothing to you? How about your Pact with Nazi Germany agianst Poland in WW2? How about your war agianst Afghanastan. Our Chechnya? Seems like your the one that needs an education on your own country. And you bring up no other point other than the war in Iraq is for Oil. Yet there is no proof what so ever that we have been taking there oil. You just belive what any dumbass liberal like Michal Moore will tell you so that way you can fuel your hatred towards America.

Religious persecution as the origine of the American Revolution ? Yhea... how about, no ? I'd say that you need to be educated on the history of your own country, but im certain that you know as much as I that religion as nothing to do with the revolution, and that your just intentionally making up crap as you go.
Ok, so the Brithis revolution is the only successful religious war that you where able to bring up. Thats not a lot. In fact, you haven't really been able to argue against my comment on the "War on Words". Say, maybe it means that I was rightt, dont you think ?

What country do you live in anyway? If not America then I understand why you are such a coward. Your country probly didnt loose 2000+ people on 9/11/01

Why do you speak of cowardice ? This war is about good judgement and understanding of the facts, not about personal courage. Do you honestly think that YOU are more of a man because others are getting killed in Irak while your busy stiking your head up your ass ? Do you have any idea how retarded you sound ? Thats... wow....


Ok, so lets recapitulate :
- you can't read for shit.
- you think that muslims are actualy going to come here and behead you. This show that you have absolutly not an once of understanding concerning the culture and situation of the people your fighting
- You think that if you dont live in America, your country didn't go throught anything, and your a coward, period.
- On the topic of War of religions, you manage to bring up the American Revoltion. Way to go, nive try making stuff up.
- You managed to mix individual feeling of courage and manhood with the issue of war in Irak. You insecure bastard, you...

Well, all I have to say is, thank God some people here actualy bothered to take your defence. You haven’t come up with anything, at all, that made sense.

And BTW, about my quote in your sig, I'm not french, I'm french canadian. Just to be accurate. Thank you.

And two quick quotes

I have already proven that the guy was telling the truth when he said this. This statement is NOT "completly false, unbacked/baseless, or both", as you said. This statement is completely true and backed up.

You agreed with him, without proving anything.
Oh wait minute, maybe that comment abou the freedom fries was your proof of the absolut american hate against the french ? Right, I'm sure a two months trend started by a retarded senator, which was followed by other retarded people like him, is demonstrative of the american people....

This statement is also true. Iraq was rated as one of the strongest militaries in the world. Was it a weak military? Yes it was, but it was one of the strongest in the world.

Before the gulfwar, Irak supposedly had the fouth strongest military, but this was proven to be pure propaganda. I mean, I doubt that Irak could be in the fourth position : USA, URSS, china, Britain, France... and after that, your not really a military power anymore. Then again, the statement of "one of the strongest in the world" still remains technicaly true... ok then.

Just to point this out real quick, this is just my opinion, not a widespread american opinion. I personally believe the concept of a democracy is as failed as the concept of communism. Communism is the perfect form of government for if everyone in the world was a perfect person. Democracy works on the weaknesses of humans to get them to work and support the economy. There will never and has never, in my opinion, ever been a durable democracy and there probably will never be one. This is probably completely off the point you were trying to give, but this is just my opinion of democracy.

And just to say this because if I don't you'll probably assume it. I do not support anarchy, I do believe in a centralized government, I just believe democracy is a failed concept that preys off of the flaws in humans.

And because of what is Democracy failed ? All your really need in a democracy to work is educated and dynamic people, who will take part in the political decision process, that all. I dont see why this system is naturaly doomed to fail, like communism.

 

[Undead Cheese]

Afraid of what? To my knowledge, you barely have food to feed yourselves. And that problem is only going to get worst.

If this is refering to the United States, I don't know what you're talking about. There are no food shortages here. >_>

Is he ****. What bullshit have you been listening to, if that was true he would of signed the treaty to lower pollution, thousands of deaths each year are linked with it. YOU HAVE THE HIGHEST EMISSIONS IN THE WORLD. YOU POLLUTE MORE THAN AFRICA AND EUROPE COMBINED. PEOPLE EVERYWHERE ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THE SHIT WE GET FROM YOU. Pro-life my ass. Why the hell did he kill thousands of Iraqis needlessly when the U.N was negiotiating and Iraq was disarming weapons.

* While we do have the highest emissions in the world, our emissions are decreasing.

* ROFL! That's all I have to say.