Originally Posted by hc^patonki

I think bush has done a terrible work, he hasnt done anything that will stop the terrorism, actually he has just pissed those arabs off more, and spent a lot money.

Arabs, i though this was about terrorist? Sorry but i considered that to be a bit harsh, because its the terrorists thats bad not the arabs

LOL@arabs/terrorists.


Now, he could do better, but hes on the right side of the fight. Might be 2 much a cowboy, but those terrorists had it comming.

How can you be "too much" of a cowboy?

if the UN was with us from the beginning then we could have ended things faster and without so much spending

Yeah ... right. The US always ends up spending more and putting forth more troops when working with the UN. With or without them, it would still be our troops and our money.

Originally Posted by RnderSafe

Yeah ... right. The US always ends up spending more and putting forth more troops when working with the UN. With or without them, it would still be our troops and our money.

But why must it always be us and our money?

Because the US is a country of war. the problem is the US has HUGE DEPTS.

Always had and always will be, well at least until world peace can be accompished, but thats never gonna happen.

Because the US is a country of war. the problem is the US has HUGE DEPTS.

JTF, I assume you meant debts? Ah well, the whole statement is flawed anyway. For an appeasing pacifist, you certainly attempt to stir the pot often.

Originally Posted by panzer

(....) when besides the British the other major helpers are 3rd world and former Warsaw Pact countries.

err... we're there to, you know, and we’re none of the above…
And saying that the US are spending all the cash and doing most of the work is a strange complaint anyway. The UN wanted to wait a bit longer, the US didn't and invaded Iraq on their own, and now the UN and other countries are to blame for not helping enough?
I'm not saying the US shouldn't have attacked, but they did. If they would have had a little more patience, maybe an attack wouldn't have been necessary, or maybe the UN would have started an attack.
We'll never know how that would have turned out, but stating that the UN should have been "with us from the beginning" is a strange view to the whole situation, because it seems to me that "the US wasn't with the UN"

Before anyone answers, it's just my opinion, don't take it to personal. I don't want to offend anyone.....

My opinion is that terrorism often is handled wrong.....
were fighting the symptoms but not the reason.....
fe in israel instead of giving those lousy golan hights and the westbank to palestine as promised, they start military operations i dont understand...
kill their leaders and make them to martyrers.....and giving them a reason to justify their terrorist acts, instead of taking the wind out of their sail, and withdrawing their backup(?) from the normal non-terroristic palestines.....
and by the way i agree to 1217