blank obviously believes the crap about "islamo-fascism" that FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, and the Washington D.C. politicians forcefeed him.

sheeple +1

Fuck the news. The fact is, every Islamic nation of political importance is basically fascist. Isalmo-fascism is not reported by the news. It is practiced by the strict adherence to Sharia law by such nations as Saudi Arabia, and by majority parties such as Hamas.

It's not like you know better than me anyways. What you know has been fed to you through press mediums who claim to "be the real news," not "spin the truth," and are completely "opposite to X news agency whose views are skewed by their conservative/liberal political financing." News from the right is just as skewed as news from the left. I made my decision to join the military after actually being in Iraq doing civilian work. First hand experience, not third. So fuck off.

The shit you hear "straight from the source" isn't exactly even handed either. You honestly think an individual living in X conflict isn't going to have an opinion or side? And that he or she isn't going to offer you just that when asked or prompted to offer it? You think you know something more than other people. You are deluded.

"The fact is, every Islamic nation of political importance is basically fascist."

I stopped reading there.

How about you give some counter evidence instead of putting up a stone wall and ignoring what I stated. If you have solid evidence that the Islamic nations applying Sharia in a full or limited aspect are not either totally Islamo-fascist or basically such, I'd concede you that point if it were not debatable. Even nations that have a concept of Sharia in a popular, instead of governmental, mindset have gross social loathing against things not "Sharia."

I think you believe too much shit from the MSM and the Feds. Good luck not dying.

Oh, and death isn't one of those things I fear. Besides, most special forces (besides the SEALs) are supposed to avoid direct action. I think I may actually have better chances of living then say, a Marine, who is basically guaranteed to see action. But I'm not concerned about "trying to survive." The whole point is for me to serve my nation. If the States should require my life, so be it. I'll get to join the ranks of countless brave men and women before me.

You guys are such pussies. Holy crap.

Actually, I had a one week stop in Saudi Arabia on my way to Iraq. I flew to Iraq from some base there. They confiscated my Bible (which I had owned for five years and had a crap load of my personal notes), as well as my Magen David which I had hidden underneath my shirt as not to draw attention to myself.

That's only slightly fascist. I've never been to Tehran or anywhere in Iran, but I could imagine it would be the same.

Tell me, do you have proof otherwise? I understand there are countries with mostly Islamic populations that are not Islamo-Fascist (Turkey for instance, though it's headed down that path), however, in the Islamic world, secular nations like Turkey are the minority.

"You guys are such pussies. Holy crap."

Again, good luck not dying. Believe what you will sir.

I'm done responding to you or reading this thread because we aren't going to make any inroads in convincing each other of our respective opinions.

You fuel the American Empire (which will inevitably fall from our monetary and foreign policy), remember that.

"You guys are such pussies. Holy crap."

I refused to go do the army shit as I believe killing is WRONG, which it IS. If war comes, so be it, I won't kill, that's my view of life. We should all live in harmony together, that is... if men had that intellect to realize that THAT is what TRUE honor is about, to show eachother respect. Yet again, men fail to see what good things can happen if we only respect eachother.

"Honorable men and women.."

There is no honor in killing people, only dickheads speaks like that.
There is no honor in dying on a field of battle, knowing that you have died for oil money. Consider your life consumed by greedy persons.

You have 0% chance of surviving a Zombie Apocalypse.

...Sorry to say this, but since you don't seem to know such basic things I might just say this to you, Zombies doesn't exist..

"Don't exist" you mean? Stop watching animu and start learning English instead.
Typical Swedish emo hippie.

Hope to see Barack Obama becoming president, he's very charismatic and feels like he has something the other candidates don't have.

The quickest way for the USA to get out of Iraq is to send more troops, so they can be more effective, fix the country and leave. It's better than reducing progressively the amount of soldiers, so insurgents can come back, and leaving the country in a big mess, worst than it's already is. I believe the general Petraeus has achieved good things since he's at the head of the troops in Iraq and have effective methods in terms of counter-insurgency.
I wish there would be more brave candidates who support the choice of additional troops in Irak, but since everyone wants to see the soldiers out of it, it's suicidal politically speaking.

Holy crap, are you sure you're from France? *high five*

Why would the US get out of Iraq? Why would you want them to? They're sitting on the second largest oil reserves of the world, contracts of which most have been prioritized for western companies. Iraq is getting better by the day and soon western companies can start moving in and taking out the oil advantage of OPEC countries and secure western interests.
Whats not to like?

Maybe the fact that it's not the US's oil in the first place and that they shouldn't have entered Iraq in the very first place as well. And the cost of getting and securing that oil which is the death of thousands of soldiers and civilians? [...]

Soldiers who volounteered for service and civilians are only being killed by the terrorists or by accident. Casualties of war, no one went there to kill civilians so they're not part of the cost, just a standard collateral damage in war.
Iraq might be in chaos now but the system of government now in place there is much better than the dictatorship it previously had, the Iraqi people would have lost many civilians when they'd eventually get up and challenge Saddam too but in exchange for their oil the US was kind enough to do the fighting for them. If civil war had erupted naturally Iraq would be in chaos much longer than it will be under the lead of the States.

Of Course there are obvious economical interests, but there are few chances that the next president of the US isn't in favor of a quick withdrawal of the troops in Iraq, combined with the public opinion, I'm not sure they will stay long. At least, the US army, Oil and private security companies are another deal.

Sensible Europeans have officially stepped out of the closet. I'm out to piss myself.

I wasn't in favor of the war in Iraq, but if the US leaves now, Iraq will be a big mess (more than it's already is, though it's getting better those last months) the ethnical problems the country is having with sunnites, chiites and kurdes will be worst than ever. If the US leave soon, they'd better split the country in three part for each ethnical group, 'cause honnestly I don't see how they could fix it with the US gone. So it's for the own good of the Iraqis.
Besides, if the US army leaves too soon, I'm not sure it'll be a good thing for the oil market and the Iranian case (which are linked), 'cause if Téhéran doesn't chill out, the USA and Europeans will have some REALLY good reasons to go to war, and the weapons of massive destruction, this time, will be certainly real. I don't think USA should have gone to Iraq, but I think we should all go to Iran if it goes on like this.

i hope Hillary Clinton will win.

Bush and his big mistakes.... -_-

I really feel sorry for the one who is going to take over and clean up the mess BUSH has caused the country! From my point of view Hilary is too old fashion and will only head backwards when Obama will go forward for the future. We all disagree and agree, but we need to work to gather all people to be one and equal till the end without loosing lives over it. I'm studing history from before 1850 and after 1850 and people go to war over alot of stupid things. It's time to work for peace without going to war that will cause not only hard times for the family of the lives lost and the country, but also this world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY&feature=related (watch this music video made by obama's speech)

Peace out!

No one knows a thing about what Obama will really do because he is purposely vague as he possibly can, while still sounding "charismatic."

I don't trust him. Then again, Hilary sucks, and so does McCain. They all suck this election. I don't even want to vote :/. I'll go for McCain, just because he might actually finish up in Iraq as opposed to rapidly pulling out so it can descend into chaos and become a proxy government for Iran.

I have a belief in Obama that he will get the troop back even if the US have to loose the war.
It was already wrong to send them down there in the first place, and it's time to just accept it and move on!

Your entire definition of why the war in Iraq is either good or bad is completely skewed. First, the U.S. already won the "war," and are actually quite successful in the occupation (despite what the press says -- remember kids, the press doesn't report truth, it reports sensationalism to make their version of the world look interesting so you watch and purchase their programs). The issue is that there simply are not enough boots on the ground to choke out the insurgency in the entire nation.

What we should do is send in more troops, get the job done, and leave a few well staffed military bases (if not more) to act as a both a deterrent and rally point for an (inevitable) conflict with Iran.

The "Obamania" in the US makes me remember the passion there was in France for presidential candidate Segolene Royale: Something new, something fresh, lots of promises, very few concrete ideas.
That said, I don't know if would make a better or worst president than Clinton or McCain.

New, fresh? Obama uses the word "change" a lot but he has yet to tell his opinion on anything or talk about any policies or ideas he has to offer.

Did you read what I wrote? That's what I said. He's seen as "new" and "fresh" but has "very few concrete ideas".

You know, I'm starting to think we're going to elect Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. I'm pretty sure America is going to suffer because of it. However, the rest of the world will be rejoicing that we've "become so progressive." Liberal Democrats are going to murder our economy more than than not-so-conservative Republicans already have. Seriously. Once Islam starts taking over here like in Europe... I have no idea where I would move. I'll probably go to Israel. At least they treat Islamic terrorists the way they should -- with bullets and guided bombs.

Well, the problem rather comes from the fact that there are usually innocent people surrounding them. And I'm not sure they deserve to be treated with guided bombs.

No. Personally, I'm in favor of semi-accurate carpet bombing. A single run for every act of terrorism.

You say "It's brutal, and you're just acting like the terrorists you point the finger at." Do you know what would happen afterward? Zero terrorism from Palis. That's the goal, right? Why not kill 1/3 of their population so they get the idea, "DO. NOT. F***. WITH. US."

Sounds like a plan... I'm sending my advice to Ehud Barak as we speak.

That sounds like a poor way to handle foreign policy.

"Why not kill 1/3 of their population so they get the idea, "DO. NOT. F***. WITH. US.""

But that's exactly the opposite that happens: People who lost related in thoses bombings join the terrorists. I think that's a former Israeli prime minister who said while talking of the Palestinians "If I was being treated the way we treat them, I would become a terrorist too".
The "aggressive" method have been used for quite a while now, may be it's time to think of a new approach.

You Euros are totally incapable of identifying a fascetious statement when it's two inches from your face.

But anways, this could get interesting, so let's run with it.

Historically speaking, the what has encouraged insurgent aggression has almost always been lack of ruthlessness. Land concessions fueled Hitler's military domination of mainland Europe, and the prospect, tickled by the "concession" of Gaza, fuels Palestinian militants. In Vietnam, if we did carpet bomb North Korea's capital (Which led to a record receding of guerilla incidents, but you don't hear about taht much), but we stopped thinking they "got the message" *cough* international pressure *cough*. Continual carpet bombing would have brought North Korea to its knees (And it was) and forced (And is was doing) them to bargain due to losing so much human infrastructure. In Iraq, we won the war very quickly. However, we are making enormous mistakes in the occupation that could've, and should've been solved earlier. The reason that the "surge" family of tactics has been working is not necessarily a drastic change in strategy, but a return to 2005 troop levels, which has caused far more insurgent attrition.

Believe me. 1/3 of 30,000,000 is 10,000,000 people. If your militant neighbors knew this, they would *not* attack. It's historically a very effective way of pacifying large amounts of rowdy people.

Oh, and to the guy above you, "poor" is such a relative statement. Poor in comparison to what, which has proved effective? Ruthless, blood thirsy aggression has a better track record for keeping crazies quiet and in line. See: Rome, ancient Assyria, etc. The only problem is that if you do not maintain said aggression of massacre a large chunk of an insurgent population, they'll try to get back. That's why death on a grand, grand scale is so important to pacifying insurgencies.

Oh, and btw, the "aggressive" method has not been used as your are saying it has. The press wants to make it look like aggression, but the truth is, if Israel wanted to massacre the Palis until the few thousand of them left crawled into caves and never came out they could. Total aggression has not been perpetrated by a Western power since World War 2.

all USA should vote for http://www.clejeu.com

Old stuff but actual
http://bekit.net/wp-content/Bush_Wins.jpg

Obama won!

But i think that nothing will change. he will be like a doll in hands of these who started IraqWar!

Obama =)