N Korea test Nuke

just watched the hills have eyes

that may happen lol

Let's hope not, because then they'd want to make a sequel or knock off to that piece of crap.

You haven't say that, I did it. Based on this ironic statement: "They should have just invaded Japan by land, which would have cost millions of lives".
Here I consider that you give more value to an american soldier than to a japanese civil. That's my opinion.

No thanks, I don't need to live there to know this things.

Should I give more value to an American soldier than a Japanese civilian? Dang right, I should. Fellow countryman first, all others second in the case of war. Either way, you must HAVE COMPLETELY MISSED the point that MORE japanese civilians would have died as a result of a land invasion than those that were killed by the two nukes. That's just common sense, and you keep ignoring it. Why? Is it because you didn't catch the sarcasm in what you just quoted me saying?

Brazil is full of a bunch of know it all's who hate America because their media has brainwashed them that way. I don't need to live there to know these things.

Can you see your own ignorance yet? It's literally smacking you in the face.

And isn't it convenient how such figures pop-up weeks before an important election... Isn't it easy to make a pessimistic forecast to make reality sound better when it hits. Only a really messed up administration would take pride at a $286 billion deficit.

The "initial operation" in Iraq you call a success should have been, in a planned action, a first step and the next ones would have been thought through. They weren't and look in what shit the US army's in now.


This isn't a smartass competition but a discussion, grow up.


Ponrauil

You have your point, but I have mine and I will not change it, so my part in this dialogue discussion ends here.

Actually, the deficit in terms of dollar value isn't very bad at all. Actually, it's only a little above average when compared to the percentage of GDP. It sure beats the years when we were in the Great Depression or WWII. The only reason the previous administration had a surplus is because we had the biggest economic growth in history AS A RESULT of conservative policies under Reagan and Bush Sr. A monkey could have been president during Clinton's term and the exact same things would have happened.

It is very convenient those numbers come up before November. Lower gas prices, deficit cut in half, economy is booming, etc. You know, maybe, just MAYBE, those numbers are a result of this administrations policies over the last few years that are finally starting to pay off post-recession.

The operation in Iraq was planned out well, but who could have expected thousands upon thousands of insurgents to fight back? It didn't happen that badly in Afghanistan, so why Iraq? Well now we know why. Again with that, hindsight is 20/20. Do you have a better solution? I didn't think so.


If I'm not mistaken, you started that competition, not me.

Well you've shown own one sided you are. I'm ready to give the Reagan administration some credit, Bush Senior's too. But to say that an administration that kept it's place for 8 years had nothing to do with it's good results is just narrow minded. Believe what you want, I will too. And that is that THIS Bush administration is, and will have been, a disaster to the US and the world.


How about you wait for the answer?

1 - All the countries that opposed the war knew there would be insurgents, it was one of the main reasons they opposed it, especially France from it's own experience in Algeria.

2 - It is happening in Afghanistan too, especially in the South the Talibans are gaining ground, the situation is worsening everyday. Only it's Canadian soldiers (Canada is leading the NATO force there) dying so you're probably not hearing about it on Fox News.

3 - Yes I do have a better solution (well not me actually, but the 75% of the world that opposed the war as led by the US-UK coallition):

a-The military action should have been under the UN banner like in the 1st Gulf war and should have had arab countries supplying some soldiers. Countries like Marocco and Egypt were ready to do so at least in the rebuilding phase.
b-Any middle east expert will tell you that the extremists are all Wahabis, which actually represent a small and identified minority (but they have the money). They should have been the one and only target (and not only of military operations). Instead, everyone was bombed the same... so the anti-US feeling spread to all the population that otherwise would have offered the warm welcome expected.
c-Once the dictator is down, do not take more than a year to rebuild roads and airports, to set electricity back on, etc...

I could go on.


No I just made a sarcastic comment, I didn't use the childish "You fail" "Try again" or "I win" crap, you did.

Ponrauil

Prove them both. Prove that anything the Clinton admin did helped bolster the economy and that Bush is a disaster.

It's not a secret insurgents can never be counted and never disappear until it's their interest to stop their violence. Another major mistake.


You got the point...


The UN is worthless when any of the 5 members goes against the other 4.
The 5 worked together in 91, it worked within a couple of months.
The US went it's own way in 2003, we're still in it 4 years later.

Not that moot I say.


Whatever the intention was, you don't fight terrorists like any army in any war. You fight it with intelligence and economic levers.


The rebuilding went at steady pace near the oil fields...


I've backed up and explained my opinions enough. All you've done is go against them with one liners. How about you back up your own opinions.


See? Childish again...

And if you want this discussion to go on, please use the quote function properly.


Ponrauil