Sophion-Black

Lets pull that down to domestic issues should be in the peoples hands, foreigner in Government hands... after all that's how its supposed to be. but the public can't trust the government to do that... why? because the public doesn't see what the government sees. If you take the UN and you push them out of the picture who is really left to criticize the US? S. Nam was totally reliant on the US for logistics such as tank and vehicle parts. We supplied them with the equipment but we didn't hand over the factories. Besides, S. Nam was being pushed by the Soviets, Chinese, and N. Vietnam. When all they had was themselves and a little bit of SEATO help. Do you think S Nam could have stood up against all that? The point comes down to this: The United States assured South Vietnam that they will get involved if they saw the imminent capture of South Vietnam. But when it came down to it politics FORCED THE US TO NOT HONOR THAT PLEDGE The majority of the people don't like the admin, but do they want to see us "cut and run" like little panzies? No. They all know what a laughing stock we would be if that happened, not to mention the terrorists rolling into New York again. this isn't about moderation here, its about thousands even millions of lives that if a nuke were to fly no one could stop it. The economy, maybe. The American survivability, no. He could have done more than just launching cruise missiles. you don't wake up in the morning as a president and ask yourself "how can I be more lovable today?" It's not part of his job to make himself look good its in his job to make sure the American Military can carry out tasks to protect the US. After the US dropped leaflets to warn the civilians to get out. If you see a murderer and a rapists fighting and you know it should stop who are you going to help to stop the fight? You don't like either one but you also want to see them both disappear. "Major Combat Operations against the Iraqi Regime" now it's: "Operations against Saddam loyalists and terrorists" so that makes them US property de Jure, But if a parent told their child to go clean their room and the kid doesn't; does it make the dirty room the parent's fault? The kid could still ignore orders. Walker, have you ever seen this, this, this, and this. Where in a UN Report they say Iraq is doing something fishy. All of the world knew Iraq wasn't doing what it was supposed to do. They just didn't want to speak up, and that's what the US and UK did. Now about his US isn't the only superpower, this has been brought up over and over again... let me review. The EU is a confederation not a single nation. it has many many factions that can easily spark civil tensions. India, not a real power, it has big gaps between lower and higher classes. China, it can only grow for so long before separatist movements succeed.

Nobody asked them to, but that didn't stop them from trying. because the US tries to do the thing that is morally right. It's morally right to kill people to defend your own interests? Don't oversimplify the problem. If you have a guy in front of you with a gun and he is just a nanosecond away from pulling the trigger, are you just going to stand there and let him kill you because you don't think its right to kill a man? If you are that stupid you deserve to be shot. It's people like that that has not common sense and thus criticizes everything for nothing. Take a look at Katrina, everyone blames the government for not helping the people in Nawlns. But did they have the common sense to get out? I know not all of the people were capable of leaving. The ones that were able to leave should have gotten out by their own means instead of relying on the government. People today need to understand that your personal survival is not on the governments agenda. It's up to your human instincts to take the initiative and do what you feel is right. If the people of Nawlns did that then the government would have been able to evacuate all the people who needed evacuated. But no, they heard a free ride was coming and survival was overwhelmed by the "almighty" dollar... sad.

That's because the US was part of a UN intervention that was fighting against communism. something the UN was so scared about. And at the beginning of Vietnam the world hoped that the country would just stay divided and everyone would be happy. didn't turn out that way, so much for peaceful coexistence. In Vietnam the US pulled out and said it would help South Vietnam if it saw a "serious or imminent danger." not long after the US left, North Vietnam rolled over the DMZ and on to Nha Trang. No US intervention. Then they rolled on to Saigon. On April 12th 1975 I distinctly recall a tearful man standing before his people to tell of his resignation and also saying something that I hope to the Almighty God that those words will never be said again. it was this: "The United States has not respected its promises. It is inhumane. It is untrustworthy. It is irresponsible." During his speech he read a letter from Nixon sent in 1972 saying "severe retaliatory action" will be made if the south was threatened. <span style='color:red'>If the American people ever observes that scene again heads WILL roll</span>. Iraq is no longer a war, its a ring where the US has its last chance to contend against the world and prove it is indeed trustworthy, Responsible, and Respectful. We WILL NOT leave Iraq as we did Vietnam. Because if we do, look out world: the first armed revolution inside a nuclear state will occur. would you take that chance? would you gamble with the lives of thousands? would you trust a mass murderer and tyrant with that possibility? I wouldn't pin that on a guy who kept loosing the codes to launch nuclear war. It was a war that was very overdue. It should have been taken care of by Clinton in 1998. your missing the point, if you declare war on someone and then go into battle inside a city do you think the city after the battle would look like something out of the Mr Clean Magazine? NO! The US didn't intentionally use NBC weapons against civilians, the US didn't purge millions to stay in power. The decisions that make the atrocities as they are aren't  made from the Pres, its way down the CoC. So blaming the US for something that was done by only a handful of people is like the US blaming Italy for giving US citizens bad pizza when it was sold by La Rossa's Pizza. It doesnt make sense! you think Iraq is a place where everyone is happy? What makes you think Iraq is so immune to the problem every language, tribe, and nation has faced (War). You really think Iraq isn't in a state of war even though jihad joe drives down the highway strapped to a few sticks of ACME "KA-BOOM: PLUSE!" and presses the button after hitting a checkpoint? Are you nuts? There's still fighting going on. Humans haven't changed since the Romans. what makes you think they will do something they will regret later, regardless of their allegiance.

Nobody asked them to, but that didn't stop them from trying. because the US tries to do the thing that is morally right. That's because of the social revolution, politicians had drugged up minds to bend. they knew that some young hippie would believe the first thing they heard and used it to the advantage as time went on. then there was were-hippies and more young hippies. Militaristically the US could have won the conflict, but politics got in the way. and good judgement was pushed under cracked out college kids and confused parents. 1) The US military is only as strong as the US public. right now its divided because no one actually knows what will happen next. 2) When the UN inspectors tell their supervisors that "somethings fishy here" and the rest of the intel commute is saying the same thing. chances are: if it walks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it sure is **** ain't no sheep. 3) The US isn't failing, It takes longer to strangle something than to slit its throat. It's hard to find one right now. 4) DOW JONES BROKE 11K that's the highest ever there slick, AND the US was fighting three fronts at the time it broke. ARE YOU BLIND? 5) It's war, right now US casualties are lower than the Philippine-American War (lasted 4 years). 6) if you declare war against a country do you think it will be good as new when you are done? 7 & 8) If you kick over an anthill do you think they will stay in the hill? 9) increased level of corruption? do you know US history? If that is all the evidence you are basing the statements that the US is failing. Its common sense, If people are blaming the government for all of these problems then, man... the US public is too dependant on the government. Or just plain stupid.

well i would say you have to hand it to him for going over to the button... but then theirs something called wheeled seats. neither the US or the USSR threatened to wipe the other off the face of the earth. I'm not so sure they have the delivery system that makes anyone shake in their boots. I could be wrong, SEATO's AO isn't really my strong suit. The intel on Iraq was proficient, not so much on Afghanistan... no one really had a good map named "boondocks of the boondocks." But! since the age of information came along the civilian population can now see what is going on in Iran. take a look Here (GlobalSecurity.org). Not as funny as you overlooking the big picture. Israel has been going toe-to-toe with Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen for some time now (dating back to 1947!. Israel can do A LOT more than just slap people on the wrist. but lately it's all politics. I'm saying a Kalashnikov won't do much to a stealthy F-22 roaring by... you can't exactly put a bullet right where you want it in this case. no, they have old US equipment left over from before the islamic revolution; Soviet made tanks, US-Soviet Frankien-Tanks, US-UK Franken-Tanks, and something called the Tosan. The later seems like a real contender, but i doubt it can take a Javelin in the turret. And that's just shoulder fired, I know the air force has better bangs than that. scenario: 1) Israel launches nuke 2) US and Russia both detect the missile 3) Both the US and Russia call each other to ask if it's theirs ") They both sit and watch the thing for a while ") After review they now know who shot it ") the PRC calls Russia to find out whats going on ") Russia hangs up the phone ") EU calls both Russia and the US asking who's it is ") EU, US, and Russia all watch the missile ") US alerts units in Iraq about the incoming missile ") Iraq calls the US to find out whats going on ") the US units now see the missile overhead but stand fast ") Iranian shopkeeper sees a black dot ") Mushroom cloud over Tehran ") Both the US and Russia say "huh" the country that keeps being pulled into Europe's problems. there are only 9 states that have major nukes. of the 9: 5 of them are tagged and noted as controlled (US, Russia, UK, France, PR China), 3 have offset purposes (Pakistan, India, and Israel). and the last one is being contained (North Korea).

have you been hiding under a rock? I'm not even... *shakes head* That's the problem, If Israel gets a permit to cross through Iraq it would take out Syria and Jordan before it gets to Iran. 9 times out of 10 an army with no air support will be destroyed. If you take out the Iranian air force (not hard for the modern F-22), and other anti-aircraft ability (not hard for the F-117, B-52, or B-2), you will be able to easily destroy the country's military. All that will be left would be targets of opportunity. So unless some Iranian has AAA hidden in his garage --which even then it would last long, air strikes would ultimately turn Iran into a clan versus clan country. But don't let me stop there, air force jimmy can press a button and make any armed mob trying to cross the boarder disappear! It's, It's magic! Modern Equipment! WOW! With a missile (called the Jericho 2) that can be chucked 4,000 Km, It can reach clear on to Tibet. If you want to go to the standard version of the Jericho 2, which can reach 1,500 Km, Tehran can be hit. They will be stretching a little bit but they won't be in the Goland Heights. But think of it this way, Israel has nukes. If you think they will lob a missile that can take a 1,000 kilogram friend along for the ride do you think they can pack a few nukes into it? So... Get your facts updated! "you better get things done before the end of the year" sure sounds like a swift kick in the a$s to get things working to me. Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map and then getting a nuke sure puts Israel in a bad spot. Last time I checked threatening someone would get you a free set of orange jumpers and a vacation as Bubba's "buddy." Diplomacy looks like its failing now, Iran --even after sanctions-- is still going on with its nuke program. If i dropped a nuke on your house do you think I would go into it later and use it as my own? do you think i would bother tossing a grenade into it after the blast? Point being, you really can defend against a nuke once its fired. its not like everyone can put on a flak vest and duck and cover. chances are Iran will get ticked off at Israel and chuck a naughty november into Israel's back yard. Then they will feel satisfied after seeing a mushroom cloud over Israel and go on with their lives.

I'm also reffering to your posted picture as well, both are fake. The US Should attack Iran; the US is attacking Somolia Lets look at what a said; .notice how I said assist; not attack. don't start trying to get us posting in circles, I know this. If you would have read this: --- Do you think the US would have any idle unit after the bombings? You also don't have to be a genius to understand that Iran in geographicly flanked. Iran realised this a while back and made a pact with Syria. If you would have read my post in its entirety you would know the answer to that. I'll give you a hint, it deals with Israel. the Army has; but the Air Force, Navy, and Marines all have the ability to carry out a short-term campiagn. But you have to know that Iran is already in the UN spotlight. actions have already been made to combat the nuke programs. If it gets close to when Israel will strike, the US will certainly get the UN moving. don't ask me, the problems are political not militaristic in nature. The Iraqi government still needs some problems ironed out. after all, it took the US 13 years to get a strong government together and now you asking Iraq to do that in a fraction of that time. @fardwark: That is more of an "Iraq War" thread post. It's hard to keep them seperate but somehow it ends up over to the Iraqi topic. Something i think will happen when I go to reply to Balschoiw's post.

Walker, if you take the time and look at my post you would see there was no indication or hint to lead you to any answer to that question. and there's a reason why. simply put "you call a fool a fool and they call you a fool." And if you open your eyes for just a second you would realise that the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower left its original post in the Persian gulf to assist in the bombings. All I can say is that it better be back within 25 days or else it will miss the appropriate time to bomb targets in Iran. IF IT DOES NOT: Israel sure is hell would bomb the targets. This would put the middle east between a rock and a hard place because , gee.. no one wants to be killed by a Jew over there. That would mean in their own words --so don't think I'm some sort of Mel Gibson, BUT "lower than the pigs under them." How many countries do you think will jump into a fight like that? Wait before we begin let's start the auction off with 5. because you see, "captian", no Arab would be caught dead without an AK in their hand. With the US as close as a gnats asno to the targets Israel will strike. there bound to bring out jihad joe from the woodwork. And they have to cross Iraq to get to Israel. Do you really think Iraq can stand up to a bunch of angry customers rioting past Baghdad to get to Israel? But let me tack something on the end right here. my age did not permit me to vote, even if i did would you expect me to vote for some one who kept changing his mind every time he found out there was a finger pointing at him? My God; do you think some one of that intolerant to stress should be put into a position can easily decide the fate of mankind? Because I sure as **** wouldn't put the nuke button under a guys finger that has a severe case of identity crisis! But If you somehow get this crazy idea to discuss my decision on who i should have voted for feel free to take it off this topic and into my inbox. because nothing makes my day better than a guy that thinks he has the know-it-all to criticise a person with make-believe facts and made up pictures. (for those who don't get the hint, I'm kinda in a "rip off your arm and use it as a noose on you" mood)

anyone else notice the last two pics aren't even the same guy as the top one? The hair isn't cut high and tight, the guy has a beard, and also has a darker skin tone. not to mention the ears are rounder at the top. Now if you all are in the mood of posting slanderous pics why not show one of yourself? ....not to fond of that idea? Good, because nobody likes these types of pics. their just... wrong. so stop posting them and start talking of actual events that are taking place. I.E. US planes bombing South Somalia. Yeah... it's happening. They were striking suspected hideouts for al-Qaeda. something that popped up during the islamic movement. any sensible comments? Because all I am saying is that the US has bigger fish to fry... Iran.

yeah...... thats a fake. But the concept is real look Here. Keep in mind that this is wikipedia, but it does have a few refferrances to back up the statements. forgot about the pic in the quote sry

This one? (don't remember reading this so I'll just pick at it to show you what i see is wrong) By the order of the United States Congress in 1998 and by the approval of the US Congress in 2002 from This Resolution by that standard, every president from 1948 to now would be executed. after dropping warning leaflets three days before the first bomb dropped saying "people of these listed cities get out, unimaginable destruction will occur very soon." the US hasn't been pointing fingers since the war of 1812... from then on they pointed guns. and from 1945 on we've been pointing nukes. A BIG deterrent. EDIT: Ah... found this: He did have a plan, it just didn't work.

the last major combat was at least 20 years ago. your comparing a flower to a seed here. peace has never been seen in the middle east period. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire the allies divided up the middle east into countries regardless of their beliefs. A point I want to let everyone comprehend is that if you ever take a dictatorship and change it into a democracy, there will be factions that appear and there will be conflict. Just look at Russia the Soviet Union dissolved in '91 the same year the US invaded Iraq. You can still see civil war now. And they have quite a head start on getting peace. But they still haven't achieved it. I heard an opinion the other day that made me laugh when I first heard it but later the concept made sense after I thought about it. It was that the coalition fence off the whole country and not let anyone in or out for at least three decades. not let any ideas come into the country, and not let any foreign goods come into the country. Make it completely independent. When I thought about it, the key thing that makes the success of a civil war possible... is foreign intervention. That seems to be the major problem now, but don't get me wrong I'm not saying the coalition should not be there. you stop that, you stop the fuel to the fire and it will eventually be smothered or die down. When Duke mentions Iraq turning into Vietnam after the US pulls out, I think he's talking about the "domino theory". If the insurgents win there, then they will get stronger and win in Operation: Enduring Freedom-Horn of Africa, then they will get even stronger and win in OEF-Philippines, then get stronger. the next target would be the US and Europe. A grim future for sure.

The US is a country that is blamed for everything going wrong, the terrorists know that if they keep blowing up civvies the rest of the world would blame the US and the US will leave. they saw this tactic during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. they was it done by the vietcong in Vietnam. they are betting that if they can continue with this strategy they will win. AND ITS PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT GIVE THEM HOPE! You doubt the ability of our men and women in uniform and question their actions when most of them have no control of being there. if you can list three specific massacres than you are doing better than CNN. The US soldier isn't some trigger-happy cowboy hell-bent on revenge. he's at the mercy of his officers who are constantly scolded about every political screw up the whole army has done. Trust me when I say the common US soldier doesn't want the phrase "shit rolls" proven to them the hard way. Check your facts. Let me guess, your referring to former Yugoslavia. Another dictator-type regime toppled and had the whole area explode into chaos from deep resentment of each other. Is there a difference? Yes. This time neighboring countries can't seem to keep their own people from getting shot in a different country. Is that why the US has training to combat insurgency and to detect and destroy IED's? Your biased assumption has a very fatal flaw. The majority of Iraqi civilians killed by US gunfire is because they failed to stop at a checkpoint, got caught at the wrong place when Jihad-Joe was shooting at the US, or is killed when holding a gun pointing at a very provocative angle. The common US soldier has been trained hard to deal with stress and is not hesitant to take action against a potential threat. and what does he say oh man who maketh up junk? Does it go something along the lines of the ISF now have control of three provinces, or that hey have been a key role in conducting present operations, or that less than a year ago the US was actually the reserve for an operation carried out by the ISF. is that why in '98 the US congress found that he was not and strongly urged the pres (Clinton) to take action? Iraq was never compliant from '91, when the UN called for the coalition to leave. You see how well the UN is? waste of time. About fully compliant... check out this DoD presentation: DoD Briefing on Iraqi Denial and Deception Note that not all the photos are from the US.

Thats a bunch of crap and you know it, both the Iraqi and Afghani civvilians are impressed by the precesion of the bombs. the only thing that needs touching up is the intell. that in itself would give the accuracy a perfect status. 1) The ratio is very differant than what you create. Most of the Talaban is killed while leaving the cities. All the US has to do is have eyes in the sky and hunt them down when they leave. Thats how it was when the US first invaded Afghanistan. The Talaban would simply try leave, but they were killed tired. 2) The only turmoil I hear is that the Talaban is boarder hopping in the south. The rest of the country is relitiveley calm. but there are occasional suicide bombings. The United States has the right to defend itself. We DO NOT need to pass everything by the UN. The United States itself is a soverign nation. The UN has NO athourity over any nation. To be honest, no one gives a damn of what the UN says. They can piss in their ears till their eyes float and nobody would care. When it comes down do it, the UN is for diplomacy only. and that is what the US did. It pointed out that Iraq was still not in compliance to several resolutions. And took the initiative, along with other soverign nations of the world. It was! you didn't see carpet bombers turn Iraq into a huge crater. You didn't see tanks going through random buildings for the hell of it. you didn't see riflemen barge into common buildings like mosques or schools. They had to get permission from top brass to even think about it. And if you think for a second that there was civillians slaughtered at Fallujah you have one hell of an imagination. US Marines swept through the town waiting to be shot at. they couldn't do a damn thing untill they had concrete proof that their life was in danger. And incendieary munitions, the US hasn't used them since the signing of Protocol III in 1980 put a stop to it. Because of that, US troops ar NOT issued anything of incendieary nature. In fact your so-called slaughter of civilians in Fallujah amounts to 294 killed by US gunfire, airstrikes, artillery, and armor. That's 16.8% considering the population is 175,000 (most estimites put the current population at around 150,000-200,000). And that is the current count. more later... but in need to eat Â

now we start to see "happy new year" change to: <span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>Happy National Hang-Over Day</span>

<span style='font-size:22pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!!!</span></span>

That flies out the window when Sergei Shmatko (A Russian) signs an agreement with Iran to ship fuel to a nuclear power plant it is building in Iran. And that Iran plans to install some 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges. Sounds like they are speeding off to get nukes doesn't it? Sure... a decade, I'd say your generous 8 years. Iran is expected to have nuclear capabilities by the end of 2009. And its safe to say that if the US hasn't done anything by then Israel would be at Iran's throat. From the looks at it, they wouldn't be too afraid to use a few nukes either.

NOTE: My above Post has been edited And who do you think will help Kurdistan? If they will be fighting terrorists (aside from Turkey) who do you think will jump in? I'm sure an agreement with Turkey will come up, though. They have been having troubles with illegal Iranian immigrants coming into Turkey. So much so that they closed off a mountain. I'm sure they wouldn't mind dumping their problems on the Kurds... as long as they don't encroach on Turkish soil.

*sighs* For those who have been "uninformed" let me point out that the USS John C. Stennis and its strike group will be arriving in the Persian Gulf around the first of February. That would put the count up to two carriers and strike forces (USS Dwight D. Eisenhower being the other). This would give the US the ability to fly combat operations for a full 24 hour cycle. Something that is needed when fighting a country a bit more bigger and stronger than Iraq. With the reason of its presents being the Iranian threat, it doesn't take much to determine than an eminent flash point being close to that time. And with the terrorists out running the boarder, you know one of them will get the crazy idea of pulling a USS Cole repeat. A missing Iranian after a US gun firing would be a political mess in my book. Pushing close to an armed confrontation. *EDIT: Oh a side not to let you think about what's going on. In early November Iran said It "will be announced as an established nuclear state during the 2007 Ten Day Dawn ceremonies." The "Ten Day Dawn Celebrations" is from Feb 1st-11th, which is basically right on the nose of when the USS John C. Stennis arrives. let it be noted than nothing in politics is accidental. But back to that new hairy ornament. I would think Kurdistan would appear on the map and be just like Israel to the Arab world... you know the "It should exist" argument.

Well... there is some comfort to watch the bastard rot in a jail cell but you all have to remember that putting him behind bars would endanger the lives of the guards. it's not like some other crazy idiot would try to break him out. but at any rate, woooooo! they done strung that ******* up! Next: Iran! I give it 30 days or so (Might have to make a new topic for Iran, even though the first attack seems like it would be a surprise).

And just how many people want to see it? I was talking to a few of my squad mates and they all feel that it will make its way to YouTube... somehow. But, by God, they are really excited to see it though! It's safe to say at least one tape out of... lets just say many, will leak out to the public.

Another fact (according to official USMC records) is that the flag was from LST-779. Which, ironically, got its flag from a supply depot at Pear Harbor. Anyways... you just don't see major pictures like that anymore. mainly because the press refuses to print them in fear of looking like they support the Iraq War... sad. About the book Flags of our Fathers, it is actually part of ALMAR (the Marine Corp professional reading program). safe to say it's recommended to Marines.

that is something I find off-key. However, I do see what they are getting at with spreading religion is spreading happyness. but I beleive in a value that goes something like "forceing your believe upon annother is not permited." This does NOT restrict displaying your religion (i.e. setting up a christmas tree outside.) You seem suprised, its been that way for quite a long time (past the middle ages). there is also a movement to turn the US into NO-JESUSLAND. look, poloticians are controlled by the people. if the people are largeley religious then there SHOULD NOT BE ANY PROBLEM. There are things that are called "passports" they get you to a differant country. If you dislike the policies set down by the public then leave the public. that would not be an accurate representation of a religious man. same here, but that doens't mean you need to ban the word "God" everywhere. You have a differant vission of what America should be than what I do. I tolerate other religions because those poeple belive thay are doing the right thing. And I respect them for doing that, you could at least do the same... after all, you are an American aren't you? It's that way because people go to extreemism. I'd loose sleep because it's [religion] a big part of US culture. Anyways, I'm signing off for a while... Merry Christmas Happy Hanukkah and other religious holidays I fail to mention. ...and happy New Year too!!!

let me pull it back a bit then: Statement 1) "It's GOVT property and controlled by the US Govt" Statement 2) "why should a private bank force the US population to use currency that invokes the name of a God." First he says the FRS is government property then goes on to say it is a private bank. I'll stop you there. The USD is NOT government property. they may have money in their account but they do NOT own money. If that was true then the US would not be in debt. Do you think its wrong for a store to sell religious items? Noted that i really don't consider the USD as a religious item but that, in a sense, is what you are arguing about. I've noticed, some Americans don't feel it necessary to hold unto the heritage of the United States... what a major problem. To do what!? I can go around yelling that aliens are from the planet "losafoti" but does that control people to believe that? It shows the vanity of everyone saying that they are controlled by the government. You control yourself, if your a minor (in the US) your parents/guardians "control you". Let me bring a big question to this topic: Are you controlled the the government? If you don't have common sense you would say yes, but that just shows how stupid you are to allow yourself to be controlled by any other person besides yourself. My parents are Democrats. What are you saying here? that religion/the government is like a parent? 1) Killing the other guy 2) Killing the other guy 3) Killing that one other guy too 4) Yes, we have guns and morals I'll make sure he's bury upside-down. No one has the right or the authority to kill another innocent human being. You have no idea what war is?

but you did side on taking "God" out of everything. how do you expect to get it out? shouting at random people? welcome to the world of human nature, confusing isn't it? lets look at were the government gets its power, the people. when you say something is wrong you are putting your view over someone else's. now in days there are two major factions in the US, Democrats and Republicans. they are both American people and both say each other is wrong. Thus the party that holds power will receive opposition from the opposite party. If you look back in history, you will see that both parties are sore losers when it comes to losing a close election. If the makers of a shoe feels confident in placing such a phrase on a shoe that states their own religion... then by all means let them do it. It is a free country, that includes religion. and since no one is forced to by only Nike, then there should be no problem in buying another brand of shoes. again the US Congress made NO law to adopt the currency, the congress under the articles of the confederation did. thus it is legal and not violating the first amendment. because the counterfeit money could be used as money to pay the United States as a whole (either government or people). Thus it would be wise for them to stop and destroy the counterfeit money. "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities... Â but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." - Lewis v. United States [680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982)] Looks again: anyone else see the contradiction here? but in answer to the first quote... you are not forced to use US currency inside the US, its just convenient for the debtors for you to use it. Again the power comes from the people of the United States. good luck putting that past them and on to the money. 1) your kid doesn't have to say the pledge at all 2) "one nation under God" has been put into the pledge\ No I believe its known now as one of two names: 1) Union of Russia and Belarus 2) Commonwealth of Independent States It wasn't the Russians who put "under God" into the pledge/currency and it's not up to the Russians to remove it. It was (and is) by the approval of the people of the United States to put (and to take out) the words "under God" into the pledge and currency. And you yourself said "I know I'm part of the minority" so I imagine it will take some time for that to happen. This is how I see it: "The whole thing [about the "God"] is used to control people [even though people are controlled by other people]. Religion is [not] a way to control people [because people have the choice to be atheist or not]. Fear is a way to control ("People" is omitted) [human instinct]. again i shall show what i think: "The US Govt is really talented at using both religion [even though they have no part of it in using it as a basis to do anything] and [peoples] fear [that is blown out of proportion because other people whine and fuss about it to their representatives]. Why would US citizens be apathetic to a country ruled by a man that kills millions of his own countrymen? or a country that has a government that allows it to happen? Politicians are elected citizens of the US, they are chosen and controlled by the people. It shouldn't surprise you if you briefly know the history of man. My way of interpreting that is "If the US doesnt do anything and they attack Israel, Israel will use their nukes to clean out the desert." Eventually Israel will deal with the problem and get criticized for doing it. But let me also tell you this: those affected by extremist propaganda say that if anything goes wrong they are to blame the US. How comforting... I agree with you. The American people, in my opinion, as a whole has lost a few IQ points. All it takes is one loudmouth person to barge into their house our TV schedule to make them scared as hell and spread the word and panic about stupid stuff. If Americans as a whole got active with politics they will see A LOT of things overlooked by the press. BUT! I think you are suggesting that he US Government controls them. That, I disagree with.