Gideon- The difference is that we didn't have such a large scale operation in Bosnia, we did not fight a massive ground war, and we did NOT LOOSE LIVES. Further, it was not based on oil or supposed WMDs which never showed up, and it was NOT based on what we now know whas faulty and sloppy inteleigence created by the President and his administration.
As I live in America, a SECULAR nation your regards to gods will do little to assure me that this is the right way to go. I don't object to war against Iran or Saudi Arabia if they say we will attack you even if you don't provoke us. The real problem is much deepen than this forum has realized. The problem lies within our need for oil. You see oil rules the economy. If the price of oil goes up quickly, it will have a devestating effect on the western w
Absolutley Saudi Arabia is a country that we should not at all asosciate ourselves with. And you are right we should not have gone into Iraq, it was a horrible mistake. They had no weapons. But what if the same thing happens in Iran?
I consider myself to be fully independent, but with a definate lean to the left. In response to you lee, yes but. They were right to be fought but were they worth the expense and the cost of life. I would like to hear your opinion on the Iran preemptive issue (its another topic, you might want to look at it). I believe the original point was to indicate the fact that infact Kerry was not correct in his statement. I think this all depends on his[/I o
Zod, I think that is a horrible thing to say. I refuse to even debate with you the merits of your discusion. How can you promote the slaying of innocent people through a war against the United States. How can you say I am all for a war that doesn't involve me? Canada depends... DEPENDS on the United States. Clearly an attack on the USA would be an attack on Canada, as canada no doubt would be drawn into the war. Madine- i misspoke, I meant that it coul
Pornography is not covered by the right to free speach, however it is covered by the right to the pursuit of happiness.
People have the right to pursuit of happiness, and if this to them means participating in sports, than it is neither the place of the government nor you to tell people when they can and can not pursue such happiness. I take problem with the propsal even when religion is removed from the context, as it is a violation of the individual and civil rights of people. Again, I don't see how people participating in sports can be linked in any way to health con
If you can't explain to me your need to have such armament, then maybe it is time for an ammendment to the constitution banning certain weapons.
Not true. The founding fathers were at one time citizens. the only difference between their wording and current wording is the society and times that they lived in.
Depending on your definition of had. The iraq war was not sold as a defense war.
kingbee. you have failed to indicate to me your need for such a weapon. Banning all guns in unconstitutional, banning certain guns is not. Unless another amendment is made, the federal goverment can not ban weapons. Is a single state capable of banning the sale of assult type weapons? For example, could they pass a law saying any company with sharholders in x-state can not make, market or sell such weapons.
Japanese attack on pearl harbor was not in any way a preemptive attack, but rather an antaginization, considering the US had no intent to enter the war. Also, we need to wait until attacked before launching an attack on Iran. They are probbably blowing steam, considering nobody in their right mind would start a war with the United States and all of our allies. In the event of such an attack, we would need to relocate all of our troops worldwide, and w
Note- because of allies we sort of were forced into world war I as well.
Will you agree that the circumstances at the time when the constitution was written do not exsist today (for expample, since there are laws against killing people except in self defense, any uprising by the people with weapons would be illegal to begin with). Are you further suggesting that what is happening in Iraq is a good thing? I do believe there is a word for those people in Iraq, and its not a militia. Its terrorists. Car bombs? Killing civilian
I agree completley. Anyways, although the 2nd ammendment does state that people have the right to bear arms, it also says, unless im not understanding it, that they can do this because it is nesicary for the protection of a free state. That leads me to believe that a state military can have arms, and ordinary citizens can have arms, but only to an extent as to protect oneself or onestate. Furthermore, it specifically states that the right of the people
The beginning of thought is in disagreement, so I am glad that we are having this discusion. No, I don't believe that the government should control pornography. Nor should they control alcohol consumption. Not even immoral behavior. They should control these things when there is the posibility it could lead to the rights of others being taken away (i.e. in the case where one is being abusive, driving while drunk, or for example pornography being viewed
I have beta tested the new power politics and there was some sort of confidentiality clause involved in beta testing... but for me it seems complicated and not a quick game. I would go with President Forever, which I purchased and love because its a good simulator that can be a quick game and not too complicated.
I agree with JMdenver reply 9 and aaron reply 10
Thanks
I would like to start a discussion on your analasys of the second amendment to the constitution: Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
How could you posibly propse a law to force people to not participate in organized sports on sundays? How would you feel if the organizations propsed a law to ban sunday school because it interfered with their enrollment. The job of enrolment and attendence is not one that should be taken on by the country but rather by the parents and the church. Many people dont participate in sunday school, and you would be forcing your beliefs on them. Also, the id
I am a beta tester for Power Politics 3, and I have President Forever. Of course this games demo has not come out yet so I have been as yet unable to play this game, but based on the experiences I have had so far I would say go with President Forever. It is indepth enough, lets you go multiplayer against other people in your house, but its also not too increadibly complicated, time consuming or challenging. Also they have from what I can tell good supp
ah.. what did I do wrong there?
I don't think they couldn't make it without being part of the US. /<TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class="mb-Body-Quote-Tab
I would wait to try the demo before buying this game, though I myself have been waiting and the demo is still not out. President Forever by 80soft is an excelent game and is (I think) a much more strategic game, granted I have not yet played Political Machine. I enjoy this type of game, and am considering trying that other game brought up... <TD class="mb-Body