Top CS players

**AzH** · 11-08-06, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by WW_BITEME!!

know that is what people are saying but I still support a preemptive global war on terror. In all seriousness we need to get Iraq turned over to their government quickly so we can deal with Iran and N. Korea before those nut jobs get the bomb.

We need to take them out before they figure out how to build it and deliver it...because you know as soon as they have it someone will be taken out...better them then someone in Europe, Asia or USA

I also support a pre-emptive global strike against terror. I do not believe that also means pre-emptive invasions of sovereign nations. Invading Iraq has caused more terrorism rather than preventing it and I don't see how it would make any difference to attack Iran or North Korea in the name of preventing terrorism. This entire Axis of Evil thrown at us by Bush is bullshit. These are nations, Iraq, Iran, North Korea who defy America, and that makes them evil? How, exactly? Sure, human rights abuses are BAD. I do not condone Saddam gassing his people or Kim Jong-il starving his, but to go to war with them? Isn't that a little extreme? The attack on Afghanistan was launched because the Taliban harboured al-Qaeda. They refused to give them up so we went in and did what had to be done against the terrorists. Where does Iraq fit in to this? I don't see how Iraq and the invasion of the county, or the invasion of North Korea, or Iran is a fight against Global Terrorism. This is why the electorate are rejecting the Republican party line and Bush's war.

Agree? Or not?

**WW_BITEME!!** · 11-08-06, 10:08 AM

Iraq, Iran, Syria & Afghanistan ...These countries are definitely in on the war on terror. All of them have trained and armed terrorists with money and weapons for actions outside their boarders. Iraq, Iran & Syria mainly in Lebanon to go against Israel. Afghanistan to train terrorists for action in USA, Spain, Italy & UK. Now most of them are training now in Iran and Pakistan. Pakistan government is doing what it is able right now to round up the terrorists there. Iraq has been taken off line as well as Afghanistan.

This leaves Iran and Syria....With Iran you have a nut job as a president there. Where he on one side claims the nuclear plants are for energy he on the other side wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. Peaceful purposes my ass! As for Syria they are Iran's puppet and currently is training terrorists.

As for N Korea...They have nothing to do with terror yet....however it would no surprise me if they try to sell nuclear materials, missile technology and yellow cake to Iran for $$ they need. Also a important factor is Kim jong-il is a bona fide nut job....

the world is not a big place. If these rouge nations develop the bomb I am certain they will use it....what do they care they will all go to meet their virgins...

**Evil** · 11-08-06, 11:56 AM

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be resigning shortly. :Y:

I'll post an article as soon I can find one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/rumsfeld_resigns
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6130296.stm

**AzH** · 11-08-06, 12:04 PM

All information to the contrary:

http://news.google.co.uk/news/url?sa...cid=1110892198

http://news.google.co.uk/news/url?sa...cid=1110892198

http://news.google.co.uk/news/url?sa...cid=1110993723

**Evil** · 11-08-06, 12:07 PM

I understand why we went into Afganistan but their was no justification for invading Iraq. It appears that we just went into Iraq for oil and because someone came up with some wonderful plan to bring democracy to the Middle East, starting with Iraq. The only problem is that U.S. forces are not seen as liberators and few people want a democracy.

I've always seen North Korea as the biggest threat but we always just brush them off. They test nuclear weapons and all we basically do is tell them "Don't do that anymore." Pathetic.

The UN needs to get off its ass and start actually doing something productive.

**WW_BITEME!!** · 11-08-06, 12:21 PM

nope i just heard Bush's speach. Rummy is resigning....Gonna miss his speaches!!

**The Bear** · 11-08-06, 12:24 PM

Damn, I just heard about this on the radio. All I have to say is it's about damn time.

**Irish** · 11-08-06, 12:41 PM

*"Rumsfeld Resigning" Thread merged with this one.*

It looks like Rumsfeld had the option to stand down, or, given recent election results - inflict further damage to his party in the following years. It seems the majority of the American population want a new sense of direction/review of plan of action in the War on Terror, and that by introducing a fresh face Bush hopes to achieve this. I have read from the BBC that Robert Gates will be the replacement, but know nothing about this guy, how will he affect the War on Terror policy?

**imported_Chris** · 11-08-06, 02:07 PM

It's one thing to invade a country for all the wrong reasons. However, the thing that ticks me off most is when the politicians try to tell the military how to do its job in said country.

Ever since the shit hit the fan, everyone in Congress has been pushing for the military to do this, that, and another thing, and all whilst pressuring our generals to give them a time table for when everything will be finished. Simple fact is, you should not permit those who lack any sort of military education to control the armed forces, in any way what so ever. It's like having a 10-year-old try to tell a four-star general how to do his job. It simply doesn't work, and the effects of that are showing in Iraq.

As for getting our of Iraq, quite frankly, I would prefer it to be sooner rather than latter. This was is over, and quite frankly there's nothing more we can do for Iraq. At this stage, the only thing pissing me off is that we've lost 3000 dead and over 10,000 wounded, and for what? To screw a country up even more than it was prior to being invaded? Next time, we need to think before we let our anger dictate our actions.

**Kurb King** · 11-08-06, 08:39 PM

The current war in Iraq will probably go down as one of the biggest fuck ups in American history. However I dont understand how people can say we should just cut our losses and pull out. We would be much better off right now if we had never invaded and left Saddam to subjugate Iraq, but if we pull out now and leave Iraq unstable, the consequence would be Iraq becoming a breeding ground for international terrorism. All that death and suffering would have only helped promote the terrorist cause and give them a new safe haven. That is why Iraq is now important to the war on terror and why we should not leave until Iraq stable.

I think it is funny that the republicans always talk about how they stand strong on the war on terror and national security, yet the in an election where the war on terror and national security are probably the most important issues for many voters the democrats win. This clearly show people want a new plan for the war on terror and the war in Iraq and I hope we get one that works.

However I dont think the dems will really make anything better, but they just used the fact that people are sick of a republican controlled government mishandling the war on terror to get elected. The war in Iraq will probably continue as it has been and there will only be more partisan finger pointing in congress.