Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

1. Sabers
2. Force
3. All out
Takes place on the Death Star I observation dome with Sidious as an observer.

Vader takes all three. why? because even though marek has all this crap that he can do, Vader is supposed to grow up to be 160% of sideous and has been a jedi for just as long, and unless marek is supposed to be more powerful then the chosen one... well... these movies are screwed.

^Agreed

yes but its not just about how long they were trained for, but about how extensive the training was. I can imagine Darth Vader not holding back on Galens training at all, and just teaching him how to go all out and kill jedis.

whilst Obi1 would always be trying to teach Anakin patience, and teaching him TO hold back.

anyway, Anakin will take the saber fight quite for sure.

but as for the Force, Galen is easily a match for suited Vader in that respect.. and we know suited Vader has grown much stronger with his use of the Force than he ever was as Anakin..
Also we see in the new clone wars movie how Dooku overpowers Anakin in the Force.. and in ROTS he stalemates Obi1 in the Force Push each other scene.

So Galen takes the Force fight quite comfortably.

All out? I dnt knw.. its always difficult to tell when one opponent is so much better in sabers, but the other much better in the Force. But I think im leaning towards Galen.

Marek FTW.

Marek loses the sabers, takes the force and the all-out.

1. Sabers - Vader, 10/10.
2. Force - Marek, 8/10.
3. All Out - Vader, 7/10.

ow. it hurts star wars when the "chosen one" is beat down in force by some punk.

Considering that almost eighteen years pass between the end of RotS and the end of TUF, it's possible that Marek may have had more tutoring than Skywalker.

Originally posted by Faunus
Considering that almost eighteen years pass between the end of RotS and the end of TUF, it's possible that Marek may have had more tutoring than Skywalker.

It's a shame we never see Vader's full display of Force powers before he's in the suit. His saber ability certainly increases, which would imply Force powers. But the only fight scene while he's Vader is against Obi-Wan, when his psychological state is so screwed up he can only stalemate his former master in Force Power.

Just after he gets put in the suit, his Force Scream crushes the entire medical bay...insinuating that indeed, his Force abilities were no joke.

That, and many of Galen's feats are "exaggerated" because of the nature of the video game.

Yeah its not that exaggerated. He slows down an SD with EXTREME difficulty, in fact he barely avoids it. It is still impressive but still. He did however electrocute a Sarlaac with force lightning. But he struggled against SHAAK TI, I mean come on she couldn't beat GG with the support of four other Jedi. Galen might even lose to Pre-Suit Vader in the force

The SD point is completely accurate. He manipulates an already falling ship, and nearly gets killed because once he crashes it, he can't stop it.

Very cool.

Id say GM takes all three. His force feats are very impressive, like the before mentioned eletrocuting the sarlacc and bringing down the star destroyer. Towards the end of his fight with Vader he tosses him around like a rag doll, and he even goes toe to toe with the Emperor and holds off his lightning bare handed for a good while. What have we seen from Anakin that is comparable to these feats?

And yes GM struggled with Shaak Ti but that was earlier in the game, his powers are much greater towards the end. That should be obvious since he gets owned by Vader after his fight with Shaak Ti, but then at the end GM defeats Vader straight up.

Also to anyone saying that the feats in TFU are exaggerated, thats a lame excuse. How is it more exaggerated than people blowing up stars or ripping up star fleets? But in any case, the feats are canon. The end.

Originally posted by Enyalus
It's a shame we never see Vader's full display of Force powers before he's in the suit. His saber ability certainly increases, which would imply Force powers. But the only fight scene while he's Vader is against Obi-Wan, when his psychological state is so screwed up he can only stalemate his former master in Force Power.

Just after he gets put in the suit, his Force Scream crushes the entire medical bay...insinuating that indeed, his Force abilities were no joke.

That, and many of Galen's feats are "exaggerated" because of the nature of the video game.

Actually in the ROTS video game cutscene, presuit vader was able to force lift a massive temple statue and sent it flying like a missle.

Yeah, but I doubt that that was Canon.

It is canon according to leland chee.

Marek, probably.

Vader takes the sabers, but loses the rest. I despise Marek's character.

Originally posted by Tangible God
Vader takes the sabers, but loses the rest. I despise Marek's character.

Meh I thought he was a great character. He actually had the balls to storm in to the Death Star and fight Vader and the Emperor.....unlike Obi wan and Yoda who prefer to sit on their ass.

I hate his character for the power he's given. Every game, the writers have to up the ante. It's becoming tiring.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Also to anyone saying that the feats in TFU are exaggerated, thats a lame excuse. How is it more exaggerated than people blowing up stars or ripping up star fleets? But in any case, the feats are canon. The end.

Since the game developers say so on TFU website, under Media Gallery > web docs > "The TFU Experience" (I think).

That's when.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Meh I thought he was a great character. He actually had the balls to storm in to the Death Star and fight Vader and the Emperor.....unlike Obi wan and Yoda who prefer to sit on their ass.

Very good point... I mean, would we pick Galen>ROTS Obi-Wan AND ROTS Yoda? I think not. but he did come very close to destroying both of their enemies. Question: Why didn't Organa contact Yoda or Obi-Wan? another question: i was under the impression that Shaak Ti died on the invisible hand, execution style to General Grievous?

And finally: Don't Forget, Marek pulls down a sky bridge with the force, to me, THAT'S more impressive than stopping a star destroyer.... Second, he powered a Capital-class ship, using only the force from his own body. he also killed hundreds of droids at once with one massive attack. Each of those feats surpass the SD incident.


Finally, and i hate to say i told you so: but remember when the trailer first came out of the secret apprentice and the SD? and everybody was all OMG, he pulled a star destroyer out of Orbit and crashed it on the ground!!!!! and i said, and you could find it if you went and looked for it:

"hold on, mebbe he didn't pull it down, there is no evidence of that, maybe its crashing and he just stopped it from crushing him"

yeah, i said that... i don't feel half bad about that prediction now

Nice post Truejedi.

Originally posted by Elite Hunter
Nice post Truejedi.


Exactly what I was thinking.

Oh ya and Starkiller DID pull the Star Destroyer out of the sky with the Force. Not manipulating its controls. If you have read the book you will know this.

Originally posted by kotorfan
Exactly what I was thinking.

Oh ya and Starkiller DID pull the Star Destroyer out of the sky with the Force. Not manipulating its controls. If you have read the book you will know this.

he didn't pull it down. it was crashing, gravity pulled it down. He directed where it landed. I was wrong about the controls. (i have read the book)

And again, he couldn't even stop it fully once it hit the ground.

He's not very "exaggerated" at all.

This was in the deleted scenes of Revenge of the Sith, but not in the novelization or in the Actual Movie. Ergo, it is not considered cannon. It does, however, illustrate the power that GL imagines Grievous to hold: being considered able to take out a High Council member without throwing the power balance out of whack speaks strongly to the General's prowess.



And the U.S couldn't even occupy the entire Mid-East. A star destroyer would have unspeakable inertia, bringing it to a complete halt would require massive amounts of energy. The feat of bringing it down is impressive in its own right, when the power of a capital ship's engines are taken into effect. The Republic Assault ship's specs. say that it's reactors could put out 2*10^23 wats, pitting the power of cold fusion/future tech. vs. one man's magical organelles. Darn straight its impressive!

Originally posted by Jbill311
And the U.S couldn't even occupy the entire Mid-East.Don't lie to me.

I know it's impressive. I think it's cool that he couldn't stop the damn thing.

Originally posted by Jbill311
And the U.S couldn't even occupy the entire Mid-East.

No, but we can blow it off of the map completely.

The Middle East is pretty vast for a million soldiers to cover and occupy.

For the record, Israel could wipe the 'DAMN' thing off of the map. We don't even have to do it ourselves.

i cant wait for isreal to but that dick Ahmadidijad (i dont care if i mispelled it, he doesn't deserve proper grammer!) in his place and turn Iran into a nuclear waste land! i can just see it! Him, telling the world that Iran is going to wipe Isreal off the map for the millionth time when suddenly, out of f*cking no where! a jet fighter flies overhead and kills every last mother f*cker there!

On topic, he MOVED A STAR DESTROYER!!!! thats increadible! it is millions of tons and he was able to move it! No one ever did anythig like that before!

Your first paragraph displays a startling disregard for the lives of the citizens of that nation who have done nothing to you or to any resident of another country. There is no threat that justifies the use of nuclear weapons, as they are more costly in terms of civilian lives than even the tactics of the terrorists in al Quieda (sp?).

On topic: Woot!onetwothreefour!!? he moved teh space ship

I wouldn't mind it if Ahmadina-cockhead was blown up some day, preferably in his "Jews are evil! Muslims are good! Praise Allah! Burn the blasphemous fools!" speech number 111110000111, but nuclear bombs aren't necessary. Killing all the people in Iran will only cause people to hate Israel more, and it will eventually resort to a full-blown nuclear war. All you need is an H-Bomb or two to destroy Israel; it's a very small country. Blowing up Iran isn't the smartest idea.

To me, nukes will forever be overkill. He is not a very stable leader, but the biggest problem is that there are people who think like him. As long as religion can be used to divide and provide scapegoats there will be conflict. The problem isn't even Islam, it is the extremists who have hijacked it for their own purposes. Fundies of any creed pose a threat to sane people everywhere, even those of their own faith. He is part of the problem, but the bigger picture is that his way of thinking is acceptable to so many.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
On topic, he MOVED A STAR DESTROYER!!!! thats increadible! it is millions of tons and he was able to move it! No one ever did anythig like that before!

It was falling...He slows its momentum down enough for it to not skid into him and crush him flat, with the assistance of gravity, wind resistance, and friction.

Really, half the wars in history, in addition to a majority of oppression and persecution of people was because of religion, which is a person's interpretation of what is written in a f*cking book. I find it ironic, funny, and sad how millions of people have died because of some random statement in some random page of some random book. I've heard that the whole 'Jihad' thing- which is basically why people blow themselves up in a bus- is actually a bullshit interpretation of a quote (or an intentionally bullshit interpretation?).

I hate organized religion because of stupid, nazi-esque extremists like Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden, etc, but do not be fooled- they exist in Christianity and Judaism, as well. Take the Catholic League, for example. A bunch of fanatics who try to ban every single 'offensive', 'sinful', or 'corrupting' in the media. From South Park to Spongebob. Yeah, it's pathetic.

And yeah, nukes will always be overkill because there are always innocents everywhere; even in Nazi Germany, there were people who disagreed with the regime and actually helped out Jews. I have no qualms about killing fanatical people who commit crimes against humanity, but I've always thought that killing 'innocent bystanders' sucks.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Really, half the wars in history, in addition to a majority of oppression and persecution of people was because of religion, which is a person's interpretation of what is written in a f*cking book.

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon.

Look the ragheads have a long way to go if they are to match the evils committed by Christians(Protestant, Catholics, Orthodox,etc).

Originally posted by Enyalus
"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon.
"History is written by the victors, whether it be all of the truth or not"-Lucifer

Ah, dear 'ole Lucy.

Originally posted by Enyalus
"History is a set of lies agreed upon." - Napoleon.

"'Big' religious people are power-obsessed and hypocritical." - Me.

My quotes > Napoleon's, any day. He's short. Do you need more reasoning? If so, my good sir, you are in need of therapy.

Don't forget about evangelicals trying to get evolution out of schools, or at least get ID in (god forbid). There is a lot wrong with blind faith.

yeah, nukes are overkill... still, nuclear war would be fun!!!! hahaha, no but i completely agree. Organized religion is the root of most evil in the past and present, and i pry to the atheist gods that they will not be in the future. Even in America, a "secular" (yeah, right) country, if an atheist or agnostic or non religious person EVER ran for presidency, they would be laughed and stoned out of the country. Its quite scary really. An look who our president is. a man who said "God" told him to invade Iraq. Sure. Okay.

And the "ragheads" did quite a few terrible things in their time and are still doing terrible things now. Christians just had a head start. and if the bible is to be believed (hahaha), the people of my mother and father, the jews, committed quite a few genocides.

Yes. Organized religion, or at least stinking fanatics like the Catholic League suck.

And you're joking, right? They're trying to get evolution out of school? Someone should tell them that, you know, most people who go to normal schools aren't religious. If you aren't religious, shouldn't you learn about stuff from a non-religious viewpoint? Or are they trying to force people into being religious?

They also HATE free-speech. Feminism, too. And homosexuality- don't even get to that! And, god fear it, abortion! And children knowing what sex is! They will become evil, evil people!

And dare I say it...? Dare I speak the cursed word? Yes, I must. Harry Potter. It's the root of all evil in the world. It causes children to embrace satanic beliefs! Because children are mindless, stupid, and Harry Potter is pro-Satan propaganda! J.K Rowling must be burned!

Try Googling 'Kansas Evolution'

Wikipedia works, and even though the issue is settled, the sheer cheek of attempting to teach religion in schools is scary.

we need Thomas Jefferson to come back to life and kick their asses. I miss TJ. He owned with his 1776 atheism and good sense. He'll whip America into shape.

I want FDR. He was badass.

Zombie Abe Lincoln FTW. He eats brains AND is infallable.

Originally posted by Faunus
I want FDR. He was badass.

Amen.

Ye gods, keep Jefferson out of office...that many nearly wrecked US economy with the horrifically conceived embargo act...FDR? Hoo yeah.

And technically Jefferson was a deist.

Atheism is a little too hardcore, not to mention limiting if you apply the logic used in determining your "faith" to everything else in life. Agnosticism's where it's at.

Bush=Hoover

Originally posted by Faunus
Atheism is a little too hardcore, not to mention limiting if you apply the logic used in determining your "faith" to everything else in life. Agnosticism's where it's at. Agnostics are just atheist's without balls, so says the prophet Stevan Colbert.

Colbert can suck it, then. Not believing in something but acknowledging the possibility of it in a manner that doesn't interfere with your life makes more sense than completely banishing an idea without being able to actually disprove it.

Faunus, we ARE well aware of Colbert being a comedian and humorist, right? Heck, in the same section, he says about Shintoism: "It's not a religion...it's Pokemon!"

That was a good book. I loled so much! and if i even acknowledged that there might even be a possibility of God, or a god, or gods, i would be lieing to myself. I just cant believe in something so absurd, that is only held in existance today because it "cant be proven". A flying speghetti monster cant be proven either, but that doesn't mean that there is even any remote chance that it exists. No, complete atheism is the road for me.

One of my favorite lines ever:

"Without God, Atheists wouldn't exist."

I hate god.

He's basically like the guy who puts a gun to a girl's head and says love or suffer and die, except god doesn't want sex, he wants worship.

I choose hell.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
"'Big' religious people are power-obsessed and hypocritical." - Me.

My quotes > Napoleon's, any day. He's short. Do you need more reasoning? If so, my good sir, you are in need of therapy.
Napoleon's being short is a common myth. He was in reality taller than the average Frenchman of the day

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Napoleon's being short is a common myth. He was in reality taller than the average Frenchman of the day British propaganda, their mixing up the French and English measurements, and the average height of the time... yup.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Faunus, we ARE well aware of Colbert being a comedian and humorist, right? Heck, in the same section, he says about Shintoism: "It's not a religion...it's Pokemon!" That's really embarrassing. I saw "Stevan" and went "WTF?"

We're talking about the Steven Colbert who puts O'Reilly on his list of the worst people in the world every week? Still kinda sad, but okay.

O'Reilly should die.

O'Reilly is the greatest conservative entertainer on the planet. He should not die.

Originally posted by Faunus
O'Reilly is the greatest conservative entertainer on the planet. He should not die.

Plus, he has teh uber phonesex.

And he yells a lot. A lot.

Gideon, are you a conservative? *knows the answer*

Keyword. Conservative...
Load of ****ing hypocrites
Friday, September 19, 2008

Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.
Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet.
Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two 8-year old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial.
Republican fundraiser Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican campaign chairman Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child and was arrested again five years later on the same charge.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter, Susan Smith, who later drowned her 2 children by strapping them in their car seats and plunging them into a lake in South Carolina and blamed it on a black man. Beverly Russell admitted abusing Smith when she was 15 and continuing an incestuous relationship with her until shortly before she drowned her children in John D. Long Lake.
Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty", was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced prison after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.

Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican campaign worker, police officer and self-proclaimed reverend Steve Aiken was convicted of having sex with two underage girls.
Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency. See excerpt of one prisoner's report here and his full report here.

shit....i only read some of that and it is quite vile. christ. well, Sarah Palin's hot. Owned.

Palin's an idiot.

She is so hot...

But,still...

But still, she's an idiot. And so are people who go after her daughters. And so are the die-hard Obama-worshippers.

Biden is a badass, though. He owns.

Originally posted by Faunus
Palin's an idiot.

They should define 'MILF' as 'Sarah Palin.'

Originally posted by Enyalus
They should define 'MILF' as 'Sarah Palin.' Damn, I love you.

I'm sure that urban dictionary thing already has.

This is quite the election isn't it. Personally, i am for Mccain, because i dont trust obama as far as i can throw him. He has done nothing to prove that he can change jack shit, and he has zero executive experiace.

And he's have Scot-Irish=Bano playing cousin fvcking hillbillies...

One tier below rednecks of the south.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
This is quite the election isn't it. Personally, i am for Mccain, because i dont trust obama as far as i can throw him. He has done nothing to prove that he can change jack shit, and he has zero executive experiace.

QFT.

QFT?

Originally posted by DarkSerpent
QFT?

"Quoted For Truth."

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
This is quite the election isn't it. Personally, i am for Mccain, because i dont trust obama as far as i can throw him. He has done nothing to prove that he can change jack shit, and he has zero executive experiace. Ugh.

What has McCain done in twenty-something years in office? What notably infamous and stupid president has he voted with repeatedly?What executive experience does he have? Hm? But wait! His qualifications don't matter, because Palin was the mayor of a really, really small town, then governor of Alaska for less than two years. And oh, yeah, she "killed" the Bridge to Nowhere after Congress cut the funds for it, and then she decided to completely ignore the fact that she'd supported it in her campaign.

Hell, since McCain is such a patriotic hotshot, what CIC experience would he have? None? But wait! Palin to the rescue! She commanded the Alaskan National Guard - y'know the most powerful ****ing military force on the planet - and she's situated about 50 miles from a barren corner of Russia! OMG, she's so ready.

And of course, Avis, since you're clearly not a creationist, I'm glad you're so thrilled that she thinks Jesus buried the dinosaur bones. Good for you, for agreeing that only in a life-threatening situation should a woman be allowed to abort an unwanted pregnancy (nevermind rape-victims).

You're probably wondering why I'm bashing on Palin so much? For one, McCain's staying out of the news a little, although his attack ads are about as inaccurate as you could get. The second reason would be that it's highly likely John McCain wouldn't complete his first term as President. Six months in, he'd turn 73. For a man with his history of health conditions to be in the highest office on the planet, hitting the average age of death would be lucky. And him dying would mean President Palin, and that would be it.

Seriously. I'm an extremely open-minded person, but McCain/Palin supporters are the ones who brought Bush to term twice. I'll be damned if this country lets them make that mistake again.

Originally posted by Faunus
That's really embarrassing. I saw "Stevan" and went "WTF?"

We're talking about the Steven Colbert who puts O'Reilly on his list of the worst people in the world every week? Still kinda sad, but okay.

He loves Papa Bear!

why thank you.
On a side note, i dont believe that the 2 party system of government we have is at all effective, because of the constant bickering between parties which accomplishes nothing. However, a one party system has also been proven to fail, most notably the communist soviet russia. All this election is really turning into is Republican vs Democrat, hell, Hilary even said it: "We need a democrat to win!!!111!!!1!". Not we need obama to win, but a democrat. hmm. Your views?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
This is quite the election isn't it. Personally, i am for Mccain, because i dont trust obama as far as i can throw him. He has done nothing to prove that he can change jack shit, and he has zero executive experiace.

You know who else has zero executive experience? John McCain. Obama has actually helped to achieve just as much in his career as McCain in senate and unlike McCain he didn't ride on the 'Sacred POW' story every time an election came up.

And ANYONE should be blatantly insulted by McCain in this election, with the lies he's put forth and expected people to believe

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Obama has actually helped to achieve just as much in his career as McCain in senate

No...just no. But, if I wanted to debate politics, I'd go visit the General Discussion forum again (I loved that 'Sarah Palin???' thread).

Yes. Just yes. Voting aside, look who've helped create, sponsor and pass bills. McCain's career has been a practical nothing in the senate. And considering he dropped his 'maverick' status in favor of 'whore to the conservatives when he needs electing?'

The Republican party got f*cked over by the Bush administration. Now, they're compounding their problems by trying to stack Palin up there to satisfy women. I swear, if she calls herself a hockey mom one more time I'm going to hurt someone real bad.

What's worse than her idea of a good acceptance speech is that she got humiliated by Charlie Gibson. While he is quite certainly the man, he was fairly mellow in their interview. She didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine was. She's like "how do u mean, doctrine, wut doctrine?!" And Campbell Brown asked one of McCain's spokesmen for one example of Palin using the Alaskan National Guard, and he got pissed off at her.

The Republicans better f*cking lose this race.

What gets me is what a vindictive woman Palin is. She stocked the Alaska board with personal cronies, pursued personal vendettas in office and has shown she has zero respect for anything resembling rules or regulation. Her strict fundie stance? Her and McCain's usurpation of the 'change' logo? Yeah, Palin is pathetic. McCain even moreso.

That people figured he'd play an honorable campaign after what Bush did to him in 2000 is hilarious in retrospect

And who do you want to win? The virtually unknown, inexpierianced, Obama, who has nothing but "promises of change" to run on? Hell, give me a couple million bucks and i can do that. I am almost as qualified! All i gotta do is sit in the Chicago senete for a few years, doing nothing at all nothworthy, and then in the Senete for 2 years, continuing to do nothing noteworthy, and BOOM!!!! i can run for presidant. Come on. really? If there was a good third party candidate who had any chance of winning, they would have my vote. I am just going for the lesser of two evils.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
What gets me is what a vindictive woman Palin is. She stocked the Alaska board with personal cronies, pursued personal vendettas in office and has shown she has zero respect for anything resembling rules or regulation. Her strict fundie stance? Her and McCain's usurpation of the 'change' logo? Yeah, Palin is pathetic. McCain even moreso.

That people figured he'd play an honorable campaign after what Bush did to him in 2000 is hilarious in retrospect Like everyone else, I respect McCain's service. But if he thinks that gives him White House credentials, he's sorely mistaken. He never was a man of vision; protect America, because it owns, is basically his mantra. And forgetting how many houses he has was the icing on the cake, for me. I lol'd when Biden picked that up.

Honestly, I'm not too sure about Obama myself, but I have complete faith in Biden. Outspoken, smart, experienced, and grounded in reality, although the "change" bit to Obama's campaign is dulled a tad when you consider that Biden has been in Washington longer than McCain has. Thing is, I know what McCain and Palin would do to this country. At worst, Obama is the lesser of two evils.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
And who do you want to win? The virtually unknown, inexpierianced, Obama, who has nothing but "promises of change" to run on? Hell, give me a couple million bucks and i can do that. I am almost as qualified! All i gotta do is sit in the Chicago senete for a few years, doing nothing at all nothworthy, and then in the Senete for 2 years, continuing to do nothing noteworthy, and BOOM!!!! i can run for presidant.
Know what the qualifications for running for President in this country even are? Obama is not the least experienced candidate ever to run. And you neglect his work as a community organizer, in the state legislature and in the US senate where, again, he achieved as much in McCain in sponsoring, creating and passing bills-bipartisan ones no less- in his short time there. Yeah, no experience at all

The one who sold out to those who have run out country further into the ground these past eight years? The lesser of two evils who has constantly lied, whored out when he's needed votes, selected the least qualified candidate he had just when he needed the votes to make a hypocrite of himself on the matter of experience, has run constantly on the Sacred POV story, has constantly and consistently disregarded any HINT of honor or morality in his campaign, who votes with Bush 90 percent of the time at LEAST...

As opposed to the guy with less experience who's been upfront and honest about what he's intended and has never pretended otherwise? Who picked an experienced man as his VP? Who has shown willingness to cross party lines and keep from sinking to the level of his opponents?

LS: "Voting aside"? That's how things get done in the Senate. If you set voting aside - which Obama does a lot considering his no-vote record - he's done nothing.

Faunus: In her defense, "Bush Doctrine" is quite vague. I mean, did Charlie mean, "Do you support the war in Iraq?" "Do you support the war on terror?" "Do you support the notion that God talks to presidents and tells them to invade places?" "Do you support ruining the US economy?" "Do you support selling nuclear secrets to India for a lower trade price of mangos?"

You know?

Originally posted by Faunus
Like everyone else, I respect McCain's service. But if he thinks that gives him White House credentials, he's sorely mistaken. He never was a man of vision; protect America, because it owns, is basically his mantra. And forgetting how many houses he has was the icing on the cake, for me. I lol'd when Biden picked that up.

Honestly, I'm not too sure about Obama myself, but I have complete faith in Biden. Outspoken, smart, experienced, and grounded in reality, although the "change" bit to Obama's campaign is dulled a tad when you consider that Biden has been in Washington longer than McCain has. Thing is, I know what McCain and Palin would do to this country. At worst, Obama is the lesser of two evils.
I respect McCain as a war hero. I dislike how he's reduced it to nothing by making a political career out of it. He breaks out the 'Sacred POW' story CONSTANTLY.

And I've researched Obama enough to respect him a great deal. Biden as well, despite that 'plagiarism' nonsense the right's tried to brand him with. Frankly, though the attempts to portray Obama as an out of touch elitist given his background and upbringing compared to John McCain...it's absurd

Originally posted by Enyalus
LS: "Voting aside"? That's how things get done in the Senate. If you set voting aside - which Obama does a lot considering his no-vote record - he's done nothing.
Nothing except sponsoring and helping to create several major bills you mean?
And 'no-vote record?' Obama's got a higher attendance record than McCain!


Bush Doctrine. Full stop. She didn't even ask for elaboration

Oh, and did you hear McCain not even realizing who 'Zapatero' was in 'Spain' and went for generic saber rattling?

But maybe Obama would do something FAR WORSE than anything Mccain can do. or maybe he is Jesus sent down from heaven to save us. We dont know. But with the economy in the state that it is in, with the possibility of nuclear war between Iran and Isreal, Pakistan and Indea, North Korea and anywhere because Kin Jong Il is crazy, and my parents land of Russia starting to return to its Soviet tricks, can we afford to have Obama as president? Maybe he is Jesus and will fix all of that, but most likely, he wont. In fact, with his liberal views, he will make them worse. He should try telling Putin to nicely stop (i know Medvediv is president, but Putin is pulling the strings) and watch as Putin goes all KGB on his ass. Or he should tell Ahmididjhad to lay off of Isreal. Yeah, right. Or he should increase taxes and hope that the economy gets in order. no, no, no. He simply isn't the man for the job. If it were Biden, i agree, he is a far better candidate, but he isn't on the top of the ticket now is he?

Barack Obama is the most arrogant politician I can ever, directly, remember.

And his wife...my God...just, horrible.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
But maybe Obama would do something FAR WORSE than anything Mccain can do. or maybe he is Jesus sent down from heaven to save us. We dont know. But with the economy in the state that it is in, with the possibility of nuclear war between Iran and Isreal, Pakistan and Indea, North Korea and anywhere because Kin Jong Il is crazy, and my parents land of Russia starting to return to its Soviet tricks, can we afford to have Obama as president?
The man whose number 2 is an experienced diplomat and former hea dof the foreign Relaitons committe whose advice Obama would surely take? The same Obama whose expressed want for DIPLOMACY rather than the saber rattling McCain's shown? What HAS McCain given us? A willingness to continue Bush's policy and see where that's got us?

pQuote]
Maybe he is Jesus and will fix all of that, but most likely, he wont. In fact, with his liberal views, he will make them worse. He should try telling Putin to nicely stop (i know Medvediv is president, but Putin is pulling the strings) and watch as Putin goes all KGB on his ass.
Because 'trying diplomacy first' means 'letting them walk all over you?'
And again...has Biden ceased to exist? A man with more foreign relation experience than ANY of the other three put together?
And 'make them worse?' How? Obama's views are respected. He's expressed willingness to talk before any hasty action...how does that equate to selling out?

You're aware he's got a hugely pro-Israel voting record, right? And that he said he wants to try to talk to Iran and try to avert bloodshed before any bloodshed occurs? If that fails, do you REALLY believe he'd sit back? He's made hsi stance clear.

Yeah, and what're McCain and Palin's credentials? Their foreign policy experience? McCain's worthless saber rattling and expressed desire to continue the Bush administration's foreign policy? Palin's "I can see Russia!" perhaps? And yeah, nice strawman on the economic position there. No, it's not as simple as 'increase taxes.'

Originally posted by Enyalus
Barack Obama is the most arrogant politician I can ever, directly, remember.

And his wife...my God...just, horrible.

It's a good thing we're not voting for his wife. Maybe we should talk about Todd Palin or Cindy or Megan McCain if we're playing that.

And 'arrogant?' Based on what? As opposed to John McCain? Or Bush? Or Dick freaking cheney? You jest

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
But maybe Obama would do something FAR WORSE than anything Mccain can do. or maybe he is Jesus sent down from heaven to save us. We dont know. But with the economy in the state that it is in, with the possibility of nuclear war between Iran and Isreal, Pakistan and Indea, North Korea and anywhere because Kin Jong Il is crazy, and my parents land of Russia starting to return to its Soviet tricks, can we afford to have Obama as president? Maybe he is Jesus and will fix all of that, but most likely, he wont. In fact, with his liberal views, he will make them worse. He should try telling Putin to nicely stop (i know Medvediv is president, but Putin is pulling the strings) and watch as Putin goes all KGB on his ass. Or he should tell Ahmididjhad to lay off of Isreal. Yeah, right. Or he should increase taxes and hope that the economy gets in order. no, no, no. He simply isn't the man for the job. If it were Biden, i agree, he is a far better candidate, but he isn't on the top of the ticket now is he? And how is McCain "the man for the job," Avis? At least Obama gets along excellently with foreign leaders; Europe is in love with him, India loves him, Pakistan would look to him before they would so much as think about dealing with "Rambo" McCain, etc. The list goes on. On foreign policy issues, he's already way ahead of his competitor, who is basically going to alienate the few allies we have left and completely ruin the positive relationships that Obama is cultivating.

And seriously, nuclear war isn't a real threat at the moment. It's not even close to the top of the list, and yet Obama - on O'Reilly, no less - stated quite firmly that he would not take military action against Iran off the table, but he would much rather try to negotiate first. If no one else, he can pull it off.

EDIT -- And as trivial as it is, Michelle Obama would be the most badass First Lady ever, second only to the symbol that is Nancy Reagan.

Yes, i do believe that if we elect the man THAT THE TERRORISTS WANT TO BE OUR PRESIDENT, foreign nations will walk all over us.

You do realize that there are some extremists in positions of power that can't logically be reasoned with. Iran has said on MANY occasions that they will destroy Isreal. When they get nuclear weapons, guess what they are going to do?

'The terrorists' want him to be our President? That's nonsense. Plenty of LEGITIMATE FOREIGN LEADERS want him to be President, but you seem to discount that.

Obama has expressed a desire for diplomacy, McCain has constantly been rattling the saber. Whose similar policies have gotten us into the mess in the ME? HINT: It ain't Obama's!

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Yes, i do believe that if we elect the man THAT THE TERRORISTS WANT TO BE OUR PRESIDENT, foreign nations will walk all over us. Are you f*cking kidding me? Seriously, how much more of a media-***** can you be?

It's posts like that where you can honestly just detect the EXACT moment where one's reason and credibility die.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
It's a good thing we're not voting for his wife. Maybe we should talk about Todd Palin or Cindy or Megan McCain if we're playing that.

And 'arrogant?' Based on what? As opposed to John McCain? Or Bush? Or Dick freaking cheney? You jest

How about making a pre-presidential speach in front of 200,000 people in Germany, something never been done before. Or accepting the DMC nomination in a f*cking stadium with Greek columns in the background. The idiot is beyond narcissistic. Especially with dipshit quotes like, "We are the ones we've been waiting for," and his flunkies and brainwashed supporters referring to him as 'the chosen one' and other equally absurd garbage.

And even if he had a perfectly spotless record and was a model of modesty, the simple fact remains that guess what? We're at war with a Middle Eastern country with tensions mounting with another (Iran), attacked by Islamic extremists and have declared a war on Islamic terrorism.

If we were at the height of the Cold War and there was a Russian American named Boris Borishnikov running for president, no one would trust nor elect him. Better safe and paranoid than blindly trusting in a vague concept like "change" and screwed.

Bush brought lots of "change" to America. How'd that work out? Politicians have been promising to "change" America for 60+ years. It means absolutely nothing. Especially when coming from someone who has such naked ambition like Obama.

bashing isn't very civil now is it gentlemen. i would like it if you refrained from it. Let me ask you, who do YOU think that terrorists would rather our president be?

lfgqeifqerfqifqibqiefbiqebr
Except for me, as I am nuts.

Really.

Although to be honest, I haven't had this much real, fruitful fun in KMC ever. Everyone's at eachothers' throats all the time, we have "political debates" (LOL) going on, we have noobs... All is good on the internet.

true that. but really, who do you think that Islamic Extremists would rather have as president?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
bashing isn't very civil now is it gentlemen. i would like it if you refrained from it. Let me ask you, who do YOU think that terrorists would rather our president be? I don't give a damn who the terrorists would prefer to be our President. No one should. The only foreigners whose opinions we should care about at the moment are those looking to us for assistance, those who may be potential allies, and those that are currently under out "occupation." I don't recall anything good ever coming out of electing a leader simply because the enemy would prefer the other guy. JM's ego would ruin us even more, both in terms of our economy and how the world sees us.

Let me try to analyze this. We are both saying that the other guy is worse. Our guy ain't to good, but at least he isnt completely awful. hmm...

Originally posted by Enyalus
How about making a pre-presidential speach in front of 200,000 people in Germany, something never been done before.
Because NO politician has given a speech in a foreign country before? People showed up on their own because, as I learned while in Europe, they Love Obama and showed up to hear him speak. Is he supposed to call it off when it got too big


Last I checked, it's the DMC who decides on the setting. Obama chose to give the speech there. And?

and 'idiot?' Please. 'Beyond narcissistic?' Based on what? You don't like the setting he picked there?

Uhhh, this whole 'Messiah' thing is largely a construct of his critics who seek to create a faulty image to rip apart.

Oh, and do me a favor: don't take quotes out of context. Because what's what you kind of just did.

And guess what? We need to be careful what we do next because ham handed, thick headed impulsive actions have spread our military very thin. Obama, unlike McCain has decided on a diplomacy course FIRST but has EXPRESSLY said he will not rule out military action if that fails


You've GOT to be ****ing joking. Because his father was Muslim and his name is 'Barack Obama' that should count against him? What, is he a secret Muslim working to undermine the US government?

'Naked ambition?' Based on...again, what? As opposed to McCain, who's openly changed numerous things about himself that didn't work in 2000 just so he can sell out to the conservatives?

And saying Obama's only been saying hope and change means you know very little about the man. He's defined many of his positions and made them very clear beyond change. Saying he'll change it and then detailing how he means to? Yeah, that's a positive. But I wouldn't expect Fox news to focus much on that

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Let me try to analyze this. We are both saying that the other guy is worse. Our guy ain't to good, but at least he isnt completely awful. hmm... Yeah, but we have reasons. You're buying into the poorly manufactured propaganda.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Let me try to analyze this. We are both saying that the other guy is worse. Our guy ain't to good, but at least he isnt completely awful. hmm...

No, we're saying you're being really, really thick and naive.

Your argument is 'If Obama becomes President the terrorists win?'

So they might want him to be President, so ****ing what? Maybe it's a mind game to get people to vote for McCain. Or maybe what they say means dick to our election. Numerous foreign leaders are behind Obama. They love him in Europe, for one. He's promised strategies that might actually WORK to help in our issues worldwide.

So please. Spare me.

I'm divorcing myself from this thread unless a new on topic opinion presents itself.

I've made my stance known. I really don't feel the need to debate my dislike of Obama or his wife.

No hard feelings. It's simply obvious that no one's opinion will change and there's no 'conceding' involved with something like this.

Politicians promise a lot. they have great plans! guess what. they are lucky if even 10% of them get put into action, much less work. I dont trust Obama for a second. Its all too farfeched. and Obama has flipfloped A LOT! First he was against off shore drilling, then, when 70% of america is for it, so is he! First he wanted to get the troops out of there right away, then as the war gained back some popularity, he said he wanted to remove them a bit at a time. I dont trust him.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Politicians promise a lot. they have great plans! guess what. they are lucky if even 10% of them get put into action, much less work. I dont trust Obama for a second. Its all too farfeched. and Obama has flipfloped A LOT! First he was against off shore drilling, then, when 70% of america is for it, so is he! First he wanted to get the troops out of there right away, then as the war gained back some popularity, he said he wanted to remove them a bit at a time. I dont trust him.

The guy promising to make things better vs. the guy promising to continue policies that have made things worse. And 'flipflopped?' No, he admitted he was incorrect on a matter when confronted with facts. Same with the surge and he SAID AS MUCH He's STILL going on time tables and even McCain has adopted those. He's ALWAYS called for gradual withdrawal when immediate became unfeasible.

Compare and contrast to John McCain in 2000 and John McCain in 2008....the 'maverick' vs. the 'conservative whore.'

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Politicians promise a lot. they have great plans! guess what. they are lucky if even 10% of them get put into action, much less work. I dont trust Obama for a second. Its all too farfeched. and Obama has flipfloped A LOT! First he was against off shore drilling, then, when 70% of america is for it, so is he! First he wanted to get the troops out of there right away, then as the war gained back some popularity, he said he wanted to remove them a bit at a time. I dont trust him. The war never got more popular, and he never stated that he would just yank the troops out upon inauguration. He didn't completely change his stance on off-shore drilling - he just altered it, treating it as a consideration. Not to mention that McCain only began supporting it in June.

Isn't he still going on Mavrick?

damn this is moving fast!

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Isn't he still going on Mavrick? Only in words. His ads say "the original maverick," his actions and policies scream sycophantic conservative-whore.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Isn't he still going on Mavrick?

Who's his Vice President now? Yeah, that answers THAT question.

Oh, his stance on abortion altered. Very convenient timing, too. Back in 2000? "I disagree with Roe vs. Wade, but it shouldn't be overturned.' Now? You can guess

Look, i dont know the intrecacies of Obama's positions. I would really appriciate it if one of you unbiasly outlined them for me.
And if the terrorists want him to win, it says a lot! it means they believe that they have a better chance at succeding in their goals if he were in power.

What they THINK is irrelevant to REALITY. And again...who's to say it's not a mindgame? Iraq was never a breeding ground for terrorists until we invaded it.

hmm, true, true. Damn things are complicated. This election sucks nuts. Quite interesting though.

Truth. Hussein's exploits were outside the nation - for the most part, while we can hardly call it a paradise, the people were safe if they minded their business. Now? You step out the door and get shot in the face.

An American raid killed eight innocent people yesterday, btw.

IMO, Iraq's been a hell under Saddam and it's been a hell for a while now.

Problem was, we turned it really bad when our objective should have been AFGHANISTAN

War is a great thing. It's humanity's version of natural selection.

Why so many are quivering scared of it, is beyond me.

casualties of war. collatoral damage. sucks, but shit happens. Still hussain was a monster. He frieken poisoned mustard! and he did commit acts of genocide in Iraq, and i do believe he had to be taken out of power, much like Hitler. The occupatoin though...

Originally posted by Lightsnake
IMO, Iraq's been a hell under Saddam and it's been a hell for a while now.

Problem was, we turned it really bad when our objective should have been AFGHANISTAN Or we could've taken out Bin Laden at any point during the two months we were trailing him before 9/11. Massoud was basically the best shot we had, and we blew it.

Originally posted by Enyalus
War is a great thing. It's humanity's version of natural selection.

Why so many are quivering scared of it, is beyond me.

Because it's all well and good until you're the one being naturally selected.

Originally posted by Enyalus
War is a great thing. It's humanity's version of natural selection.

Why so many are quivering scared of it, is beyond me.

I'm assuming you're a Soldier who's lost his entire family to war then, right?

cant we just nuke the mountains where we think he is hiding? i mean, why not? lol, but really, what the hell is going on with Afghanistan? we only have a few thousand troops there dont we. i heard somewhere that it was like 4.5 thousand. thats NOTHING!

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Because it's all well and good until you're the one being naturally selected.

Stercus accidit.

For those of you who don't know Latin - pay attention. The greatest phrase in the history of communication combined with the most eloquent language of all time: shit happens.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
casualties of war. collatoral damage. sucks, but shit happens. Still hussain was a monster. He frieken poisoned mustard! and he did commit acts of genocide in Iraq, and i do believe he had to be taken out of power, much like Hitler. The occupatoin though...

Yeah, 'shit happens' except when you're the one being killed. We KNOW what Saddam did and the time for moral outrage was when he was DOING IT. There are other crimes going on in the Sudan, for one, and we haven't launched an offensive at their heart.

Saddam should have been taken out long ago, but not then, not when we had Bin Laden, Sheik Mohammed and Zawahiri on the loose, not when we had no strategy and managed a massive military blunder.

IT should have been done later, differently and better. Period. There was NO reason we should have been mired there for so long and lost as many people as we did

Originally posted by Enyalus
Stercus accidit.

For those of you who don't know Latin - pay attention. The greatest phrase in the history of written communication combined with the most eloquent language of all time: shit happens.

Except when you're the one it's happening to. As a student of warfare, you should know how inglorious it is.

War is not natural selection. War is attrition and murder for the gain of resources. Natural selection weeds the weak individuals out from the strong based on genetics and adaptability, and this benefits the species as a whole; bullets don't discriminate. Bullets don't help. As human beings with the capability for higher thought, we should damn well be able to come up with better solutions than blowing everyone to pieces.

wait, didn't Zawahiri rise to power in Iraq as the terrorist leader there? or was he Bin Ladins right hand man? shit, i hate these names! Still, we can say going into Iraq was stupid now as much as we want, but that doesn't change the fact that IT HAPPENED! now what?

Originally posted by Enyalus
Stercus accidit.

For those of you who don't know Latin - pay attention. The greatest phrase in the history of communication combined with the most eloquent language of all time: shit happens. Also, the single greatest excuse for any crime, undesirable event, or act of complete stupidity. A sad justification for the worst things we can do to one another.

Basically, idiotic.

Al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden's number 2.

It happened. So we fix up our mess, get out and make sure it doesn't happen again. Something McCain doesn't seem to grasp with his want to continue the Bush admin's policies

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
cant we just nuke the mountains where we think he is hiding? i mean, why not? You are not helping yourself.

Now, we reflect on the mistakes of the past and make sure we don't make them again. You know how we can start fixing things up again? By not giving power to the one man who could make things worse.

the region is already a breeding ground for terrorists. If we pull out, it will go unchecked. then shit will REALLY happen. We have to finish the job, one way or another. and we are making progress. More benchmarks have been met than ever before. Soon, hopefully, the Iraqi police and millitary will be able to "take control" of the situation (poor bastards).

Faunus, the nuke thing was a joke. lol

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
the region is already a breeding ground for terrorists. If we pull out, it will go unchecked. then shit will REALLY happen.Oh, so the shit hasn't started yet, huh?

That's Obama's strategy, not McCain's. He wants to steadily pull Americans out so that Iraqis can defend themselves. McCain wants to sit there and eradicate all threats.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
the region is already a breeding ground for terrorists. If we pull out, it will go unchecked. then shit will REALLY happen.
Finish the job, stabilize it and THEN move out. Iraq was NOT a problem until we made it one



yes, we are. It does not change that this was a totally and completely useless action that was handled horribly

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Except when you're the one it's happening to. As a student of warfare, you should know how inglorious it is.

Think of me as Revan or Palpatine. I can see the bigger picture.

Do you know how many people have died due to war in human history? And if they hadn't, how overpopulated and strained Earth's resources would be?

I believe everything happens for a reason. And war in general is for the greater good and the continued survival of mankind upon a world that has finite resources. Now, some wars are stupid, boneheaded, whatever you want to call them. In fact, most wars have no real excuse or justification for them. Nevertheless, they happen. They won't stop happening. It is inevitable. It should be tolerable.

I deal with it. No use bitching over something that is unavoidable. If it wasn't Iraq, it would have been Iran, or Pakistan, or Syria. And to think that someone who seeks to avoid war at all costs is 'enlightened' is foolish, especially in a global arena where your values don't match 70% of the rest of the world. Middle Eastern countries, for example, respect a leader who rules through fear and violence. See the British campaigns in Afghanistan during the 1800's for further example of this.

Originally posted by Faunus
As human beings with the capability for higher thought, we should damn well be able to come up with better solutions than blowing everyone to pieces.

I agree. I would like to be an idealist. Unfortunately, the majority of countries adhere to a more archaic view of "might makes right."

Shit has started, just it will get worse. and you cannot eliminate all threats. that would mean wiping out Islam, which can be done, but over the course of the next few (hopefully) decades as reason starts to prevail throught the world (i hope) because as long as Islam is the religion in Iraq, there will always be a well stocked supply of curruptable potential jihadists. So, yeah, i agree with Obama there.
Edit: Damn this moves fast! this was to faunus' post.

Originally posted by Enyalus
Think of me as Revan or Palpatine. I can see the bigger picture.

Do you know how many people have died due to war in human history? And if they hadn't, how overpopulated and strained Earth's resources would be?Not nearly enough to justify its existence. I've gone down this road of thought as well, but war is not an effective population cap, because it doesn't hit the most densely populated places on the planet (India - Ganga River, China - anywhere).

Why should something that serves no purpose, devastates the landscape, and is completely avoidable be tolerable?

Which is exactly why we should've kept Hussein around and taken down Bin Laden and the Taliban first.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Shit has started, just it will get worse. and you cannot eliminate all threats.Which is, again, what McCain wants.

...

You cannot ever wipe out an idea, especially one that half a billion people subscribe to. And that wouldn't even be an answer, because Islam doesn't preach violence in the name of God. The .00001% of Muslims who follow the radical, politically-motivated terrorist sects are the ones we need to defend against. The rest are victims, and they're finally realizing it.

What exactly do you disagree with him on?

Originally posted by Faunus
Which is exactly why we should've kept Hussein around and taken down Bin Laden and the Taliban first.

Yes, I completely agree. Actually, I had an entire plan which would have screwed all of America's enemies within 5 years, without America having to lift much of a finger at all. If you'd care to hear it sometime, I'd be more than happy to share.

PM me. I'm interested.