George Bush rules the world because he controls our military. The President is also the head of the military. Even though only congress can officially declare war, Bush can send them where he wants before hand.

Brute Force baby


Also...Checks and balances is a great system we use here...

People who don't understand how america works will never understand that they can't "take over" our country like we did Iraq. It's impossible. Why? Cuz local governments would kick in and run themselves if the federal government buckled. The US is virtually an indestructible force of nature.

You could kill the President, EVERYONE in congress, and All the SUpreme Courth Justices and this country would still run itself.

I don't know any other country on earth that could claim that. Our forefathers were brilliant to design this country that way.
Only God himself could destroy this country.

b/s if you killed ALL the governing bodies in the US who would really be able to run things...the country would be in a state of emergency...basically the only authorative figure would be the police...and it'd be a Judge Dredd type government then until they can re-instate a new government...

which would take time and who would want to try and control a country that's riddled with crime, famine & destruction...coz it wouldn't be an overnight process...

same if it happened to any other country bro...America isn't godly in anyway it's jus another country...

this topic is getting stupider by the minute LMAO

son, the most technically advanced US army gear is built with chinese parts lmao. all you know about is the US military, you have abolutely no idea what the chinese army has. Did you even know that they're 4 times bigger than the US army with 4x the weapons? lol, what a joke you are lmao

cmon open your eyes instead of your ass.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE WAR IS FOUGHT?

Yeah, I'll just stop reading your post. If you really think location and environment don't play a huge factor in war, then it's fucking pointless for me to even respond. I mean, seriously. You're a fucking idiot if you think that.

Sorry but i need to raise one topic...

if Americas army is soooo great

why did they LOSE to Vietnam?

the same reason we'll "lose" to the middle east.

it's not about "winning". it's about "making money".

^^^word, bush aint wanna be president to look like a dumb ass and be blamed for goin to war, he's president to reap the rewards of money from the people that put him in the presidencey and set up the skeem

We weren't familiar with the environment and they were. We could have turned their whole country into a parking lot with the money we spent. Instead of doing that, we kept bringing over tanks and shit thinking we'd be able to fight. However, they didn't send "soldiers" out in uniforms. . they just fought with guerrilla warfare which only worked because they were comfortable and knowledge in the environment in which we were fighting. It didn't really have anything to do with military strength. . we definately had the stronger military. They used the environment to their advantage, though.

We shouldn't have gone into Vietnam in the first place. I really don't think that if communism spread to Vietnam all of Europe would fall to it. Whatever.

I think that depends on how you define the term "lose" in terms of war.

Since we're making hardly any progress helping this fucking faggots get a government, I think we're just going to declare ourselves the winner of the war and then leave. By doing that it's hard to say that we lost the war. . we wrecked their whole country, we just didn't get our government up over there (but nobody really gives a shit because Iraq is a shit hole of a country anyway).

Fuck Bush...and Nebody who Support his Ass

SUmbody gone Kennedy that muthafucka

but then we'd be left with Dick Chaney
*shudders at thought*

lol @ people who question the might of the American armed forces...Don't be silly.

Anyone knows that when you occupy a country, or go to war with it, that it's better to salvage as much of the country as possible. If we wanted to, we could destroy Iraq completely. What benefit would that avail?

Think people.


There is no shortage in the US military. Don't let the reports fool you. We have millions in the armed forces. The "shortages" are among the people actually being recycled over and over again in Iraq.

Don't worry about the US military. It's the greatest in the world.

China?
Russia?

^^they're still playing catch up to our space program alone.


1

you still think that really makes a difference. "winning or losing" was all defined by "profit or losses" that's all. that iraq situation is just a glove they can get their hand in to make money.

that's why only their guys are on the payroll for the contracts that pay big bucks. these guys are billionaires for a reason man, and it ain't from caring about you.


...exactly. just a means to an end for these guys.



as usual you're on some bullshit. the space program don't got jack shit to do with war. china's got their technology right in your hand, rught underneath your finges even right now as you type. you don't think their millirary's ill?? ...don't be so naive..

and their millitary is 4 times bigger than us. 400% more troops, vs. 100% of our depleted troops already stretched thin.

be realistic. look at it strategically. we lose.

jacked the from the daily show im pretty sure.
-sigh-



anyways.
America is the greatest force in the world.
George Bush is the figure head of leading the government,
doesn't think for himself.
Ran by the minority,
hmm.
Corruption, Small group of top ranking officials that can actually make the decisions, Government ran by money bribes.



George Bush isnt the best president,
but we'd be hating anyone who was in office right now.



Though he wouldn't be dumb enough to run for it.
I still say
Colin Powell 2008

Oh, and...

Us invading a country that is already set up,
Media and Government swaying out minds to think they really want a new government...
OUR government,
Small bands of Iraqis fighting to get us out.
I mean, that sounds bad,
But i'm sure england thought it was bad too
back when it happened in the 1700's


:rolleyes: