Candidate Declaration: Maverickhunter, Democratic

Originally posted by Freedom ERP

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

Ah, all I saw was a thread somewhere saying that britishs special forces were recruiting terrorists as a special black ops. However I would support the invading of Europe, and only if they don't disabandon the EU.

So nothing about the US funding Bin Laden in the 80s and the US funding of right wing terrorists in Central America. Can you provide the thread?

Is one of the tenaments of your campaign basking Europe rather than taking responsibilty for all the things the US has done to make the world a more dangerous place. You claim to be a democratic but your words say otherwise. Are you standing for the right party?

And are you for real.....invade Europe. The US has hardly done a good job on invading Iraq. Talking about getting an even bigger kicking.

Why do you feel the EU needs disbanding? What about breaking the Union. I would vote for that.

I'm only saying that if they support false regimes in the future and if they want to support regimes like North Korea without realizing the consequences they should stop before they start. American policies are too centered on what the European nations need and they are submitting to Islam. Should they continue with their violence and I am saying we should do this only as an extreme, if they launch the second worlds first nuclear weapons on another territory which they plan to do so and they most likely will (france said they would retaliate to a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon) we should declare war on Europe so that they stop the violence they cause because I believe most of the violence in the world is derived from European nations.

Oh and here is the so-called thread I found that supports the idea that britain is supporting terrorism, should this be true, we should place them as our enemy once again: www.abovetopsecret.com... .





[edit on 12-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Ah, all I saw was a thread somewhere saying that britishs special forces were recruiting terrorists as a special black ops. However I would support the invading of Europe, and only if they don't disabandon the EU.

Reading through your second-grade level grammar, I see a moron. You base this on a "thread somewhere?"

You support invading Europe? One of our allies?

What the hell is wrong with you? Thank the Lord that no one would take someone as ignorant and simple-minded as you seriously. Keep your ignorant, uncontrollable babble the hell out of these forums and elections.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Reading through your second-grade level grammar, I see a moron. You base this on a "thread somewhere?"


What the hell is wrong with you? Thank the Lord that no one would take someone as ignorant and simple-minded as you seriously. Keep your ignorant, uncontrollable babble the hell out of these forums and elections.

Regardless of your belief, or if he is wrong or right, you have thrown
personal insults at Maverick at least six different occasions in that post
alone.

Insulting members is against the T&C, so, therefore cease and desist.

Originally posted by Johnmike
You support invading Europe? One of our allies?
What the hell is wrong with you?

He's what we call an "unknown potential." Vote POW McCain or say Schwarznegger into the most powerful office in the world, and there you have your unknown potential. Watch your back, Johnmike

I actually went through great lengths to avoid personally insulting Maverick. Everything was directed explicitly as his ideas and writing, and not as his character; and any interpretation that leads you to believe otherwise is a sad miscalculation on your part. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Johnmike]

I am trying to dig into your policies on Europe, Maverickhunter.

First of all, let me commend you for using podcasting as part of your election campaign.

Thank you for citing the thread about UK SF training terrorists and I would have to ask if you read the whole article and the posts to the thread. Looking at the article and the posts, you seem to have taken the post heading and blown it out of context to support a part of your campaign platform.

The article and some of the posts clearing mention that this training is being done to turn these terrorists into spying the the US and its allies. And as the British SF have been doing this for the last 40 years in Ireland, it seems the US commanders may have asked British SFs to take the lead hand.

The UK with the US are training these terrorists to support their campaign.

You spoke about fair and truthful in your campaign, yet using this headline/post heading is far from truthful and belies the fact that the British are working with the American SFs as well.

Now we come to the question of US support for the Irish republican movement. You talk about taking measures against those that support and train terrorists, can I now assume that under your administration, you will bring to justice those in past US administrations that have supported Irish republican terrorists to murder British soliders.

Did you hear any British politician saying we should to war with the US over support for the IRA and the like. NO.


You say the American policy is too focused on Europe. If this had been the case, and Europe was the focus of policy, would Bush have ignored Europe in going to war in Iraq. Very few countries in Europe supported or support the American invasion of Iraq.

I would agree that America's continued membershop of Nato is to a degree European focused but that was in America's interests over the WWII to stop the expansion of the Soviet Union. Today America focus is far from Europe.

And again, please provide evidence for your claim that most of the violence in the world is derived from European nations.


So please can we have some detail of your intended policy towards Europe?

Would you continue with the special relationship with the UK, or are you only interested in a relationship do the US's dirty work, rather than a true partnership?

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
I am trying to dig into your policies on Europe, Maverickhunter.

First of all, let me commend you for using podcasting as part of your election campaign.

Thank you for citing the thread about UK SF training terrorists and I would have to ask if you read the whole article and the posts to the thread. Looking at the article and the posts, you seem to have taken the post heading and blown it out of context to support a part of your campaign platform.

The article and some of the posts clearing mention that this training is being done to turn these terrorists into spying the the US and its allies. And as the British SF have been doing this for the last 40 years in Ireland, it seems the US commanders may have asked British SFs to take the lead hand.

The UK with the US are training these terrorists to support their campaign.

You spoke about fair and truthful in your campaign, yet using this headline/post heading is far from truthful and belies the fact that the British are working with the American SFs as well.

Now we come to the question of US support for the Irish republican movement. You talk about taking measures against those that support and train terrorists, can I now assume that under your administration, you will bring to justice those in past US administrations that have supported Irish republican terrorists to murder British soliders.

Did you hear any British politician saying we should to war with the US over support for the IRA and the like. NO.


You say the American policy is too focused on Europe. If this had been the case, and Europe was the focus of policy, would Bush have ignored Europe in going to war in Iraq. Very few countries in Europe supported or support the American invasion of Iraq.

I would agree that America's continued membershop of Nato is to a degree European focused but that was in America's interests over the WWII to stop the expansion of the Soviet Union. Today America focus is far from Europe.

And again, please provide evidence for your claim that most of the violence in the world is derived from European nations.


So please can we have some detail of your intended policy towards Europe?

Would you continue with the special relationship with the UK, or are you only interested in a relationship do the US's dirty work, rather than a true partnership?

I read your post and no I am not interested in another war. All I am saying is that we should occupy and keep a presence around certain countries in Europe that would betray our trust. All countries have psi-ops where they recruit the enemies to be double agents so that they can gain information but they are using that to figure things out. However the British have a history and so do we about controlled government sponsored terrorism.

I am saying that we should really look at Britain and have talks with them about how we deal with our foreign policy, so that they don't double-cross us, after all, Tony Blair was the one who was coaxing Bush into going to war with Iraq because he said that they had "WMDs" and that the plants to make them weren't completely destroyed so that we should inspect them. So they should send people there and such.

However, that being said, France should be occupied with a foreign presence so that we can monitor their nuclear weapon facilities because most countries are trigger happy with launching nuclear weapon and had it not been for negotiations they would just launch them. So we should stop France and the other countries in Europe from launching a total all out nuclear war and such a war would get Russia on the side of the enemy. Haven't you heard of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?" That goes without saying, because you need to also realize that we need to contain the UN and contain European countries from destroying the world as we knew it pre 9-11. Also, we need to contain the UN, because they have made as many faulty decisions if not more than we have and they are controlling most of our foreign policy with a single vote and they even put their headquarters in our nation.

I think that we should occupy some countries in Europe so that they don't try anything silly. It's not Europe that we need to invade, let me reiterate what I meant, but the terrorists that can hijack their policies and the ones they are ordering to do that that can. We need to stop lies from spreading.

Also about the Iraq war, we shouldn't train terrorists because they'll train more terrorists, I may have blown that out of proportion a little bit but all countries recrout the enemies to learn more information. As I said before that's how they figure out how to beat them, but this time, it's not working, it's working against us, and time is working agianst us too! We need all the allies we can get and we cannot have people double cross us on something they brought up (it was tony blair that presented Bush the so called evidence of Iraq having WMDs). So Syria might have those WMDs, so why don't we go to war with them next?

EDIT: FOR SPELLING AND GRAMMAR

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]

So you want us to invade countries in Europe? Maybe, in your limited experience, you realize that something like that is called an act of war? And that we would lose any credibility and respect as a nation we have left, possibly motivating other nations to declare WAR ON US?
Oh wait, I remember!


That's what the Nazis did!

Holy crap, your policies are ripped straight from Hitler, aren't they?!

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

I read your post and no I am not interested in another war. All I am saying is that we should occupy and keep a presence around certain countries in Europe that would betray our trust. All countries have psi-ops where they recruit the enemies to be double agents so that they can gain information but they are using that to figure things out. However the British have a history and so do we about controlled government sponsored terrorism.

I am saying that we should really look at Britain and have talks with them about how we deal with our foreign policy, so that they don't double-cross us, after all, Tony Blair was the one who was coaxing Bush into going to war with Iraq because he said that they had "WMDs" and that the plants to make them weren't completely destroyed so that we should inspect them. So they should send people there and such.

When has the UK double-crossed the US? Are you saying that Tony Blair is running the US? and that he told George Bush to go to war. This sounds like the days before 1776 when Britain ran America.

So I assume you would invest in an improved intelligence service to ensure that you as president recieved the correct intelligence?

Would you continue with the split between the CIA, FBI and NSA?

However, that being said, France should be occupied with a foreign presence so that we can monitor their nuclear weapon facilities because most countries are trigger happy with launching nuclear weapon and had it not been for negotiations they would just launch them. So we should stop France and the other countries in Europe from launching a total all out nuclear war and such a war would get Russia on the side of the enemy. Haven't you heard of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?" That goes without saying, because you need to also realize that we need to contain the UN and contain European countries from destroying the world as we knew it pre 9-11. Also, we need to contain the UN, because they have made as many faulty decisions if not more than we have and they are controlling most of our foreign policy with a single vote and they even put their headquarters in our nation.

While France's nuclear weapons are outside the direct control of Nato, there has been an agreement with Nato over their use. What evidence do you have that France is trigger happy and needs to be occupied. The Germans fails in the 1940's. I assume you would massively increase the US military to occupy France? And how do you square the cost of occuping France with a home social agenda? Which takes priority?

I think that we should occupy some countries in Europe so that they don't try anything silly. It's not Europe that we need to invade, let me reiterate what I meant, but the terrorists that can hijack their policies and the ones they are ordering to do that that can. We need to stop lies from spreading..

So which countries are you refering?

Also about the Iraq war, we shouldn't train terrorists because they'll train more terrorists, I may have blown that out of proportion a little bit but all countries recrout the enemies to learn more information. As I said before that's how they figure out how to beat them, but this time, it's not working, it's working against us, and time is working agianst us too! We need all the allies we can get and we cannot have people double cross us on something they brought up (it was tony blair that presented Bush the so called evidence of Iraq having WMDs). So Syria might have those WMDs, so why don't we go to war with them next?

I think the phase "training terrorists" is incorrect. I believe the coliation is training terrorists to operating as assets to provide information, not how to be a better or more effective terrorist.

Would you, as president review the whole of the military high command? Operational policies in Iraq are determine by the current Chiefs of the General staff.

Again I have to question your evidence for the claim that Tony Blair was the only person to presented the WMD evidence to George Bush. Colin Powell presented evidence to the security council. Are you claiming that the America intelligence services had no assets or information on what Iraq was doing. With the close relationship between Israel and the US, why no intelligence from Mossad?

And what would be your policy on Israel?

Originally posted by Johnmike
So you want us to invade countries in Europe? Maybe, in your limited experience, you realize that something like that is called an act of war? And that we would lose any credibility and respect as a nation we have left, possibly motivating other nations to declare WAR ON US?
Oh wait, I remember!


That's what the Nazis did!

Holy crap, your policies are ripped straight from Hitler, aren't they?!

NO INSULTS. Insulting other members no matter whether agree with them or disagree with them are a violation of the T&C. Also, comparing anyone to hitler shows that you have no grasp of history or anything else for that matter. I am saying that we should not have war on other countries in Europe but that we should occupy them so that they don't go out of control because in case of the possibility of Raidcal terrorism takeover in any of those countries they will need our support so they will need us to "invade" their land so that we can protect them. We won't kill all of them. Their countries aren't as bad as Iraq.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

I read your post and no I am not interested in another war. All I am saying is that we should occupy and keep a presence around certain countries in Europe that would betray our trust. All countries have psi-ops where they recruit the enemies to be double agents so that they can gain information but they are using that to figure things out. However the British have a history and so do we about controlled government sponsored terrorism.

I am saying that we should really look at Britain and have talks with them about how we deal with our foreign policy, so that they don't double-cross us, after all, Tony Blair was the one who was coaxing Bush into going to war with Iraq because he said that they had "WMDs" and that the plants to make them weren't completely destroyed so that we should inspect them. So they should send people there and such.

When has the UK double-crossed the US? Are you saying that Tony Blair is running the US? and that he told George Bush to go to war. This sounds like the days before 1776 when Britain ran America.

Well what happened here is that the UN is trying to shift their power in the UN security council so that their vote controls our foreign policy. They are making it so that they are awefully right alot of the time even though they made stupid mistakes like how they supported North Korea with millions of dollars as "rewards" to having six party talks which they promptly let fund their nuclear weapons program. Ever think that was started from the beginning?

So I assume you would invest in an improved intelligence service to ensure that you as president recieved the correct intelligence?

Would you continue with the split between the CIA, FBI and NSA?

They all need to be working as one agency, or abolish them and create new ones with the same guidelines as the old ones with new members so that they are more effective because the members of those agencies, are obviously doing more harm than good. And yes, working on correct intelligence and getting that heard and uncensored no matter how bad would be part of my campaign.

However, that being said, France should be occupied with a foreign presence so that we can monitor their nuclear weapon facilities because most countries are trigger happy with launching nuclear weapon and had it not been for negotiations they would just launch them. So we should stop France and the other countries in Europe from launching a total all out nuclear war and such a war would get Russia on the side of the enemy. Haven't you heard of the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?" That goes without saying, because you need to also realize that we need to contain the UN and contain European countries from destroying the world as we knew it pre 9-11. Also, we need to contain the UN, because they have made as many faulty decisions if not more than we have and they are controlling most of our foreign policy with a single vote and they even put their headquarters in our nation.

While France's nuclear weapons are outside the direct control of Nato, there has been an agreement with Nato over their use. What evidence do you have that France is trigger happy and needs to be occupied. The Germans fails in the 1940's. I assume you would massively increase the US military to occupy France? And how do you square the cost of occuping France with a home social agenda? Which takes priority?

I think that we should occupy some countries in Europe so that they don't try anything silly. It's not Europe that we need to invade, let me reiterate what I meant, but the terrorists that can hijack their policies and the ones they are ordering to do that that can. We need to stop lies from spreading..

So which countries are you refering?

Also about the Iraq war, we shouldn't train terrorists because they'll train more terrorists, I may have blown that out of proportion a little bit but all countries recrout the enemies to learn more information. As I said before that's how they figure out how to beat them, but this time, it's not working, it's working against us, and time is working agianst us too! We need all the allies we can get and we cannot have people double cross us on something they brought up (it was tony blair that presented Bush the so called evidence of Iraq having WMDs). So Syria might have those WMDs, so why don't we go to war with them next?

I think the phase "training terrorists" is incorrect. I believe the coliation is training terrorists to operating as assets to provide information, not how to be a better or more effective terrorist.

Well, let's see. You say that they are assets. I say that they are more of a liability than an asset. The Terrorists that they are recruiting may offer them info and intel but however due to this and other circumstances the terrorist regime seems to be relentless on gathering more weapons and arms. They are getting this from Russia, and Russia is our biggest threat to us on the war on terror. When they supply weapons to terrorists when we ask them what they are doing they say "why not?" For example they sell weapons to Iran and freedom-fighters in Iraq. They are in there for the sole monitary gain. A sanction on Russia would only mean nuclear war though so we have to handle diplomatic ties with Russia carefully, they even threatened to attack our allies with missiles if they comply with our anti-nuclear missile defense agreement with several countries in Europe and Asia!

Would you, as president review the whole of the military high command? Operational policies in Iraq are determine by the current Chiefs of the General staff.

Yes I believe that not going through anything related and then going and doing what the military wanted would be a complete waste of my time. The military needs to stop overexerting their powerbase or we're going to become more like Rome, then we'll need our own Octavious.

Again I have to question your evidence for the claim that Tony Blair was the only person to presented the WMD evidence to George Bush. Colin Powell presented evidence to the security council. Are you claiming that the America intelligence services had no assets or information on what Iraq was doing. With the close relationship between Israel and the US, why no intelligence from Mossad?

And what would be your policy on Israel?

www.washingtonpost.com...
I don't really know why we don't have intelligence from Mossad. Maybe because they didn't want to give false intelligence that didn't exist out to fabricate a lie to the public so that they would not want to make them think that they are advancing their political agenda?

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]

I find it humorous that you think it's an insult when I relate you to Hitler, when in fact so many of your ideas have been utilized by his regime. The terms of service state not to make personal attacks; I made an observation about when in history (Third Reich) several of your ideas were used.

Originally posted by Johnmike
I find it humorous that you think it's an insult when I relate you to Hitler, when in fact so many of your ideas have been utilized by his regime. The terms of service state not to make personal attacks; I made an observation about when in history (Third Reich) several of your ideas were used.

You called me a "moron" in one of your posts and then went onto say that you're glad that "idiots" like me aren't in office. You insulted me at least twice in that post, and then you say that you relating me to Hitler isn't an insult, and I am saying that we shouldn't invade Europe, but that we should invade Europe when and if they are invaded and taken over by terrorists to contain the problem. We should offer Europe protection and an outside presence in their country.

A lot of questions, Maverickhunter, I know.

Your policy on Israel? As Israel has nuclear weapons, would you avocate invading Israel to ensure they did not become trigger happy?

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
A lot of questions, Maverickhunter, I know.

Your policy on Israel? As Israel has nuclear weapons, would you avocate invading Israel to ensure they did not become trigger happy?

Only if they launch it. I cannot tolerate nuclear warfare and all countries with nuclear weapons must agree to NOT use them so that is because our world is already as troubled as it is, nuclear war would bring even more problems.

My policy on making sure that they don't launch it? I should offer them defense from invaders from other countries so that they don't feel like they need a nuclear missile defense system with protection like that from us.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]

Double post

[edit on 14-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]

okay, since you have more questions I will be glad to answer them later. However I will have to make mine and 7Ayreons site available to the rest of you later since we are prolonging your waiting to ensure quality. I hope that I answered your misconceptions about my thinking.

So, FreedomERP you said that you have lots of more questions. You can ask me them tomorrow, I have to get going, so I'll continue my campaigning later alright?

Well, I said that we should invade Europe then that we should invade Europe only when the terrorists try to take over and then I said what I meant was to have a foreign presence in Europe to make sure they do not spy on us or our allies-- or that they do submit to radical Islam because of all of the suicide bombing taking place in Europe that's causing all of the commotion. I am thinking of a certain number of things, we need to reduce the violence in the Middle East that conflicts with our own interests and our own allies directly. We should not be focusing on suicide bombings or terrorism in a nation that has a history of it that would not attack or have an intent on toppling our nation.

We are a free nation and we can do what we want and we can make our own laws that is what we need to do. We need to bend the laws so that they are for the people of the United States and we need to take back the constitution and we need to make sure that the Global Elites too do not abuse the laws. We need to do that and to make sure that they do not abuse their laws so that it fits their own personal agenda.

We cannot allow any outside influence from any terrorist organizations change our way of thinking and we need to defeat anyone who declared war on us. Even if Osama Bin Laden never did attack us on 9-11 and even though they said that they were not responsible for the attacks and that we were they made it a paradox and made it seem that they didn't do it but that we declared war against them when it was they who continued battling us and made it clear that they are a valiant enemy and that we should defeat them at all costs.

We should accost Al-queda on their home soil and we should not allow them to regroup so that we cannot let them invade Europe. Their idea is that since they can attack our Military in a country which we know little about that they can take us over, and that they can attack our police, and invade us from Mexico and smuggle material to build nukes in here. Without liittle denial, we can see that Al-queda has made several attempts to smuggle uranium into the nation so that they can make nukes and turn a bad situation into a worse one but we need to see to them that we are very coherent in what we want to do with their regime that is being supported by obviously many financial networks around the globe because apparently someone, some group, some organization, or some government is supporting Al-queda because they would not have the money had they not been supported by an outside group. If this means that the U.N or someone within the United States government is supporting Al-queda that official or those officials need to be recalled or called back so that they don't cause any more harm or they need to be impeached and if it is the current President we need to get rid of him to get rid of the violence.

They're suicide bombers and they are out of our controls and I doubt that they have a huge networks full of people who bomb themselves to their death. However I do think that there are al-queda operatives telling them what to do or either that or there are terrorists working for a real terrorist network and they have multiple terrorist networks that have established targets to be attacked and they order people to bomb them and they need to be infiltrated by us.

Most outstanding to me among the many problems of our current administration is that they are incompetent and they don't really know what they are talking about and that they let out all of the facts and they ignore them at the same time. They have a problem with understanding the current situation and they fall for any type of propaganda on the net, or in the paper, and they fake lots of the news and they probably don't even know what they are reading.

Many people may like Bush but for some people anyone would be better for President than he is. I am asking of you to support our troops and do the right thing for our army so that they can come back home so that they can live and have a normal life because I heard statistics saying that one out of so many homeless people are from the military, and that we should also offer them services after they come back from the war right away.

We need to look at the facts. We cannot look and see that there are terrorists and then say that we must attack them because then we would be thinking illogically. We need to have a plan about how to end this problem and make a resolution so that we can really do what we set out to do.

We should only help our allies and protect our REAL interests that are in the best interests of our citizens. We should not make false alliances with waring nations such as Syria but we should still meet with them to talk but on a different note than such as that.

The number of population should not be reduced, and I do not see a single amount of evidence that supports that the global elite want to supplant our population with a smaller one.

I do not see why our nation will be invaded by foreign troops and it will not happen within our lifetime as long as our current President doesn't make more mistakes with diplomacy. He made the right decision by having diplomatic talks with iran, but still, that won't solve the problem because they are supporting the resistance or as you call it the "freedom fighters."

Terrorists are using the net so we need to use the net to combat them with real factual information about their terrorist network then we need to publicize materials so that they know what they think that we are thinking but that we really aren't to confuse them, but they may not fall for that, so we need to go further that, by doing more psi-ops tactics.

I am ashamed of how our country supports George W Bush, the man may have done some things right but I cannot see what he has done right since then. He should have been impeached before the situation in Iraq got out of control but the reason why I don't want that to happen is that Cheney would be President.

We cannot set someone up to be President so that the next President after him will make our nation collapse. I have read lies such as that we are going to all fall within the next five years. People also claim that America is an emperor, and I want to say that I am going to fully uphold the fact that we are a Democratic Republic, with many liberal and conservative views.

We need the news to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so that no one complains.

we need to make sure that we do the right thing for our troops.

We should not let people capatalize on welfare, instead they should be put into job programs if they cannot get a job.

We should allow people to take amplitude tests even if they aren't going in the army.

WE should make sure that people are going to be smart and that we can improve their literacy by 2010, instead of Bush's proposed goal of 2014.

By the end of my term I will try to expose all of the lies of what has happened in the past and I will piece together all of the lies that the current administration has made. I will make sure that they don't ever happen again, I know that history repeats itself, and I know that history ends up repeating again if you don' tstudy it because those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

If you have any questions, now, please ask away.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We need to bend the laws so that they are for the people of the United States and we need to take back the constitution and we need to make sure that the Global Elites too do not abuse the laws.

Please explain what this means.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We cannot allow any outside influence from any terrorist organizations change our way of thinking and we need to defeat anyone who declared war on us. Even if Osama Bin Laden never did attack us on 9-11 and even though they said that they were not responsible for the attacks and that we were they made it a paradox and made it seem that they didn't do it but that we declared war against them when it was they who continued battling us and made it clear that they are a valiant enemy and that we should defeat them at all costs.

This was kind of confusing to read, but what do you mean? Didn't Bin Laden accept responsibility for the attacks?

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We should accost Al-queda on their home soil and we should not allow them to regroup so that we cannot let them invade Europe. Their idea is that since they can attack our Military in a country which we know little about that they can take us over, and that they can attack our police, and invade us from Mexico and smuggle material to build nukes in here. Without liittle denial, we can see that Al-queda has made several attempts to smuggle uranium into the nation so that they can make nukes and turn a bad situation into a worse one but we need to see to them that we are very coherent in what we want to do with their regime that is being supported by obviously many financial networks around the globe because apparently someone, some group, some organization, or some government is supporting Al-queda because they would not have the money had they not been supported by an outside group. If this means that the U.N or someone within the United States government is supporting Al-queda that official or those officials need to be recalled or called back so that they don't cause any more harm or they need to be impeached and if it is the current President we need to get rid of him to get rid of the violence.

First of all, it's Al-Quaeda, not Al-queda.
Where is "Al-queda's" "home soil"?



Please state where you got this intel on their future plans, and exactly how they will be carried out.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
...I heard statistics saying that one out of so many homeless people are from the military, and that we should also offer them services after they come back from the war right away.

Sorry, but you can't just say something because you "heard statistics." I heard that your grandmother was a terrorist. That doesn't mean anything, because there's no credible source. Please stop being ignorant and justifying your speeches by stating that you "heard something."

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We need the news to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so that no one complains.

How do we do that?

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We should allow people to take amplitude tests even if they aren't going in the army.

Please don't preach any policy on a word you don't know. It's "aptitude."

People can take "aptitude" tests if they don't go into the Army. The SAT and ACT are just two of them. The Armed Forces use the ASVAB, or the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. You must take this before enlisting in the military. Anyone can take it, at any time.

Is this what you're talking about?