*DAMN R6 Forum

I was watching CNN Headline News this morning. There are more and more people joining the anti war demonstrations everyday. To add on to that, Turkey just denied us access to their military bases due to the Turkish population demonstrating against this war. That means if the U.S. and England are to go to war with Iraq, we're going to have a hard time finding a place to attack Iraq from the north. People don't want a war...but then look what happened during ww2. Europe didn't want war and Hitler ended up taking over half of Europe before someone woke up. If we sit back and masturbate, we're giving Sodamn Insane plenty of time to make a military move. AND HE WILL! JUST GIVE HIM TIME!

Bah! The only country that has proven to OWN biological, chemical AND nuclear mass destruction weapons is yours. The U.S. - And if i look on the history line since WW2 it has been america who also used that shiat (Agent Orange, Uranium Ammunition etc ...).

So if theres a reason to disarm someone - it would be the U.S.

Northern Corea wants the U.S. to sign a "non agression pact" - but U.S. denies. SO they claim: If the U.S. are a threat for Northern Corea we have full right to go after nuclear weapons - cuz they would be the only chance to DEFEND themselfes from a possible foe that HAS mass killing weapons.

And to Saddam Hussein: The only reason Iraq attacked Kuwait was that Kuwait has been a part of Iraq before british colonial times. Kuweit even was "Created" from brits. Also its known that Iraq contacted the U.S. before "Invading" Kuweit. The U.S. statement was: "Re-Annection of Kuweit would be seen as "regional conflict" and U.S. would stay Neutral in this. Muahahaha. Nice trick - indeed.

So whos there who has to be scared from Saddam anymore? Iran would whoop his ass, Kuweit is defended by U.S. (same thing), the ONLY country that could not match the Iraqi Army is Jordania - but there is no fucking reason at all for Saddam to invade there. LOL - if he would try to touch fucking isreal pseudo-democracy you could collect saddams remains in a 500 squaremiles area. hehe.

Dont talk shit man. If u talk from war then have the balls to say the truth: In this war the formula is: Blood for Oil.

Your own President is chairsman of Bush-Oil something. And Dick Chenexy owns part of the north afghanistan pipeline now.

So suck my hairy balls but fuck of with your pro-war bullshiat here.

peace to the world ~

war is primitive, stupid, apestyle, dumb, cruel, unneccessary and time has come where war as "extended measures of policy" MUST be condamned.

And if Powell & Co continue to threaten the eu and nato with speeches like "either u do what we want or u dont play a role in international buisness anymore" (yesterday in the news) then i can promise u it will end that way that u can fight your fairytale war against terrorism with some BSE fucked brits ALONE.

To all of u who are christians: Hope your God exists and will make sure u will be re-born as Iraquis or Palestinians (or somebody else whos fucked up). Then u will notice that hell exists on earth already.

So - now get some Big Mac from Mac Donalds and be happy.

peace ~

Bander

Oh, the the old Soviet Union / Russia doesn't count Bander?  And what about China?  Not to mention the ones that you know have then wthout "proof".  (not to mention the chemical weapons used in the Iran / Iraq wars).


If you are going to talk about it, you should know what it is.  It's DEPLEATED URANIUM.  It isn't a radioactive weapon, it's just more dense then fucking LEAD.  Cuts through armour better.  It is not the nuclear weapon some people on this board have made it out to be.


There's a fucking joke.  While the US government has stuck it's head in places it doesn't belong, for the wrong reasons, it's no different then any other government looking after it's own asses.  

And, while it has done some bad things, it's also one of the first militaries to go in and do the right thing too.  

Plus, Iraq has killed many more people, both of it's own and of others (Kuwaities, Iranians, etc) then the USA has in the last 20 years.  


For somone that goes on to bitch about war being bad, you sure are quick to defend a nation that is bringing more nuclear weapons to life.

The USA, along with many other nations, are REDUCING the number and type of nuclear weapons they have Bander.  North Korea is bucking that trend, and threatening war if the USA stops with trade and aid (they don't want us to use chose where our money goes either).  It's North Korea that is talking the smack.  They want non-aggression while they build up weapons and forces.  Why should they be trusted?


NATO should be threatened for not living up to their own accords.  What the hell good is an alliance if they don't keep their end of the deal.  Sure, many european countries loved having the USA as an ally when they were afraid of the old Soviet Union coming in and taking over.  But now that that threat is gone, they don't want any part of it.  LOL, just like the American government, the European governments want to have it all their way.  


Bander, you are just outragous.  Your spout your biggotry against America, then say shit like Peace.  HYPOCRITE.  Yes, I agree that Bush wants war too much.  And not for all the right reasons.  That doesn't mean that war may not be necessary.

Next time you think that there should be no war, and that America should be disarmed, think of the jack-boot wearing thugs that would control your country today if it weren't for the USA.  Think about what would happen if one of these petty dictators came to power and wanted your country today?  It took Hitler less then a decade to bring Germany back from economic ruin to one of the greatest world powers.  You think that can never happen again?  

It all starts with hate.  Just like your hate of the USA.  So, you can tongue-jack my hairy shit box with your talk of peace and obvious hate of the USA.

I don't defend Bush.  I don't defend everything this country does.  But your arrogant biggotry against the USA is just as bad as any overzealous American.  You are even worse, you hate America probably without ever being here and knowing what it is really like.

I can do nothing but laugh when Bush's allies are failing him, truly funny.

Bander has a point when he says that the US is the only nation to have ever used weapons of mass destruction on a ?large scale?. Russia and China are no longer threats to anyone but themselves.

Just curious here, depleted uranium, hasn't it proven to be harmful on American troops? I thought that was why they stopped using it.

I don't think anyone can defend Iraq for all the atrocities they have commited, but they were fooled into thinking the Kuwait war was a safe bet. Furthermore, they have no power to invade anyone at all, they don't have a cause to do so either.

The American governments world-policing-policies can not be compared to European govenments in the least.

North Korea threatens the US because they don't have a choice, if the US stops all the trading, the NK will starve, that's why they try to get as much power - through nuclear devices - as possible.

I agree with bucc that bander's post was pretty outrageous in many aspects, but since bucc already argued most of the points, I want to point out one especially stupid nugget: "So - now get some Big Mac from Mac Donalds and be happy." This is an offensive and ridiculous stereotype especially considering the fact that Germany is McDonald's most profitable overseas market. McDonalds Deutschland is the biggest restaurant company in Germany, over twice as large as its nearest competitor, and there are now more than a thousand McDonald's franchises in Germany alone.

The main thing I don't agree with in regard to bucc and py's posts is the fact that America is justified in engaging in flagrantly self-serving behavior just because other countries do. Don't you think that America should take the "high road" in regard to international affairs? We are one of the few countries in the world that has the financial and diplomatic capabilities to act morally on a global scale, so don't you think we should set a better example? Its unreasonable to expect less fortunate countries to behave that way when the nation that they look up to most (whether they admit it or not) doesn't act it.

Also I must interject here to say that I think that suspicion of military action by Saddam against us is somewhat silly. Its reasonable to suspect another terrorist attack, but it would be difficult to link anything directly to Saddam. With the exception of the attempted assasination of George Bush Sr., no major acts of recent terrorism have been linked to Hussein. I see some amount of truth in the assertion that Bush's tirade against Saddam is being used to detract attention to the fact that we did NOT find Bin Laden and that the perpetrators of 9/11 have gone largely unpunished, compared to the citizens of Afghanistan who received the brunt of our anger stemming from that incident.

Although WWII makes for an interesting comparison to the current situation, Saddam would have to do many more heinous things than he already has to even get close to the point Hitler was at when Europe continued to appease him. I think we have learned our lessons from that war, and when Hussein attempted to invade Kuwait the US, with the assistance of Japan and Germany, soundly stopped him. I think that if Saddam ever tried anything he would quickly find himself in deep shit again. He knows this, and that's why he won't try anything. Another thing to note would be that every time the US was justified in military force, we had waited for the enemy to attack first. Every time we have tried to launch a war as an overthrow of unfriendly leadership (bay of pigs), against an amorphous enemy (terrorists), or against a concept (communism) it has resulted in failure. If we are truly to learn lessons from history, we will not take military action against Iraq at this time.

Well, I could Bucc Bucc and point out every slightly flawed detail in his post, but I think if you view the large picture, we're all essentially in agreement.  But Bucc. . .lay off Bander at least a little.  Can you say "depleted uranium" properly in your second language?  

And I think most of the American stereotypes he mentioned were justified. . .afterall, they are just that.  They don't have to apply to everyone (or even everyone on this board) to be true.  When you look at MOST of the people in this country (to use another stereotype, the one's who support bush ;)) they really are hamburger loving airheads.

But I will take issue with Pyrex's idea that Hussein is a threat of equal to Hitler.  Yes, when Europe ignored germany after WWI they allowed Hitler to build a huge army and assemble massive power.  However, Hussein is tightly watched, he's economically sanctioned, and he keeps to himself.  In truth he's no longer a real threat to anyone except himself and his own country, and that's not really another nation's business.

Also Bucc, tasty is right in that the United States is still the only nation every to have used nuclear weapons against an enemy, and one of very few ever to have used chemical and biological agents.

By all means, and I tried to be clear that I don't support Bush and his overzealous desire to attack Iraq.  I will agree to it, only if a threat is verified by the UN.  I know that Bush has his own adgenda, and it has little to do with the public good.  However, if it is found that Iraq is working on more chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, then I support the force necessary to remove that threat.  It is the moral high ground, since Iraq has proven that it will use them, and not just against the USA.


Which is exactly what I am interested in finding out.  If he is supporting terrorists, then it's a valid reason. If it's just the old smoke and mirrors, it's not.


They know better then to mess with anyone again.  It's ok if they re-arm, turn a blind eye to it, they aren't stupid enough to do it again.  They just got their asses handed to them 15 years ago.  Quick, am I talking about Iraq today or Germany in 1935?  Because that's what most of the world said back then.  

I'm not saying that Saddam is as bad as Hitler, I'm saying that he shouldn't be given the oppertunity to demonstrate it.  Hitler hadn't done anything "that bad" until after Germany was almost impossible to stop.  Do you really want to ignore someone That fits the murderous pattern of Saddam?


Not completely correct.  We instigated the Revolutionary War.  If the modern theories are true, we really started the Spanish American War.  We were also never directly attacked in WWI, nor the Gulf War.  All of those could be considered successful.  Also, the USA pretty much did win the war against "communism", at least it won the biggest fight in that one (so long USSR).  

The biggest problem with things like the Bay of Pigs (unlike when Teddy Rosevelt went down there and took Cuba in the first place) is the US military wasn't behind it.  It was a covert war.  Same way that Vietnam started.  The only reason Cuba isn't another US territory today is because we were afraid how the USSR would have reacted, so we never let the military in on it.  With Vietnam, there was just so much political pressure here, that the US never fully comitted to winning it.  Look how few Americans were actually in Vietnam at any one single time.  Then look at how many were in Europe and the Pacific in WW2.  At the height of the Vietnam war, I think there was still under 300k Americans there at one time.  For most of it, far less.  



I'm not a war monger.  I don't want to see war if it can be avoided.  But, I don't like someone basing America off one person, and thinking that we blindly back him.  Especially one that spouts hate at America while preaching peace.  Two faced.  It disgusts me.

I'm really surprised nobody else mauled this statement. Iraq didn't want Kuwait back.. Iraq was pissed that Kuwait was flooding the oil market and thus they lost more revenue and buisness during a time in which they REALLY needed cash. Plus, Iraq suspected Kuwait was drilling diagonally into Iraq's oil reserves, which pissed them off even more. The result: the conflict. In addition, your statement is also false because Kuwait was never part of Iraq. In 1961, Iraq had claimed Kuwait, under the PRETENSE that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire subject to Iraqi suzerainty... however this proved false and Iraq recognized Kuwaits sovereignty.


You have this completely backwards. The US and N.K. previously had a non aggression pact that involved the US giving them aid in exchange for them not building up their nuke aresnal. Does that sound like the US was threatening them? Trying to shatter the peace? I don't think so. Last time I checked promoting economic and social growth while reducing the number of weapons around doesn't strike me as a particularly disagreeable circumstance. North Korea is just trying to stir up trouble.
IRAN would whoop his ass? HA HA.

Well I'm just from little ol' Canada but we gots opinions too.

Now this weapons issue in Iraq could be simplified alot. The UN should tell the US that they get to sit this one out. This isn't their job. They should be told 'great job in '91, you did us proud, now go away'. Why not have another country appointed by the UN to use force against Iraq in the event of a problem with the inspectors?

Would people really have as big a problem if it wasn't the US that was leading the coalition?

I think they should get some of the other countries to do it on behalf of the UN. China, Russia, Canada, Austrailia, Germany,France, Pakistan, South Africa could all enforce the UN resolutions just as well as the US (if they teamed up of course).

Oh and Cookie, Iraq and Kuwait were once both part of the Ottoman Empire. They were both administered from Baghdad.

With all this bullshit that flies around, especially from Europe, I think sometimes that we would have been better off if we had let Europe rot in the hell it created for itself. George Washington really knew what he was talking about when he warned us on his way out of office. I admit the US is not perfect, but we have done a lot to help out other countries. If you don't believe this, just look at what happened before we played World Policeman: the two most far-reaching, devastating wars in history. Ever since we took over the role of looking out for everyone else, nothing even coming close to that scale has happened. And for what? So dumbfucks could say shit like this:
Thanks, but no thanks.

And to you personally Bander, fuck off. I don't call you a slurpee-making, cab-driving, raghead terrorist son of a bitch just because you are part Arab, even though you make the same sweeping generalizations against Americans. So please, either cut that bullshit or take your hyopcritical rantings elsewhere.

Since the pick-apart style seems to be the modus operandi for forum argument, I'm gonna give it a whirl. For the first two quotes of mine that you responded to Bucc we seemed to be generally in agreement, so I'm not going to address them. The only difference between us on this seems to be that I would require a more dire set of circumstances under which to justify military action.

This ignores the fundamental difference I was trying to point out between Germany 1935 and today. We let Hitler take significant military action against neighboring areas. Right now we have only scant evidence that Hussein is even arming himself, much less for any major military onslaughts. What I was trying to point out with my post is that we will be justified only after military action is taken. Until Saddam takes action against another country, (in which case we will certainly attack him) no comparison can be accurately drawn between Germany and Iraq.

In WWI, aggression existed between our allies. In the Gulf War, although Saddam was attacking Kuwait he was doing it to get to us and the rest of the Western world. And although you are right with the Revolutionary War comment, its disingenuous to say that we won or "pretty much" won the war against Communism. Considering all the ridiculous things we did to battle it, all the resouces we wasted, all the time we spent, it still exists (in one form or another) in North Korea, China, and Cuba, and its ideals still live on in countless revolutionaries all over the world. Although we certainly contributed to it, the US cannot take credit for the fall of the USSR. It was a bloated state with a ridiculous economic system that was doomed to fail anyway. Even the idea of "fighting" Communism is ridiculous because essentially to admit that it needs to be fought is to admit that in some capacity it works.

This I dont completely understand... is it supposed to be about me? If it is, I have much to say in response to it. However in previous situations I have been mistaken with who posters were addressing with their comments, so I'm not going to respond until I know I'm not just making some foolish mistake.

Also, I attended a speaker tonight who addressed the whole Iraq issue within his speech. He was pointing out what an Orwellian concept it is for us to justify action aginst Iraq through a pre-emptive strike (ie, we believe you will attack us so we are going to attack you first). If this can be used as a justification for war, than isn't Iraq justified in attacking us right now? The US has flatly stated that we intend to take action against Iraq... what more proof would they need to attack us under a pre-emptive strike? Currently, they have more and better evidence for a pre-emptive strike against us than we do for a strike against them! This whole concept just perpetuates itself... if everyone used it, full scale wars would erupt in Israel, Pakistan, and anywhere else where armed countries have unfriendly relations.

So you don't think modern Iraq and Germany from 1935 are the same? Well then think about this:

1) Saddam treats the Kurds how Hitler treated the Jews.
2) Saddam has created chemical weapons (we found some of the empty warheads proving this) and built his arsenal up against the terms of the UN resolution ending the Gulf War, just like Hitler built up his army in excess of what the Treaty of Versailles permitted.
3) Saddam has shot at planes flying over the no-fly zone, thus violating the UN resolution. This sounds awfully familiar to Hitler remilitarizing the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
4) Saddam is a leader who has proven that he is willing to push the UN and the US to their limits to see how much he can get away with, just like Hitler did with the League of Nations, espcially France and Britain.

So basically, short of invading Poland, Saddam has done as much as possible to make himself into a damn Hitler. Hell, I take that back, Saddam invaded his Poland (Kuwait) and we were dumb enough to leave him in power. Since we are dicking around with him and letting him get away with so much, he will surely strike again. Have you ever thought that G.W. doesn't want to go down with Neville Chamberlain as a complete and utter moron in history who should have acted but didn't?

Kuwait, while battling for sovereignty from the Ottoman Empire, retained it's de facto independence. In like 1897 or something, Kuwait asked Britain to help.. and thus Kuwait became free. It is in that way that Kuwait was never truly a part of the Ottoman Empire... and thus that gives IRaq no claim whatsoever over the nation.

Next to tastys post
this is the biggest pile of poo i've ever heard. It's like letting a guy walk around with a loaded gun, and not doing anything about it until he shoots someone.
I think what bucc was getting at was that it wasn't literally a win, however it was a victory symbolically. Because the USSR was pretty much where it all began, its collapse signified a victory over communism by the US. Also, I think that despite it's so called existence, there is no true communism around today. Sure, China claims to be communist be it's a fas?ade.. they're capitalists just like everyone else. They want money as much as the next nation. In the cases of Cuba and North Korea, they can also be claimed as victories, because of the economically stagnant situation they have on their hands. Their failure just proves the triumph, i suppose.
Do we always fight things that work? Nay... people often fight things because they are certain they won't work and do more harm than good, such is the case with communism. Your logic is flawed.
The concept is not Orwellian in that it doesn't perpetuate a totalitarian state, it justifies pre-emptive strikes. I give you that.. it could lead to conflict emerging prematurely. However perhaps it will open the door to earlier confrontation of problems, and instead of letting the problem fester like we so often do the countries may be able to resolve them earlier and more peacefully.

Good choice.  I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Bander's comments and why my Irish is up.


You are right.  I don't need to wait until he actually kills thousands more.  Just proof that he was going to attempt it.  Or even proof that he is violating many of the sanctions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.


First, it's not scant evidence.  We are waiting to hear just how much there is, but don't sell it short either.

Second, I got your point, didn't ignore it, but I guess I didn't make my position clear.  The rest of the world shouldn't have waited for 1939 and Hiter invading France, or Poland before it.  No, they should have acted when he was obviously rearming and lying his ass off about it (how much did he say the fucking Bismark weighed?  just one example).  No, my point is that if the world hadn't ignored the steps that he took years before invading any neighbors, that were still in violation of a treaty signed just a decade or so earlier, after the previous time they got out of line, then, WW2 and all that death could have been avoided.  That was the point I obviously didn't make well enough Tasty.  I don't want war, but I don't want that sick fuck building up that kind of power again either.  So I have no problem if it's found, having it removed.  

Loudnotes, I'm not picking on Bander's english at all.  I assume that whatever papers or other media he gets his news from comes in his native language.  And that they would understand the concept of depleted uranium.  Or at least the definition of the word "depleted".  Otherwise, those highly vaunted unbiased European news organizations aren't worth shit either.

Also Loud, have to correct you on the fact that less then half the country voted for Bush.  Hell, less then half the Americans that voted actually voted for Bush (remember, Gore won the popular vote).  

As for his stereotypes on Americans, I don't treat the Germans and Austrians here like jack booted neo nazi's that want to take over the world and kill all the jews, so I don't expect him to throw those kind of insults at us.  It's for the weak minded.

Collin, I like your idea, only one problem.  Without the American military, the others don't like to go play as much.  They don't have the military budgets to sustain long engagements like this without American assistance.    Some others just don't care about UN work.  Then there's China.  LOL.  No offense towards you.  Just thinking that they'd never get involved.  Hell, if the countries that signed the NATO alliance can't keep their end of it (some, not all), there is no way the UN will do it without the USA there.

Bander you need to phrase yourself better. As someone from Vienna you should be a bit more cultured than to resort to steryotyping. As for Iraq, well I am not sure that there is enough proof, even with those empty war head that could have possibly been used for chemical weapons. Ace, I think Bush and many other people in the country are going to fast. There has been no hard scale proof yet. Also on the subject of Depleted Uranium, it is true what Bucc says to a degree. It is not radioactive, but it is toxic, and it has polluted the water supply of the city of Basra. Remeber water is more important than gold over there.

The one difference between Hitler and Sadaam, is that Sadaam is not invading other countries. He has invaded Kuwait in the past, but was pushed out and remains in power due to the Treaty we signed with him.
Unless he is found to have Nukes, made partially made, being planed to be made, or if he actually sends Iraqi troops over the borders, we have no pretext to invade.

By the way I am sorry if my post seems unorginzed and confusing, I am very sleepy and cant think very straight at the moment. That last statement probablly dosent help my argument that much.
In short I go with Bucc on this one, George II has his own agenda for he and his cronies that is not good for the public welfare. He is looking to invade Iraq for mostly commerical gains, however Iraq could pose a threat.

Wait actually I think we should just capture Iraq and turn it into another of Canada's territories.

They would be so confused they could not possibly be upset. No has anything against Canada. We would bring them hockey and donuts. Canada would then have even more oil.

Actually on second thought, we should just go in occupy the oilfields, pump 'em dry, then nuke the whole region so it's a giant layer of glass and build habitats under the sea.

I don't give a crap about Iraq. Really, who does?

Personally, I'd like America to focus on preventing conflict rather than stirring the pot of hate and anger in an attempt to bully the rest of the world into doing what we want them to.

If Iraq truly was an enemy, truly was a threat of the magnatude suggested in Bushian rhetoric then there would be no purpose in engaging in dialogue with allies to support invasion, there would be no need to convince neighbors nor politicians, nor the public. If Iraq was a true enemy, and an immeadiate threat, we would have no need to validate invasion. we simply would have done it. When he has threatend before, we struck. Where is the threat? The threat lies in small political/social groups based within numerous countries (within allies and foes alike) who have goals more sinister and more frightening that Saddam can wet-dream of. The attacks of a year ago are a cake walk compared to that which our true enemies would like to perpetrate. Saddam, conversely, has at best sought to expand his nation's territory. Sub goals have been roused by American aggitation, most notable being the attempted assassination of Bush senior.

In looking back at history, and at previous moments when the US stood under direct threat, when we were challenged with the greatest of weapons and armies, how did we respond? During the Cold War, did we attack Russia? Did we invade Eastern Europe or bomb Moscow? Did we threaten, did we EVER threaten to remove the leaders of Russia from power, by force? Of course not, because to do so is madness - to directly threaten the leaders of an opponent nation is to inspire both in the people and those leaders the most harsh of responses - our essential clam with Russia secured us peace and demonstrated to the world, a world at fear, that America could be trusted both in the defense of freedom, and as the garanteer of peace.

When conflict did seem ineviatable, when Cuba was filled with SRMs and Russian and American forces actually shot at one another, what was our response? We desperately sought to avoid war. True that our weapons were prepared and ready, but our heart was not for Armmeagdon.

Of course, the szicofrinzic (jeez I need to learn to spell) current Bush foreign policy, one of verbally assaulting Iraq, preping for war, building a coliation of allies, drumming up popular support, et all, compared to Bush policy on N. Korea, one of back bending, prostration, appeasement, Big Talk, convinces me that the purpose behind our impending invasion of Iraq is not about self defence nor protecting Americans or their allies. It's about something else - and we intuitively know that. Instead of being up front about the goals and purposes behind American agression, we instead get a pitch, coupled with the denounciation of any who oppose war as Anti-American (http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0103/22marketing.html)

It is becoming more and more apparent as Bush and Blair, the two greatest aggitators for war, fall in the polls that war is last thing their citizens want. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&ncid=716&e=15&u=/nyt/20030126/ts_nyt/blair_s_stand_on_iraq_costs_him_popularity_at_home

It is clear that Bush wants nothing to do with the actuallized threat of a nuclear armed N. Korea, equipt with long range missles that can hit China, Russia, Japan, S. Korea, and the West Coast of the US. Instead of bringing forces to bear, both diplomatic and military against Korea, he is focusing our minds and efforts on the fools errand of Iraq and a pitifully pathetic despot whose own people could be counted on rejecting him, if given a choice.

Indeed, no one but Bush and pals want to go to war - http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901030203-411381,00.html    -     http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=15012      -     http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=15012

Compared to N. Korea, the one remaining true communist state, where each member of society is raised to believe and desire a death that benifits the state, where each member of society is trained to kill with out remorse, a country that takes pride in it's vast army, a country that agressively pursued and countinues to pursue nuclear arms, a country with KNOWN stocks of fissionable material, a series of weapons grade nuclear plants, and numerous delivery systems (planes, missles, and artilery - the artilery being the greatest threat, capable of hiting the capital of S. Korea any time, day or night), a country that repeatedly threatens war if we do not bend to their demands, and lastly, a country which could, by conservative estimates, produces numerous nuclear weapons given a handful of MONTHS ... who the fick should I, we and the rest of the world, worry about?

Should we buy into propaganda produced to benifit the man with a strange goal of war with Saddam Hussien, or should we be and act rationally, and realize that there are more and truer threats in the world that back yard bullies like Saddom? Indeed, the whole situation is comical - http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Irony.html

Where is our investigation into the 9/11 attacks?

Where is our vanted war on terror?

Where o where is the might of America when it comes to despors who control nuclear material?

When will we actually accomplish any of the basic goals laid out after 9/11?

Why must we bribe our allies instead of actually confincing them? (http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=84705)


It saddens me that there are those out there brash enough to simply lust for war. It depresses me as an American, an American raised to believe in the righteousness of our causes and our believes. In the case of Bush and Iraq, it is clear that there in no righteousness nor cause. The world, which just a year ago was united in support and sympathy is now instead forced more and more to realize how little we can be trusted, how amoral our leaders are (and, thusly how ignorant and sanguine our people), and, instead of backing us are backing off. We could have done something. We could have accomplished a revitilization of world afares if we cared to. We could have fought real evil and hate, with the support of a united world. Instead, Bush and those running him want to invade Iraq. What sense does it make, when Osama is missing and terrorists and our hunt for them is put on the back burner?

My country ashames me.

Sixhits ......you get 10 extra brilliant points. For a while now I think tasty and I agree with you. Here are my answers.....

Where is our investigation into the 9/11 attacks?<>It stopped, we started assuming

Where is our vanted war on terror?<> It was always just a cover up to hit Iraq, Afganistan was a pawn.

Where o where is the might of America when it comes to despors who control nuclear material?<>Thats a toughie

When will we actually accomplish any of the basic goals laid out after 9/11?<>Nothing because we acted like bullied out ugly ducklings instead of thinking what we did to cause it.

Why must we bribe our allies instead of actually confincing them?<> Because they are too smart to ally with the US.


NEXT i have a question for you guys.......

Why does Iraq have to be proven innocent? I thought this was america people? Innocent until proven guilty.

Jeez you know what sorry for the double post but Sixhits is right We just want oil and Bush wants to clean the family name. I saw this same shit over 9-11 we need to stop acting like the little abused child because I hate to break it to some of you but America washes its hands in blood every day. I mean we say we want to free the people of Iraq? What about freeing the people in Africa what have we done there? We havent done a damn bit of nothing there and its because they dont have shit for natural resouces. The minute someone strikes oil in Africa I gurentee we will be there but seeing as that wont happen we leave them to die. And we say we are protectecting freedom, WHAT FREEDOM. Our ruler didnt get elected by the popular vote even and you know what else Its call Collateral Damage. They have nukes we have nukes and nobody dies.

See...ln...that's the line of thinking that lead to ww2 in the first place. Do you think saddam gives a shit about sanctions? What's to stop him from launching all his weapons of mass destruction? He's closely watched by what? Satellites? heh...that does a lot of good when you have nuclear weapons aimed up your ass.

Yes he is another nation's business. He's violated plenty of U.N. rules and crimes against humanity. That gives us the right to stick our nose in his business. How psychotic does one person have to be before people start realizing how dangerous it can become.

As for Iran. They're next.

Iran next? What did they do except be Islamic Fundementalists? They even helped with the overthrow of the Taliban and have even given us intel. The only bad thing they have done is support a warlord in Western Afghanistan. The problem with Afghanistan's current government is that it fails to represent Shia Muslims. Iran feels like it is the protector of those that are of the Shia faith. They have definently not commited anything war worthy, and in my opinion nothing "axis of evil" worthy. Right now in Iran they are going through dramatic social change. The Mullahs are losing power and the government is becoming much more libral. It is true that they are building nuclear power plants, but it is with the aid of Russia. The Russians are keeping a close eye on Iran's nuclear aspects, hell the Russians are practically building it! Keep in mind I am not saying that Iran is an saint state or anything, I am just saying that they have done nothing to warrant invasion or sanctions.

   As for Iraq, they are no threat. Sadaam wants to stay in power more than anything. I want to see the overthrow of Sadaam dont get me wrong, but not by America's terms or method. North Korea is a more dire threat. Blackmailing the most economicly stimulating region in the world with nuclear weapons. They can launch it at Seoul, Tokyo, Taipei, Anchorage, and shortly maybe even Honolulu and Los Angeles. TUCK YOUR LEGS IN METH ITS GONNA BE A HOT ONE! Two empty sterile cannisters that could be used for chemical weapons. That is circumstancial. As for Sadamm killing his own population, if that is a pretext to invade, lets invade Russia for killing Chechens, lets invade China for killing Uighers and 30 million of its own people a year. Lets bomb the shit out of Saudi Arabia because it executes homosexuals. Vaporize the Mexicans for squashing revolts in Chiapas. Lets invade Turkey for killing Kurds just like Sadaam has done. The reason, because he is killing his own people is not a valid reason, considering there are other nations doing the same, if not even on a more massive scale ie Russia and China.

Think of this.....you stated in a previous post about us fighting two fronts and bush's economic plans....etc. etc. About how our resources will be strained


Yes those countries are doing that but we can only do so much. We're trying to protect the rights of human life. When someone violates that right they become a target. But we're limited in what we do. If the U.N. had brains they'd help us in cleaning up the corrupt politicians. But being corrupt politicians themselves it doesn't help the situation. Why say Saddam has done nothing wrong when he has in fact...YES ITS PROVEN...violated the weapons of mass destruction rule that was placed on him after Desert Storm?  The reason its there....TO PREVENT THE ASSHOLE FROM STARTING ANOTHER WAR. He's capable of doing it so whats to stop him from doing it again? Sanctions? HAH....U.N. slaps on the wrist? HAH. We need to do it. Is it the wrong time? Possibly. We should be more worried about our economy at the moment then shoving a gun in Saddam's ass. But that would be giving him enough time to construct his nuclear weapons. Again...IT'S BEEN PROVEN...HE HAS THE MATERIALS AND HE WILL MAKE THEM. Someone who knocks off a portion of their country's population is most likely to have means of making large scale weapons. Stop patting Saddam's ass and start reaming.

Iran. Yea they haven't done anything recently that's worthy of a war. But they do support terrorism. In fact...Osama could be hiding there right now. Since we're in a war on terrorism...we might as well finish the job.

Muslims hate us because we're Christian. They want to wage a holy war against us and jews. They think we're the spawn of satan.

Reason #1: Their religion teaches to hate Americans and their Christ loving ways. They're taught to hate anyone that doesn't practice their specific faith.

Reason #2: Their government teaches in schools and in mosques about how we're monsters and demons. Muslim religious leaders are more revered than any religious leader is revered in the Christian world. So hearing words of hate coming from their religious leaders about America is automatically truth. It's even in the Koran. Anyone who does not believe in the teachings of the Muslim faith is to die.

Reason #3: Their society is extra conservative. Because of our liberal ways they feel threatened by our belief in freedom. We give rights to a criminal who's murdered 3 children. In their society that person is decapitated or hung, beaten, and then dragged through the streets. Women are stoned to death for having a child out of wedlock (adultery).

There you have it.

Heh, ok Pyrex, first off, muslims do not hate christians or jews because they are christians or jews. Sure there are zealous leaders in the muslim world that hates the western world for various reasons but there are christian zealots who have the same thoughts and prejudices against the muslim world. You just can't generalize it like that.
The religion of Islam does not say that you should hate America. Oh and by the way Christ refers to Jesus, he's a christian prophet, don't say muslims love Jesus, that would really piss them off.
Their governments might be corrupt and they might teach out that Americans are evil, but aren't you doing the same? Atleast that's what Bush is doing, with his ?Axis of Evil? declarations.
The American society is really conservative as well, just think it through a bit and you'll see what I mean.
So what I'm basically saying is, don't hate Islam, it's not the religion that's wrong. Many of the Muslim leaders might be stuck in the past, but they'll come along. Just think about how it used to be in Europe a couple of hundred years ago.

Second, is it really up to the US to decide whether an armed invasion is necessary? Does Iraq really threaten the US in any way at the moment? There are reasons for 80% of the world to be against a war in Iraq. It's not proven that Iraq has any big storages of hidden weapons of mass destruction.

Actually there is evidence that Saddam has all the required materials for a nuclear weapon. Plus, he hasn't proven that all his chemical and biological weapons were destroyed. Honeslty, do you think someone who invaded a country and killed thousands is going to hand over his weapons willingly? Yes you can say Saddam's a good little boy and he learned from his mistake. That's not reality. Everyone saw what Pol Pot did. He was taken care of quickly. Why can't the same be done with Saddam? All we need to do is kill the bastard. The rest should play out.

People don't learn from history. That's why we see this pattern of assholes terrorizing us and everyone else who believes in freedom. Germany didn't learn from WW1 and ended up starting WW2. Saddam didn't learn from Desert Storm and he still preaches hate. Japan on the other hand learned very well. I believe the emperor of Japan during ww2 said after Pearl Harbor, "We've just awaken the giant".


Now kami....how many christian zealots are there here in America. Do you see us dancing in the streets singing "Death to Muslims" ? I think not. Im not hating any muslims. I was simply stating why they hate us. Its the truth. Because we believe in Christ, we're demons. I don't believe I said muslims love Jesus. That would be contradicting everything I've stated. I'm not preaching hate. It's the plain honest to god truth. The Koran does state that anyone who does not practice the muslim faith is to die. PERIOD. GO READ IT.

To Pyrex I say one thing, "Look at Turkey." They are muslim and rather libral. Today the muslim world is going through a reformation. Back in the old days muslims were alot more civilized than Europeans. They allowed other religions in their empire. The Turks did, the Persians did, the Mughals did, and they Egyptians did.  Until recently a "wahhabist" movement or a radical movement started to gain momentum out of Saudi Arabia. They are the protestants of the Muslim World.

Kudos to them...but that's 10% of the muslim world. They've experienced some of our western ideals and have seen how wonderful it truly is. But they still have prejudice feeling to anyone who doesn't practice the muslim faith. The other 90% is ready to rip our nuts off.

Saddam might have something tucked away, but it's nothing major, I'll bet my dirty socks on that. And anyway, you need hard proof, right now you have ?soft? proof or what to call it.

Germany didn't learn from WWI because of the French and British. They were too tough on the Germans, Hitler used that in his campaigns to gain strength in a depressed and economically ruined country, it's not as easy as you might think it is. What does the Japanese emperor have to do with anything? He didn't have any control of the country anyway, the Japanese generals were the ones who had power.

There are way more Christian zealots in America than you might think. It's rather scary. You seem to hate muslims, a lot, that's the impression you give. I'll just second what Cossack said about it.

I hate no one. Im posting the truth. It sounds like hate to you because you don't understand the severity of the problem. Think about the future. How these actions will affect our future.

1 thing i hate about US, is that they think they own the world. when all they know is what they see in the news.

There are more examples of libral Islamic states. Kazakhstan, Azerbajian is another example, and so is Egypt. Lets look at why Muslims in my following case Iranians in particualr hate the West. Iranians do not hate us just because we are christian, exploitation is the major cause. When Iran kicked out British oil in the 50s, they were met with great hostility from the west who up until that point had been ripping Iran off immensly. Then the Shah came back to power and let the foreign companies have their way with Iran's oil. This is when the Ayatoullah seized power, to block the west from exploiting them any further.

The original problem does not rely on the difference of religion, but on exploitation. Muslims are angry at their current governments for bending over to foreign intrests. Before Oil was discovered, Muslims and Christians were good together (the occasional war with the Ottoman Empire.) It was China that was exploited. Real Islam professes tolerance. This has been practiced by past Islamic Empires, including the Caliphs, the Ottomans, the Malmukes, the Berbers, and more importantly, the Moores of Spain. As I have said, there is a religious reformation happening in the Islamic world just as big as the reforms Martin Luther nailed to the Cathedral at W?rttenburg. Unfortunently Wahhabism is taking the Islamic worl by storm. It is infectoion is spreading out of the Arabian Peninsula to Indonesia, Algeria, and Syria and Sub- Saharran Africa.

Keep in mind my yummy Py, that Islam was not meant as a hateful religion. Not many public schools in Islamic countries teach hatred towards America. You have heard such cases to be true on the Arabian Peninsula. It is not true in Turkey, Egypt, and The Islamic foreign Soviet Republics (ie Azerbadjian, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan). Where exploitation happens so does wrath.

ummm, i dont think the Koran says to hate americans or christians or jews. in fact, christians and jews enoy a special status in islam as "people of the book" (they are monotheistic) and the koran actually says that any muslim that harms a jew should be pusnished in some medeival way (i forget how). especailly compared to what was happening to jews in europe, this was a great improvement.
and Iran is the only country in the middle east in which actual democracy is practiced. yes, the mullahs have some say in who can run, but the elections actually have an impact.
cossack: you seem to equate 'bending over to foreign interests' with opening oil fields to foreign companies. none of these oilrich mideast countries would be able to extract and process oil without western help. i dont think many kuwaitis or qataris feel exploited. kuwait city was a village surrounded by a mud wall in 1960, now their filthy rich....thats not exploitation.
uzbekistan, kazakstan and egypt are liberal? None of those countries have fair elections and  none of them respect human rights. in egypt u can make jokes about hosni mubarak, yes, but u cant vote him out of office. turkey is a special case, because politically they are in SW europe and not in the mideast. this is because of the 1919 ataturk revolt, which emphasised secularism and western liberalism. finally, u make wahabism out to be some isolated, small-scale protest movement, but it is much more than that. wahabism has been around for 150 yrs and is one of the pillars of the Saudi monarchy. there are other similar fundamentalist sects, like the mahdis of sudan, so this is not an isolated phenomenon. islam today is not the islam of the mameluks or the caliphates. u cant simply say that islam has been a tolerant religion in the past, so muslims cant be aggresive or hateful today. many are. and hatred of the US and Israel IS somthing that is deeply engrained into arabs society...i dont think this is a question of religion, but one of society and culture.

I do not think I made myself clear. When I meant Egypt to be libral, I meant to say that they are not as religiously bounded as the other Arab countries. When I talk of libralism in the middle east, I talk of how bound they are by wahabism. Kazakhstan does have fair elections. Uzbekistan is a dictatorship, Azerbadjian is somewhere in between. The Soviet Republics are especially libral, because they are not bound by religion and politicaly they are rather leftist. There are exceptions such as Turkmenistan, who just elected their president to be Emporer for eternity. As for the time of the Caliphs, I consider them tolerant in a medieval sense, it is true christians and jews could not gain power, but they were left to live as long as they paid tribute. In the times of the Byzantine Empire, the villages of Eastern Anatolia celebrated the Saracens coming into their villages. Then again, who knows if this is ancient propoganda.

On wahabbism, I did not say that it was some small protest group, I meant to make it sound as big as the reformation, infact I think I said those exact words. Its an epidemic! Hell its becoming a pandemic! Pandemic movements are alot more than small protest groups. I also suppose politicaly Turkey is SW Europe, but it is proof that democracy can work in an Islamic sociotey.

Bah. Cuntpussy i suppose u are a 12 year old child that lately was been forced to read some newspapers.

You are trying to protect the rights of human life? Nerd, your goverment once "intalled" the bath party and saddam in IRAQ - so bombing a nation which has to suffer under that regime (wich once was good enuff to fight the "fanatic" mullahs in persia/iran for U.S. and europe - and wich used the gas WE and YOU gave it to them to kill those kurds) doesnt really make the U.S. look like the "Good guy".

AND: the U.S. threats & statements against the UN are the most terrible danger for "world peace" at all! when U.S. says "the UN is crap - we go on our own" why shoulnt the russians or the chinese (checenia/taiwan) also enforce their own regional interests by their own then? if this happens we have a 60 yers draftback in the progress of world-peace. But ur stupid goverment tries to hide non-existing brain by showing muscles and brute power. Thats what i think.
Bush should thank the hell for september 11th cuz it made out of an idiot the most "feared" man in the world.


Really poor cuntpussy. In fact: repeating bullshit 3 times, doesnt make it smell better. Most of ur blahblah i already commented before. The weapon-inspection didnt show any real "prooves" and if saddam HAS mass destruction weapons WHY didnt he already USE em on u while the FIRST gulf-war? humm? sometimes i think americans refuse to accept logical thinking. If he would use that shit on u he would get nuked his ass off. So he never would. And after he NEVER used that shit during desert-storm WHY should he have produced new chemical weapons? just to "have" it??? bah! Saddam stinks but 10 years of sanctions and perma bombings in north and south iraq soest help the people there in anyway. and it also doesnt rise your countrys sympathy in the world.
suffer & colateral damage for the poor - and in the end the "evil leader" dissapears somewhere with a sack of money. Btw.: THIS war would be GOOD for your economy. cuz Iraq has as much oil as Saudi-Arabia (and your goverment doesnt trust the saudi arabians anymore after september 11th - so lets change the gas-station.)

U are the strongest nation of the world and such pussys that u invade other nations only they COULD be a threat on you in some future??? thats really amusing ;)

btw.: the only reason saddam invaded kuweit is that kuweit was a part if iraq before the british colonial times. its a fact that your goverment declared to stay neutral in case an "re-annexction" of kuweit before the first gulf war. i am still questioning myself why the U.S. tricked their old "buddy" saddam back there. maybe the puppet wanted to be independent too much ;)

fazit: u have no clue about what u re talking about and an american adult should remove that internet connection from you. u are ashaming the intelligence of your country. better shut up. europa already thinks many of u guys are a little slow but doent proof that fact too harsh please.

tnk god there are nuff americans discussing here where its worth to read their postings. in future i will "ban" yours out of my view cuntpussy. totally worthless fantasy shit man.

Bander

Bander, have some balls and respond to my early posts, not the easy stuff.

And also, do us the favor of learning a little more about America.  Most states here do not have the death penalty.  That's just one of the many mistakes you make.  Maybe your internet connection should be taken away too, with all the bullshit that you spout like it was truth.

Well in WW2,

When Hitler invaded Chezoslovakia and took it in 2 days and the Euro Countries(Britain,France, Russia) screamed at hitler and said "wtf u doing", and hitler said "I'm just taking back territory that belonged to us, but lost in WW1"  Than he takes Austria and same thing happens, and finally he invades Poland in 1939 and starts WW2!

Saddain Insane is doing the same thing, saying he has no biocrap and hes trying to scare Europe with "IF you attack us start WW3 and have an Armagedon."

one

Bucc, Bander doesn't respond to good points because he knows he can't. That's why I still haven't heard anything about what I said from him.


Bander, do you realize that the only reason the UN continues to exist in a meaningful manner is because the US props it up? If it weren't for our support, it would just be another League of Nations. The reason the Russians or Chinese shouldn't and wouldn't act on their own is because we are the biggest, baddest country around and we can determine the outcome of any engagement we are involved in.

Bander could have been much more refined in your posts. You also are rather ignorant to America. That is besides the point. Bander does have some points underneath his anti american rant. He is correct about what the Koran says, and about the history surrounding Iraq. Do not take what he says about that for granted. As for Ace and Americans, your country is powerful, but not as powerful as you make it out to be. Watch out for the consequences of your actions, it will come to bite you back in the ass. Beleive me Ace, if China and Russia really didnt want the US to do something, they US would not. Either they will economicaly stop them, or militarily, such as in Kosovo. The US wanted NATO to invade Serbia, but the Russians airlifted a whole battalion into Belgrade. China may do something more drastic to get you guys outta Taiwan. Anyhow I have strayed off topic. Russia, or China could really give a shit about Iraq right now, they have enough problems and ambitions (ie expansion into Central Asia.)

Bander try to respond without insults, it really takes away from your credibility. Dont go off on rants telling us that we are stupid, because that is an unfair American steryotype. This also adds to your discredibility.Aber, Bander, schatz, du bist Richtig, die Amis sind bl?d, die Amis sind fesch, und die Amis riechen! Aber, du mu? nicht beleidigst der Amis, die Amis sind ein anst?ndig Leuten. Heh, die Russe hat gut deutsch nicht. Verzeihung!

is that how to quote? oh well, wtf....
this is bs, bander. kuweit was never part of iraq. it was administered from Basra during the ottman empire, but it is not as saddam (and qasim before him in the 60s) claims "iraqs long lost province". iraq only began being interested in kuweit when the oil thing took off in the mideast. this "re-annexation" arguement is pure bs and if you believe it, well then you probably also believe that 100 percent of iraqis voted for saddam 2 months ago and that saddam never possesed wmds. the facts are against you.
about the US 'tricking' saddam into invading kuweit, that too is bs. if you read the transcript of this conversation btw saddam and the us ambassador, there is never any subliminal message that invading kuweit is ok. if saddam interpreted anything she said that way then he is a tard. she was just doing her job as a diplomat and kissing ass....saddam mistakingly saw this as a sign of US weakness and lack of resolve. he was wrong and i dont think he will make a similar mistake now.
the puppet was trying to be too independant? yes, exactly. and thats why hes gotta get removed. the US is somewhat pragmatic and we have many dictator freinds. when they step out of line, they need to be dealt with however, and bush is now doing this (albeit 10 years too late). think of this as a mafia flick: the US is the godfather, kuweit pays protection and iraq is a capo that stepped out of line and tried to get his own piece of the action. now, how do you think don corleone is gonna respond?
bander, you have picked at some of py's weaker arguements without going in on any substantiative points that ppl have made on this board and thus contributed absolutly nothing to the discussion. du solltest versuchen eigene argumente zu machen, anstat bei anderen ueber kleinigkeiten zu meckern. uebrigens, dumme amerikaner gibt es ungefaehr so viele wie dumme deutsche oder oesterreicher. es ist unsinn wenn du glaubst, dass alle amerikaner fette arschloecher sind die den ganzen tag jerry spinger sehen. wenn du das glaubst, dann hast du die propaganda die auf deinem kontinent verbreitet wird wirklich gut runtergeschlugt.
btw, cossack...nice german skills. it aint an easy language.

God damn Abe, you know the history about the region almost as well as I do. I have been studying Central Asia and that region for a long time (on my own and in school) Dude where did you learn all this stuff? You a natural history buff like me or what? Anyhow back on topic.0
 Bander du must dich selbst besser verhalten. Deine Argumente sind nicht so gut. Kuweit ist das Rheinland von Iraq, ja, aber ist richtig f?r Irak nach Kuweit eindringen? War Kuweit unter Baghdad oder Basra w?hrend der T?rksichen zeit? Ich denke es war Baghdad Abe. Das ist belanglos. Unsere priorit?t sollte N?rd Korea sein. Die West Beschwichtigungspolitik von N?rd Korea, und die Koreanisch gef?hrdetet Amerika mit Atomwaffen. Die N?rd Koreaner sagen, "Amerika hat Massenvernichtungswaffen!" Das ist sehr spa?ig in einer beunruhigenden weise. Warum schreibe ich halb in Deutsch? Nichtdeutsch sprechende sind wahrscheindlich verwirrt.

Translated converstation: Bander you must present yourself better. Your arguments are not so good. Kuwait is the Rhineland of Iraq, but is it right for Iraq to invade? Was Kuwait under Baghdad or Basra in Turkish time? I think it was Baghdad, Abe.
This is unimportant though. However our priority should be North Korea, and the koreans have threatened America with nuclear weapons. The North Koreans say, "America has weapons of mass destruction!" That is very funny in a disturbing way. Why is half my post in German? Non German speakers must be very confused.

As for those like Mauti, Abe, and Bander. Yes I know my German sucks very hard.

These arguments, if they weren't before, have become obsolete. The US going to war no matter what happens at this point, short of Saddam stepping down from power. As Bush said "a matter of weeks not months," and Cheney has "reserved the right for the US to act unilaterally."

We're all powerless to stop it, so we may as well sit back and watch as atrocities are committed in the name of our country. 500,000 estimated civilian casualties, 800 missiles planned to be launched over the 1st 2 days of the attack (twice the amount launched in all of Desert Storm). As Rumsfeld said "there won't be a single safe place left in Iraq." I can't wait till it's citizens are lavishing is with praise for finally liberating them... that is, if you call death liberation. As Bush said to the Iraqi people, "your enemy is not attacking your country, he is ruling your country." I must say I feel the same way.

And while I don't believe him, he also said that the weeks was to give deplomacy a chance.  

Also, while I still haven't made up my own mind, if Iraq is guilty of the majority of things that are being hinted at, how long do you suggest we let it go on?  Better to do it sooner then later if it needs to be done, no?


I was reading the news (BBC) and I myself, don't count those 500,000 as civilian.  They reported how the first 100,000 civilians had shown up to act as human shields at military and government complexes.  Guess what, that's an active participation.  If someone is stupid enough to go pitch a tent next to an obvious military target, ON PURPOSE, they are no longer innocent civilians.  They are proof of some of Darwin's theories.


Ok, this one really bugs me.  So what are you saying, we should go to war half-way if and when we do?  Honestly, if war comes, why the hell shouldn't it be done quickly and with massive power?  Once war starts, it's better over quickly.  The longer it goes one, the more suffering (death from other factors besides bombs and bullets).


Tasty, there's a big difference.  I don't like Bush, but he doesn't rule our country.  We have those all important checks and balances.  If the Bush does something against the law, he can be removed.  And we've proven that in the past.  And Bush doesn't have the right to go to war on his own.  He can only go so far without Congress's approval.

On top of all this, our laws can be changed.  If the office of the President is too powerful in your opinon, I'm sure you can find a group to help support in changing it.  That's something that we have that most others don't.  So don't whine like we don't have any power to do things.  Have you even bothered to write your Senator and Congressman about it yet?  (Do you even know who your Congressman is??)  Most people (especially the kids here, but I thought better of you Tasty) forget that your Congressman is supposed to be your voice in our government.  Use them.  If you are really against the war, use the tools that are provided.  Don't be one of those guys that complains about the system but never does his part.

Like I said, I'm still not sold on the need for war yet.  I don't believe everything I hear from our government, and I don't believe much of anything from theirs either.  But what I do think that if war comes, it's best done quickly and overwhelmingly.  

For the people that ask why not just assinate the asshole, remember that murdering a head of state is a large no no.  

Heu, I really need to refine my German, I understood about half of that, I shouldn't have slept during my German lessons back then, got an F in it too ;P
Bander, stop thinking and go to bed, you're being just as brainless as many of the people you're arguing against.

Who cares what belonged to whom way back then, hell, Finland, the Baltics, Prussia, half of Norway and lots of other stuff used to belong to Sweden, let's re-annex shall we? (Hey, I'd really enjoy that!) My point is, even though the territories used to belong to blabla, doesn't make them the ?legal? owner of it now.

Abe, that was a really stupid thing to compare with. I mean, you think it's good to compare the US with something as malevolent as a godfather?

To Bucc; I guess you could call the discussion about whether the US is going to war or not ?obsolete?, but nothing else is as of yet.
Ok, so if you want a war to be over as quickly as possible and with as much power as possible, why not just use a nuke, great logic eh! (Don't take this dead seriously, k?)
The enemy of the Iraqi people is not just their leader, the enemy is also the US since they're just about to kill half of the population (don't take my estimation seriously either).

Wow Europeans really are trash. You know not of what you talk about because you sit on your ass smoking pot and boning each other. What would you know about America anyway? You sit in some god forsaken shit town in the middle of no where without a bright future. So please....stick to your homoerotic goat raping ways and stay out of what doesn't involve you.

For your information im 19 yrs. old and an architecture major at Texas Tech University. I have a girlfriend and am quite social. Yes I am a cunt and proud of it.

Go fuck yourselves eurotrash...I pray for the day when your country crosses the line and we end up sticking our guns in your ass.

Kami is European he isnt trash, I am technicaly European and I am not trash (some people consider russia europe some dont). Py is a good guy. Everything is cool about him, he has a gf, several bfs (including me), the only bad thing is that he goes to Texas Tech. Dont generalize Euros on Bander. As for Bucc, arguing against the war isnt obsolete until it starts, and even then there will be protests, possibly on the scale of Vietnam. Civil disobedience is never obsolete!

Problem is, I don't think it needs to be done. For me, the diplomatic/intelligence factors that are still up in the air don't really even have an effect on my opinion.  We've been over this before, and I recognize this war as a strategic move in the Middle East. Nothing more. As far as Bush's "moral" arguments for war, that is just junk designed to help win over the general public. If we truly cared about human casualties, we would have intervened in Rwanda where over 1,000,000 Tutsi tribesmen have died under Holocaust-like genocide and massacres. Liberating the Iraqi is bullshit. Bush Sr. justified Desert Storm by proclaiming that they wanted to bring democracy to Kuwait. Well, Kuwait wasn't a democracy then and it isn't now... but somehow in between there our oil problems were solved. It's no wonder Bush wants to move quickly on this now, as the Venezuelan oil workers are still striking and we are having difficulty getting the amount we typically use.

Hmm, haven't heard of this. Although it sounds suspiciously propaganda-like I wouldn't discount anything happening in this crazy world. Although their actions are calculated, they are still civilians and they are still dying by our weapons. This really makes me think back to the Vietnam War when the Buddhist monks self-immolated. Kind of sad.

I already said that I didn't think we should go to war, so the more brutal the punishment we are going to lay on Iraq, the more appalling I find it. Yes, if war must occur this may end it more quickly. But if it doesn't work, it just ends in more casualties for no reason. I think that the symbolism of this action must also be looked at. How do you think the Muslim world will view this action? I think its going to add a lot of fuel to the fire of hatred, which is bad from a security perspective since it increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks. The attitude of the Bush administration is that if we let the opinions of the Muslim world affect our policy than the terrorists have already won. This policy basically creates a perpetual state of war or almost-war. Echoing the sentiments of most experts of international relations, this is policy is shortsighted and arrogant.

eek, double post

My congressman is Jim Leech (R), and my two senators are Tom Harking (D) and Charles Grassley (R). And no, I didn't have to look them up. I didn't bother writing them about this issue because every time I've written them about an issue I have received a canned response with a photocopied signature that didn't even address the question I asked. I have participated in the campus anti-war movement, and have attended every war protest that has been held on campus. If you couldn't tell by the disillusioned tone of my initial post, I don't see my actions having much effect on anything. Even on a college campus, most people consider it uncool to care about what goes on in the world around you and many don't have any social conscience at all as far as I can tell. I'm going to keep doing what I can, but realize that I'm about 25 times more active in civic activities than most. I work for what I think is right, I just find that despite what I do that little changes. The whole point of my initial post was just to state how disgusted I am with the whole process. That at least in the current administration, in the end the government just does what it wants anyway.

There are some good points in this thread, and a lot of bad points in this thread...I'll respond only if it throws me to the boiling point because I don't feel like making a four post response.

As a side note: Tasty, if they go to the military installations as human shields, they lose the title of civilian and gain the title of target.

Py: You sound rather pig-headed...cool down with the rhetoric.

I think everyone should be scared of a person that could desintegrate everyone you know at the touch of a button.  I disagree with bombing, because of civilian casualties.  But that is inevitable.  War always has its collateral damage(right term??), unfortunatly.  But I open up a newsweek magazine, and all I see is a bunch of Iraqis gathered around a dirty, torn up, burnt/shat on/whatever..  U.S. flag.  It's like they are beggin for it.  If I had it my way, they would go after Saddam like you wouldnt belive.  Special Forces, SEALs, Rangers, the works.  Yeah, I realize that a guy like Saddam is very hard to get to.  But its not impossible.  The man deserves a big fat .50 calibur bullet to his skull.  

-Exe

Well Ass Im just pissed that some fucknut comes in here trying to pick a fight with me when I did nothing but comment about this soon to be war. Honestly I hope he takes a lead pipe through the head.


Sack I should have been more specific when I said Eurotrash. Im mainly talking about the super liberal countries (i.e. Sweden) and of course the ones who don't appreciate what we do.

Ok Py, so every country that disagrees with you is trash? Oh yeah, I love that! Fucking stupid, that's all it is. Oh and btw, Sweden is not ?super liberal?, it's actually pretty socialistic (to my dislike I might add).
I am not trying to pick a fight but if you say euro trash to me then you are the one who's trying to ?pick a fight?.

Kami & Tasty,

First, let me correct one great injustice that you are doing Tasty.  Supporting war isn't supporting Bush.  I have no illusions that Bush is doing this for the right reasons.  And it just doesn't matter.

If (still a big if, just like it has been for me), IF Iraq has weapons of mass distruction, or IF they are found producing and/or providing biological or chemical weapons to terrorists, then it's going in and removing that threat is the right thing to do.  I don't care about Bush's reasons, or lack thereof.  He is just as capable of doing the right thing for the wrong reason as anyone.

It's like I've said all along.  If Iraq is crossing that line, then action must be taken.  Yes, that means war and death.  But, do you honestly fucking believe that if Iraq is doing those things, it doesn't mean death for some poor bastards if no action is taken??

Kami, don't be an extreemist like that.  How many people have died because of Iraq?  How many more may in the future if something isn't done?  Nobody is advocating the use of nukes, which is one of the very things I am worried about.  Saddam obviously doesn't care about the effects on the rest of the world (just look back to his lighting the oil fields on fire).

It sounds like your distrust of Bush and your contempt of his real motives has blinded you to the fact that Iraq may still be a real threat.

BTW, the comment about "this policy creates a perpetual state of war or almost-war" made me laugh.  This policy doesn't create it.  The state of war or almost-war has existed in the middle east for how long before either Bush??  I don't agree with the way Bush has wanted to go after Iraq from the start.  But please, you are just spouting more anti-war propoganda.  

So ignore Bush, and tell me why we should trust Iraq, and Saddam to have these weapons.  Saddam has already shown that he'll use chemical weapons, why don't you think he'd be stupid enough to use a nuke if he could?  Why don't you think we should do something about it?  Ignore Bush, he's only an issue if it's WRONG.  His reasons are wrong, but it doesn't change that fact that it MAY need to be done for the right reasons.

Now back to news about the Columbia going down.  

I'm not defending Saddam in any way, let's make that clear, he's a mad dictator that should be removed.
What I am upset about is that the US and the UK is doing, is interpreting the UN resolution differently from everyone else, they think that by just making the UN investigations harder - not cooperating as extensively as you might want, Iraq is breaking the resolution. The last paragraph in the resolution only states that they will be punished if they go against the resolution totally. That's the line that most of the UN is following. If the US and the UK crosses the UN now, they might just undermine UN credibility and cripple all the other UN missions around the world, that would create a very dangerous situation.

Kami, Saddam blatantly broke the UN resolution so many times while Clinton was in office, yet Clinton lacked the testicular fortitude to do what needed to be done. Bush is trying to correct Clinton's mistake. And for the thousandth time, no US support = no UN. We are the only reason the UN has any crediblity in the first place. Besides, if we let Saddam violate the terms of a UN resolution, tell me exactly how this makes the UN more credible?

The former resolution wasn't shaped in the same way as the new one (from last year). The UN is the best we have, perhaps it's not good enough but where would we be without it?

@Cossak: Dein deutsch ist ausgezeichnet.

Peps: The reason why i stopped to discuss with "ultra american patriots" via web forums is that simple one:

It makes NO damn different what they say or do, cuz its their goverment wich rules the fucking planet. they just THINk they are part of that power but they are just their slaves.

No matter of "good" or "dumb" american - its just some oil greedy clans who rule that world.

Just answer ma ONE fucking question: WHY didnt u sukcaz remove fucking saddam during the last war? WHY bombing their innocent people AGAIN now?
U already had the chance to stuff a gun into his ass - but why to hell did u pack your tails and run away last time????

As a consequence the people u want to "liberate" have starved cruel under the embargos while saddam and family still has a fat stomac and best medical care in their pallazzos.

i just argue on what Bushman aka Mr. One Man Show says. And he talks crap.

war should be condamned by all "civilisated" nations - especially when not backed by (useless or not) U.N. (where the U.S. have the most imprtantst role to play. thats right. but u start breaking the rules so u are destroying this institution. it only works cuz its full of MANY nations - not only led by brute power)

bah, it doesnt help anyway, lets hear what bushman says tomorrow ...

peace anyways ~

Bander

and cuntpussy: u are an 19 years old idiot then. be well.

X

Hurray!  They jaded european propoganda machine is still working in overtime, isn't it Bander.  Just answer me one little thing tough guy, if America sucks so much ass like you think, why do so many people come here?  You don't see many people leaving America to move to Germany or Austria, do you?  

You seem to have half a brain, why not try to lift that hash induced fog and figure out that there is a lot more good here then you give it credit for?  Oh, because your kind always needs something to hate.  I forgot.  It's just Americans now, and not Jews like 60 years ago.


This question is about as stupid as the rest of your shit Bander.  You profess to be well read and educated, but you don't seem to understand much about the way war actually works.  In the first Gulf War (which happened when I was in college and your age), Iraq sued for peace.  They gave up and pleaded with the UN.  They surrendered conditionally.  They agreed to many military restrictions and inspections (limited weapons, no-fly zones, etc) and it was agreed upon with the UN.  That's it, game over.  Can't keep going when they raise the white flag.

In the war, Saddam couldn't be hit, he's not a very visible target (especially with as many doubles as he uses).  After the war, that would be a rather large no-no, besides being stupid.  You don't assasinate a head of state, not when you have the moral high ground.  Not if you want to keep the moral high ground.

And, the fact that Iraq has never lived up to it's end of the bargin is why shit keeps happening, and why another war may happen.

So Bander, take your ignorant, idiotic anti-American bullshit and spread it where the people may be too stupid to see it for what it is.  Or smoke it.  I don't care.  But it's not a language thing, it's really a ignorance thing with you.  You are just like all the other hateful people, thinking your shit doesn't stink.  Well it does.

Diplomatic actions until war are going to be as fake as those  from the Japenese before Pearl Harbor. We are going to slaughter everyone in our site in Iraq and us civilians can not do anything about it.  So kick back and watch the limited axcess of CNN who will report great victories, but they wont report over un armed civilians.

bah. i din't real the whole 3 pages of this thread, but some things here can't stay undisputed. some of the following points may be redundant with earlier posts, my apologies in advance.

1. "jaded european propoganda machine is still working in overtime" - sure is, but it has still way to go until it reaches same efficiency as the american one. omg, does anyone here believe what he sees on TV? omg

2.  "if America sucks so much ass like you think, why do so many people come here" - well, do i care? quantity == quality? omg again. "if britney spears sucks so much ass, why do so many people love her?" i don't care at all, i don't come along well (at least politically, and with regard to music) with maybe 95% of my fellow citizens anyway, so why should i care? btw, i have very good friends in the states, but do i have to love everyone there? this "be with us or be against us" shit sickens me to death.

3. bush, rumsfeld, powell & co always tell us that everyone has to support them, or else the UN will lose its credibility. this is bullshit, in fact it will be losing its credibility because the US, blatantly, say: support us or we will do without you. this would be a serious precedent; why should any other country in this world follow the UN's rules if even our glorious leader of the world doesn't?

4. the point of "we have to enforce the resolution 1441 by all means or the UN will lose its credibility" is just the same bullshit; would the US bomb tel aviv because it neclects to follow order of a whole shitload of UN resolutions? obviously not. enforcing the UN resolutions would be very ok, but then please same right for everybody.

and on a sidenote, saddam (as well as ibn ladin for that matter), is entirely a creature of the US, carefully manufactured to fight placeholder wars (like against the evil red empire). pity if you can't get rid of the ghosts you once called, but SHAME on you if you don't even admit that they're your ghosts.

anyway, i really thinks it sucks *big time* that ppl here don't seem to be able to discuss in a civilized manner, but resort to personal insults, racism/nationalism, and all this shit. it is an interesting and important topic imho where both sides have their points, but this kind of arguments don't seem to lead anywhere. at first i wanted to stay out of the debate anyway, but couldn't resist in the end... ;)

and finally, to give you a real reason to flame me (please note the following link is SATIRE and SARCASM and if you take it all serious and personal, not my problem and you better stay out if you're easily offended) - http://www.strike-free.net --> choose your language --> choose "dark side"

Mono I agree with you for the most part Can anybody here name me a country we have been mad at since the cold war that we didnt dig our own grave;

Vietnam- Lets have democratic elections, wait hes gonna win? Shit lets put in a dictator
Grenada- 8 American Civi's placed there now we better attack
Gulf War- Are we taking friendly fire or are those the missiles we sold to them to kill Iran?
Bosnia- Wait didnt we put all the different religons there?

The list goes on

Mono, do everyone a favor and read the posts before you respond.  Bander got his rant off by stereotypical spouting of bullshit.


Zaitsev, your ignorance is boundless, isn't it?  I just love it when a kid reads some propoganda and thinks he understands everything.

First, if you think GM wasn't the cause of Vietnam (and a bunch of other companies), then you really haven't read your history.  It was big business that caused Vietnam, not our government or quest for democracy.  Companies that had factories and investments over there were afraid that the same thing would happen that happened in Cuba when Castro came to power (how many Americans lost their shirts and how many millions were lost by American companies?)  Nobody is defending Viet Nam, but get your facts right.

Second, Grenada.  What in the fuck are you talking about?  8 civilians?  Do you even know what it was about?

Third, the Gulf War.  Are you saying that supporting our allies, with the full backing of the UN was the wrong thing to do?  That holding up our end of a treaty (which some European nations could learn from) was wrong?  

Fourth, Bosnia.  Ah, no, we weren't the ones that organized Ygoslovia.  That would be due to those European countries that had a say in the matter.  

You don't even seem to know when the cold war started and ended.

Do everyone a favor Zaitsev, read some opinions from the other side.  Not just the far left wing crap you have been.  The USA hasn't dug itself a whole at all, except for Nam.  Bosnia, Africa, Gulf War, Korea, those are all UN actions.  You are pointing in the wrong direction.  At least point to major fuck ups like Iran-Contra and Panama.  You really need to do your homework and not just be an anti-Bush / anti-war sock puppet.

erm, beg your pardon? i was replying to you and not to bander? ... and i at least tried not to be stereotypical ... oh well. ;)

Mono, you were replying to my reply to Bander.  You admitted not reading it all.  You should before getting involved.  It's rude not to.


No, the european press has more practice and works just as well.  And doesn't have all the freedoms that the American press does.  And this was a reply to Bander, who's anti-American rants on page one and elsewhere prompted it.


Again, you stick your nose into a reply directed at Bander's comments.  And yes, in this case quantity does equal quality.  More people obviously would want to go where they think it's best, no?  <sarcasim>OMG </sarcasim>  It's not a be with us or be against us thing.  I'm not stereotyping europeans, but I sure as hell am going to defend against false stereotypes given to the USA.

Your comments about Saddam and Bin Laden being wholey products of the USA is bullshit.  While the USA did contribute to the problem in many ways, they weren't what shaped the development of such assholes.  Anyone that starts wars or kills innocents in the name of God or Allah or the Great Spirit is just fucking wrong.  None of the scriptures teaches it, it's their own twisted mind that comes up with it.  

As for supporting the UN resolutions, you've negleted to address all that's been written already on this thread.  We shouldn't have to repeat it all for you, go back and read it, then respond to why the reasons given here are wrong.

@Buccaneer:

Its a pity. U type a lot of words here and produce nothing than emty air. all u said didnt answer my "simple question". it bores me to answer to the rest of patriot (otherways called "fanatic") flamecrap.

instead really using ur brain and make (and speak out your OWN thoughts) about consequences and cruelity of WAR or TERROR in general u spread just a lot of plain "woah i got the muscles and u are a nazi" shit (muahaha. bah!)

Not many people comming to europe? ha! lol - yes they do. and they come. and they even get social backup from the contries they enter. we have many problems with that fact too but before talking "america is the perfect place" shiat again look at what u even do to your mexican neighbors (is it true? do u really have mines on the border? i really think THAT could be some "evil badass propaganda".

respect to mono AND EVRY DAMN american dude or ladd who may be patriotic (there ARE mayne reasons to BE proud to be american. yes indeed - but NOT cuz u have the fattest army. hitler also once HAD and USED it. not that this fact made him to a "good man". i think everyone agrees here.

if superman uses his powers in a selfish way he wouldnt be a superhero anymore but a superfoe then.

please help avoiding "colateral damage" among our poorest human brothers and sisters instead finding stupid arguments why this could be a "good war". and dont fickup every american aniti-war comment with your warmonger fanatic shiat please.

for my taste: i am always VERY happy if i read posts from THINKING and social americans.

basta camarillo - eat my shoe buccaner - my dig is reservated for my gal only biatch ~

Bander

OMG
Bander, ive tried not responding to most of your comments because they are, for the most part, either mindless dribble or personal attacks on bucc or py, but wtf????
so basically, when americans don't agree with you or simply see things differently than you, they are "not thinking"? u seem to be under the impression that every american who thinks a war on iraq is justified is either a die-hard republican and bush supporter or is somehow brainwashed by our government. i don't wan't to shatter your convenient stereotype of the numbskull redneck who doesnt know where iraq is, nor do i want to repeat a point that bucc has frantically been trying to make in every post in this forum, but you bander, you obviously don't get it: supporting the war does not mean that you like bush!!! if you are german and you are against the war, does that automatically mean that you like gerhard schroeder just because you agree with him on this issue??? in fact, i have despised bush ever since he started campaigning for president and i still think he's a total noob at what he does. but, and i don't see why you can;t get this through your skull, i think that he is currently the needed steps in protecting america, it's citizens and our interests. even, bill clinton (who i think was america's best president in decades), came out on larry king the other night and said he supported what the president was doing. this is not a partisan issue.
Bander, you speak of war and terror in your post.......i suggest you go look up a report by the UN or amnesty international about human rights in Iraq. maybe then you will have a better idea of what state-sponsored terror is. and war....the iran-iraq war was the most costly convential war since ww2. also, as you are probably aware, in 1990, saddam pillaged, oops sorry i meant to say "re-annexed" (sarcasm), kuwait. two wars, both started by the same guy. now tell me who is warmongering and who is protecting their interest. btw, i heard you ask in a post why america didnt go to bagdhad and remove saddam back in 1991/92. removing saddam would have hurt our relations with every arab country back then, just as it is hurting them now. the difference is that september 11th made us realize that there are people in the mideast (and in europe) that will hate us no matter what and that the threat from saddam outweighs the benefit of having counties like syria, egypt or jordan on our side.
something that has been largely ignored in this discussion is what iraqis themselves think. i think that just about anyone in iraq who isnt in saddam's immediate entourage will be happy to see him go, even if this means a war. everyone who keeps bringing up the disasterous effects of a war for the people of iraq is ignoring the fact that the status quo is even worse for many of them.
bander, instead of making moronic personal attacks on people with whom you don't agree why don't you try looking at their arguements and explaining why, in your view, they are wrong. otherwise it's like talking to a little child. if you do eventually make a worthwhile point, i promise not to reply with somthing like this:
LMAO, does'nt it say something about your arguments if they are that easy to "fickup"?
as for the "flamecrap".....i just looked over the thread and it seems to me that you started it. before your first post, everybody's comments were respectful, even if the debate got a bit heated, as it always does over this issue. having a discussion and being an ass are two completely different things, bander.....maybe you should learn the difference.

Abe, do you even read what Bucc posts or are you to busy sucking his undersized dick (which he makes himself feel better about by having such long posts).  He ridicules every single person who disagrees with him.  Zait, Bander, and myself.  Bander has lived much more than the rest of you here.  Admittedly he's probably smoked much more pot as well, but that is aside the point (proof why some countries in Europe are nice :D ).

You mock his english...well, good for you...feel free to mock my spanish because it sucks ass.  It of course isn't my native language...and guess what, Bander's isn't English.

As for supporting or not supporting the war.  It may not be a partisan issue, but it is something only half the country supports, and that is in the US where the popular support is strongest.  In the UK, in Australia, in Canada, some of the other countries on the US's side, public support is even worse than it is here.  And then there are the numerous countries that don't support it where the public support is greatly against the war.  If not a majority of public or political leaders think it is a worthwhile war, that is a definate sign.

Bucc, you talk about Vietnam being because of big business not wanting to have the same thing happen that happened in Cuba.  Two things...who basically put Castro in power...the US.  Secondly, Vietnam was fought under the Marshall Containment Plan of stopping communism (a related issue to the big business but the one that overshadows it).

Bander, you girlfriend is probably as disappointed as everyone else.

What's pathetic is that you think you are informed Bander.  And that anyone that disagrees with you is a warmonger.  Fuck off.  

I don't monger war.  I don't want war.  That doesn't mean that war isn't sometimes necessary.  I've never talked about the USA haveing the badest ass army, and I could care less.  

Oh and Bander, I answered your one fucking simple question three posts ago.  Too bad you are too fucking stoned to read it.  I also notice that your fucking biggoted ass hasn't answered any question of mine from my first post.  So it is you that can't think for yourself Bander.  I think just fine.  I posed many questions, and you haven't touched them, so don't bring your hate to me, save it for yourself.

Bondo, Bander hasn't lived much more then me.  You don't even fucking know me.  So get off your high horse.  I only ridicule the idiots.  Tasty doesn't agree with me, often, but I don't ridicule him.  Cookie doesn't agree with me quite frequently, but I don't insult her.

No, I save my contempt for the dumbasses.

Bander - because his stereotypical anti-American bullshit is stinking up the place, and no better then those he is trying to bash.

Zaitsev, because he can't actually think for himself, but instead vomits out catch phrases and bullshit figures that he has probably heard around the dinner table with his parents.  He can't defend anything he says.  

You, because you are the ultimate dumbass.  

Oh, and btw, stopping the spread of communisim was the excuse, not the reason.  There are many good books on the subject.  But, big business, led by GM/GE, is who put the pressure on the government to go in and stop it.  It has nothing to do with how Castro got in power, only with what he did once he got it.  They didn't want the same things happening in asia, and they put the pressure on the government to start acting.  Just like oil companies are the biggest backers of the Gulf Wars.

My point all along was, in this case, War may be the right thing even if our government does it for the wrong reasons.  And for you and dumbshit Bander who misses it everytime I write it, it is still a [size=+3]BIG FUCKING MAY[/size].

That is the biggest reason why all three of you earn my contempt.  Because not one of you can actually READ someone elses post.  You can just skim it for the flavor before you have to get your rocks off and call me a war monger.

Buccaneer your wrong. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that US washes its hands in blood  everyday and YES in vietnam they had a democratic election that ho chi min would have won and YES we went into Grenada to get out "students" and YES we paid Hussien money to kill Iran and I at least can acknowledge that our country is decietful and cheats other countries and thats why shit like 9-11 happens you think it was a  "random act of violence" like Bush said??? Whos the one being blinded by propoganda now?

Bucc, you are in no position to decide who is and isn't smart, or as you would put it, who is and isn't a dumbass.  For you it has nothing to do with intelligence.  You just scream dumbass at anyone who gets on your bad side.  You are a disgrace to this forum.  Maybe you should realize that no one reading your posts as you claim is a sign that no one likes you or wants you here.  Your posts are always the same bullshit.  Calling certain people dumbasses and trying to say how stupid their posts are, spouting paragraphs of your own garbage, and then assuming that because you are big college grad that what you say needs to be taken as holy scripture.

did you actually read *my* post? i said i didn't read 3 pages of this thread, but i very well read bander's and your's and most others too. how could i have replied to your points without reading your post?


erm, if you don't want me to comment your reply to bander's post, maybe send it to him as a pm next time?


??? you can't be serious. bin laden's mujaheddin in afghanistan *were*built*trained*and*supported* by the US to fight against the evil red empire that was invading afghanistan (what they gladly did, as the communists where perfect 'infidels' as they denied god and religion). how can you possibly say this is no fact? i can give you tons of links and literature on this topic if you like (all: read "the age of extremes" by eric hobsbawm, very good book on the 20th century).

somewhat same story with saddam against iran, albeit not for exactly the same reasons.

CW? --> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/18/1029114048796.html

yea, all propaganda and blackmail, i know.

Really?  I've said that I belive that?  WHERE??  

Have I ever said that our country or government has no fault?  Have I ever said that we haven't done anything wrong?  No, I said to get your fact right Zaitsev.  I'm fully aware that the US government has done things aweful.  Just like every other government on the planet.  But I don't agree that it "washes it's hands in blood everyday".  That is bullshit.


Absoluetly wrong again, dumbass.  I only call out the bullshit where I see and smell it.  Which happens to be with you most of all, and Bander to a good deal.  Like I said before, show me where I call Kami, Cookie, Tasty or any of those others that don't agree with me dumbasses?  You can't.  

You are just trying to discredit me to discredit my points.  An old political mud slinging trick, that you've posted you are against.  Hmm.  Another case of you being a hypocrite, eh Bondo?


Seems to be you and Bander not reading my posts.  Not everyone.  And I call the dumbasses what they are, so what.

And I don't just try to show how stupid their posts are, I often succeed.  

As for why my posts should be taken seriously, it's only due to the posts themselves.  If I bring up college of life experience, it's because it's relevant to the discussion.  Like the fact that you talk about how great other places are, when you've never lived there.  While I have.  That's a very good reason why my opinion is more credible then yours.  You are dreaming while I've done it.


I've read it, thanks.  It was a little tainted towards his communist viewpoints for me, but an interesting read.  (every history book is tainted in some way, just like any other media)

And maybe you should go back and read my post again.  I said that the US did contribute.  I said that we didn't shape the development of the assholes.  As in, we didn't define "infidels" for them.  We didn't invade them.  We didn't teach Saddam to be a murdering sonofabitch, he already learned it.  

You are to reactive Mono.  Slow down and look at the points.  Yes, the USA used these assholes when it suited their purpose, 20-30 years ago.  Did we make them the assholes, no.  Did we contribute to the problem, yes.  So, when I disagree with you when you take the far left point of view that they are "entirely a creature of the US".  There is nothing entire about it.  They are madmen.  We used them, supported them when it suited us, but we didn't create them.  They were already there.  Creatures of their own environments.  

So yeah, If you read that I don't agree that we created Saddam and Bin Laden, then you read correctly.  If you read that we are not WHOLEY RESPONSIBLE for them, then you read correctly.  Because that's what I said.  If you read that I don't think the USA has any responsiblity in them, you didn't read it right.

Oh, and I read your post just fine.  What part of "I think it's rude not to read it all" don't you get?  I know you said you didn't.  And I think it's rude.  I don't care if you read must my posts or not.  You keep arguing like I missed something, but what?

Time to run, but think about it.

Bondo,
can u please show me exactly where i made fun of bander not speaking proper english???? as far as i can tell, i was saying that his arguements (if they can be called that) were poor, not his ability to express them in english. and don't start this shit by accusing me of somthing like that....do you have a problem with me or are you just having a rough time responding to what else i said? either way, that's not the point. bander, in case I said anything that appeared as mocking your english-skills.....it was not meant that way. i do think your a simpleton because of the kind of remarks you make here and your style of posting (i.e. calling everyone morons), but this has absolutely nothing to do with your language skills. in fact, german is also my native tongue (as well as english) and i spent more of my life in germany than anywhere else.....don't make me out to be some xenophobe who doesnt like eurotrash and makes fun of people who don't speak english, bondo. when you do that you are just shitting all over yourself. tu madre duerme con my pero, maricon.....now go work on your spanish.
zaitsev, you seem to have a rather rudimentary understanding of US foreign policy. try checking out the facts first and then stating your opinions. everyone is entitled to an opinion, as long as its an informed one.
and mono, you are exagerating to what extent the US is responsible for bin laden, al-qaida and saddam. the US did support the mujahedeen financially and with certain weapons, but they didnt, unlike what some ppl will tell you,  "train" osama. the US gave the mujahedeen money,training and weapons throught he pakistani military intelligence, not directly. but i guess you it would have been better to let the USSR annex afghanistan (sarcasm). saddam-yes we gave him weapons so he could go fight Iran, but so did France, the UK, Germany, the USSR and countless other countries. at least the US isnt turning its back on the problem the way france and germany (who are as responsible for the problem as the US) are. france are the slimiest of all, because for them it's not a question of principles, but rather of whether war or peace turn out to be more profitable. saddam owes them money and they want it back...maybe if we can give them a cut of those oilfields......
Bondo, i'm not the one sucking cock around here. have you even read some of the dumbass shit in bander posts? he sounds like a 14 year old. and before you go accusing me of mocking foreigners, i should add that i'm reffering to what he is saying and not to his english. matter of fact, bander can post in german if he wants....im pretty sure it will still be the same stupid points though, so don't turn this into a language thing, bondo. why don't the two of you try to respond to other people's points instead of being anal and trying to read btw my lines.....

Abe, what I was taking as insulting Bander's English was your quoting of things like "fickup" or what not...but I think I had you pegged wrong so I apologize about some things I said.

Now for Bucc...maybe you should take your face out of the bull's ass so you can stop seeing and smelling bullshit so much.  I know they do a lot of livestock stuff up in Michigan but seriously, most people don't make an effort to put their face there.

In that post I said you call anyone who gets on your badside a dumbass.  I never said that cookie, tasty, or kami got on your wrongside so I don't know why I must show you when you called them dumbasses.  Once again, you are not a resonable judge.  Also, when was I trying to discredit your points by discrediting you.  Unless of course your point was that certain people are a dumbass...in which case what I posted is directly related to discrediting your point.  You succeed in showing how stupid posts are in your own mind.  Saying a post is stupid by posting a contrary point with absolutely no greater factual base does not qualify as proving the first was stupid.  Nor does mocking the person who posted it.

I had to for homework type a letter to the editor and heres what it said:

   The United State should not attack Iraq. In our judicial system we, as the U.S.A. operate on one basic judicial rule: Innocent until proven guilty. Unilateral military action in the Middle East before we have the evidence of Iraq?s plans to build and use weapons of mass destruction would go against our own cherished ideals of fairness and justice. I am against military action in Iraq mainly for this reason. Also I object to needless loss of human life and further indebtment of the United States. Furthermore we are part of international treaty organizations. To attack would go against the advice of our allies and we should notice this.
   Most of our domestic views carry to our foreign policy, Why shouldn?t this be the case in Iraq? Although we have inspectors there daily, searching in every corner for nuclear weapons none have been found. Our case against Saddam Hussein is not much more then a hunch, so why, I ask, do we act as though he has been tried and convicted and we are prepared to carry out the death penalty on both Iraq?s leader and its innocent people? Before attacking Iraq the United States needs substantial evidence that Iraq has broken international law. Until this evidence is found they are innocent, just the same as people within our communities.
   Above a car, a house, and property, the ting that is valued the most should be human life. As is the in all armed intervention, lives will be lost. 300 U.S. military personnel were killed in the conflict and nearly 500 were wounded. 250,000 Iraqis were killed (at least) and many more have died from special bombs that were used by allied forces. Half a million people were wounded as well. To have these staggering figures re-occur would be genocide. To take down one man, you don?t need to kill hundreds of thousands of other. The last gulf war cost the United State 61 billion dollars. That is not counting the 54 billion our allies paid for us. These same allies will not be assisting us this time around and over 100 billion dollars will be lost and increase our nation?s debt.
   The United States shares responsibility for world altering events across the glove because we belong to groups such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. When an ally from within these groups is in need of aid, we send it. When the U.S. is investigating events such as September 11 all our allies comply. To them our opinion is highly regarded and theirs should be to us. None of our usual allies support us in this random campaign of violence. Nothing has change in Iraq, but the media has flared up on the subject because our president has as well. Until we have consent from our highly regarded allies it would be foolish to try to muscle our way to Baghdad.
   There are many moral and pricey reasons for peace, and none for war. We lack evidence to support our gung-ho ways, we face a huge economic deficit, we will kill thousands of innocent people, and we are ignoring our allies. Until we have more then a suspicious feeling against Iraq we have no reason to begin a massacre.

Very strong letter Zait...good work.  One thing though.  You compare this war to the last a bit too much.  The last war was to stop the invasion of Kuwait, this one will be an invasion into Iraq.  The difference is substantial and MORE US and Iraqi soildiers and Iraqi civilians will die compared to the last war.  Plus, the cost isn't 100 billion but rather is estimated when you add in aid in rebuilding over the next few years upwards of 1 trillion dollars.  Of course these numbers only strengthen the point you make.

@Buccaneer: Suck my Dick Cheney while my GF gives yours a FAT european dildo. I am not responding to your "smartman" shiat anymore. Its senseless to argue with a dumbass of your kind. Basta, und jetzt geh scheissen du zur?ckgebliebener! And dont mention my name that often in your emty air posts: Its insulting for me (muahahaha!).


Mindless dribble? only for mindless people. and yeah cleverman: i personal attacked Bushaneer cuz hes a faggot and i was in the mood to.


Yes. I am using the same argumention of your goverment: Everyone who doesnt agree with U.S. war plans is a Terrorist, useless (like UN) or "the old stupid europe" (as powell freak said lately). Nah - i am just happy if i read AMERICAN posts who are not stuffed with the SAME shiat that your bushmen spread daily. If i want to hear that again i buy myself a papageno (Papagei auf Deutsch schwanzlutscher. ?bersetz dir das gef?lligst selber du trottel). Checked the irony? (Guess not. LOL)


In fact: EVERONE who thinks WAR is justified BEFORE using every OTHER option is a idiot. no matter if republican, bush-groupie or propaganda influenced.

U just had your war there in Afghanistan. A little boring maybe cuz bombing tents away isnt that cool for late night TV show BUT instead of making a good job on your planned "nation building" you pack your tails and run off to the next war. when we talked about afghanistan most of you american fanatics not even mentioned iraq as a threat - but, oh magic trick - suddenly its the number one danger. Its a fact: Weak politicans hide in war and agression.

Lets just place 300 UN Inspectors permanentely in Iraq - if they make a move to use any possible mass-destruction shiat or if they gonna mobilize their army we still can smash em towards hell. and THEN we WOULD do it. I would really stand up and applaude and say "Yo - holy U.S.A., the home of god itself, the defenders of GOOD shall LIBERATE iraq from that evil diktator" - the only problem: Its YOUR fucking creation.

And now where you start  to ignore the follow up measures for afghanistan, its also much likely that u will have created your next "osama bin laden" or "saddam hussein" there soon. Good work! So lets make some shit and years later we send our troops there to clean it up again. Bah - this is annoying me. Call me what u want: your war reasons ARE bullshiat.

continues ...

Dont worry. "the stereotype of the numbskull redneck who doesnt know where iraq is" is aready proven by Bushaneer. And yes: Supporting the war just means DAS DU IM MITTELALTER LEBST DU SCHWACHKOPF (hope your german is good enough to understand diss!). I support every war where a country defends itself from a attack. but not YEARS before and NOT just cuz you are actually in the mood for (PLUS having killed thousands of iraqis already - more than saddam himself - by refusing to give their children even the poorest basics of medicine and hospital equipment. PLUS the children dying from cancer there caused by american URANIUM ammunition (wich makes an area to a DEATH-FIELD for some thousand years, where people die from cancer or get born as cripples). Anti-American Propaganda? Nah. Facts. If u dont know about these facts u should SEREOUSLY start thinking about YOUR countries propaganda. It goes like: "Oh man, we are the good guys who just wanna save the world but all these evil foreigners (euros, arabs, asians etc.) hate us for no fucking reason." - I can tell you a MILLION reasons to LOVE the U.S. - but your warshiat and stupid brainless milita-goverment gives me and millions of other people as many reasons to be disgustet at your county. When i RANT around about that facts i just hope that it could help to make it BETTER again one day. we NEED a strong and wise america to solve the problem of this world. but we DONT need the police, the judge and the gravedigger in ONE person (aka Bushman and faggot friends.)


I am not german but i understand what u mean. But the point isnt "for or against bush" (who is just another stupid politican) - the point is: We live in year 2003 - war is a primitive thing thats only "okay" if u have defend your countries homeground from a intruder. And the point is: Many of the american people support these (dumb) warplans by using the same diction of their goverment. if powell is mad on euro - u fanatic guys are mad also. but have u heard the ful lstory of this dispute? nah. guess not. powell came back, said "euros suck" - now u all repeat: "euros suck!" "UN useless" etc ... thats like: zzzzzzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzz - Oh we got war? cool! zzzzz zzzzz zzzz - is it over yet? who won? we? ah cool! zzzzz zzzzzz zzzzz ...


Do u really think that ruining the U.S. credibility in the world, plus devastating the U.S. state funds and economy, plus declaring war after war on every rock where he supposes to find some "al kaida" (all this by presenting no single proof to the world, keeping prisoneers in kuba with no lawyer or any "free world" or "human" rights?)

Do u think it helps the savety of the U.S. by angering every non-american human on this planet (except some Polish, Hungarian or British politicans who dont even have their people support in this). But one thing u said is right: Bushman is doing a good job by protecting YOUR interests. the bad thing only is: he doesnt STAY in HIS country to protect these interests.

continues ...

Yes. And this "state" (the Baath Party) was sponsored by the U.S. so iraqis will hate you for first "installing" saddam on em and now for bombing their houses cuz u wanna remove your "automated" puppet again.


War Iraq - Iran? Hell: Iraq (Saddam!) was supported by both, U.S. and euro countries (even with mass killing components and tech-help). His mission was: Go and kick some persian mullah ass. Now everyone knows what the outcome was: Saddam in Iraq and a rise of fundamentalism in Iran (a war always rises such tendencies). P.S.: Bushman already talks from Iran being part of the "axis of evil" also. So next stop Persia? haha. damn you warmongers! go to hell and play chess with the satan. what did jesus say? DONT KILL! hell waits for all assholes. i dont worry.


Yeah excactly. Again a confused little american thinks the whole world is hating his countrys goverment for NO reason. Sept.11 maybe NEVER happened if the U.S. would not wash their hands in blood daily! (btw.: u say fucking saddam started 2 wars already? haha, check back the timeline and find our in how many wars YOUR country was involved in this time. and find out how many chemical and biological weapons your OWN country has. Being friends (REAL friends) with syria, egypt or jordan would protect the U.S. MUCH more than every atomic bomb or special force member OR any stupid bushman plan. Austria has good ties into the arab world - so we didnt had a single terror attack here since 1960.
THATS being friends, save and protected.

continues ...

I almost agree. The "Normal" iraqi would be glad to see saddamm being removed. but  since the U.S. betrayed the Kurds back in 92 (who rised against saddam during the invasion and who where executed then from the regime) iraquis ask: why didnt the U.S. remove saddam when they got the chance for it? Why bombing our houses and killing our civilians again now? and WHO will be installed this time by U.S as our new "dictator". So they rather would like to keep the "evil that they know" instead of waiting for a new one.


My previous posts already answer to this point. A clever person should be able to sum 1+1 together...


LOL. i make personal attacks if i feel so and i dont care about feelings of people who got no problem with the fact of a war where people get killed. My sympathies are with the helpless, not with the helpless dumb.

Little child? Listen: Big child wants the candy of little child in the childhood. big kid asks nurse if it can have candy. nurse says no. big kid hits small kid till it got that candy. now nurse says: bad guy! but big kid says: look - u hate me nevertless what i do. i am stronger, i am in the right. THATS childish! So send a letter to mr. bush instead annoying me.


dude, i absolutely dont care. muahahaha!

continues ...

Pass auf einmal kleiner: Du Schwammerl glaubst wohl du bist auf der Nudellsuppe dahersgschwommen hearst! Mach mich net deppat an wegen scheiss englisch oder lern gef?lligst deutsch du penner!

Fick Dich, Fickkopf, Fickerei, Fickmaus, Fickfilm. Need more "arguments" that you cant handle?


If someone calls me a nazi only cuz i live in austria, and compares my country with hitler shit then i assume that person has all his "Political euro info" from a ceap hollywood movie, if someone makes fun of my accent while typing here, if someone steps on my nerves: Go and find another pile of shiat where u can small on. I dont really care if someone gets "hurt" by my answer in this fucking forum. The plan must be to prevent that someone gets hurt in REAL. You talk about killing people here and are upset if i call u a moron or a jackass then? totally laughtable!


I am having an discussion and you are an ass.
Guess i learned the difference. Booyaka!

Bander

P.S.: you pussies - i will only answer to your follow up crap if i should be MASSIVELY bored at work again.

Salam & peace to all normal people ~

Know what I find odd.  I used Hitler and Grifter in the same sentance (for a very legitimate reason) and it was treated as if I was the worst person alive.  They use you and Hitler in the same sentance and no one cares.  Do I smell hypocricy?

Yeah Bondo my friend,

this annoys me. but what else to expect from a Bushaneer?
Some emty air that smells like gay-porn?

Yes!

People like him are just a poor accident wich happened during tha evolution - or while his dad used a condom.  Tnx for your concern - but i really dont care what a biatch like him says or not. He just has no real arguments to answer my posts - so he writes some emty air again garned with some nazi shiat. (maybe he also thinks hitler was in power till 1972 - LOL - damn, i cant help him. Send him back to shool (ah i forgot - he wont learn anything there too LOL)

bondo just ignore that flatboxer. if i am bored i will fuck him up again a little. btw.: do u play GHR demo dude? we could rock a little again ;)

Bander

Even your attempts at jokes are wrong.


OK, let's compare this statement of Bondo's to this one:


You say I ridicule every single person who disagrees with me.  Since I've pointed out the people I don't ridicule that don't agree with me, and you are still persisting in this bullshit, I'd have to say you sir, are a complete moron.  You keep struggling to prove a point that you are so obviously wrong about.  I don't "attack" or "ridicule" everyone that doesn't agree with me.  Just the ones, like you and Bander, that really earn it.


Bondo, you contribution to this has been nothing but to bitch about ME, not talk about my opinions, or positioins.  But ONLY ME.  You would be the one doing exactly what you accuse me of.  While, like in my example above, I show exactly what a dumbass you are, using two of your own posts from this very thread.

Once again, you claim you've proven something...just like the US claims it has proven that our attacking Iraq is justified.  But like the world isn't convinced by the US, the people on this forum aren't convinced by you.  To keep claiming that you've proven something makes you exactly what Bush is...delusional.

There, I've spoken out on the topic of the thread.

No Zaitsev, this is unapplicable in this case.  If you are putting Iraq in the analgous position in our judicial system, it would be that of someone on parole.  They were already found guilty of a crime, and part of the judgement in that previous case was to abide by a set of rules.  The UN (and inspectors) would be considered the parole officers.

On parole, you don't have the rights to a trial.  If you violate it, that's it, game over.  When on parole, you agree never to carry a gun.  Iraq agreed to many things at the end of the last war, to which they don't seem to be holding up their end.  So, if it is shown that they aren't, they should be punished.


Again, no.  The US doesn't need substantial evidence that Iraq has broken international law.  It just needs evidence that Iraq hasn't lived up to it's end of the peace agreements.  Guess what, it hasn't and everyone knows it (it was supposed to account for all the biological weapons it had stockpiled being destroyed, it hasn't and that's one of the key points the UN agrees on).  

As for the inspectors, they have all complained about the lack of cooperation from the Iraqis, and, if you remember, have been kicked out on more then one occasion (or, does the last 10 years mean nothing, and only the last 10 months mean everything?)


There are things to be valued more then human life in my opinion.  There are things worth dieing for.  Are you saying there is nothing worth that?


First of all, don't use scare words like "genocide".  It really doesn't have any application when talking about Iraq, unless you are talking about what they tried to do with the Kurds.  

Second, let me point out how many deaths the "peaceful intervention" has caused.  According the the Iraqi ambassador to the UN, over 1.8 million Iraqis have died due directly to the trade embargo's.  (yes, you can look it up Bondo, it's on the BBC web site amongst other places).  Now, I don't actually believe that number is completely accurate, as most people inflate numbers to help their own case.  

But, if it is, doesn't that mean that following the peaceful, political ways we are killing off ten times more people then what you say would happend with armed intervention?

And where do you consider how many people Iraq has already killed, and how many more they may?

Ok, now where is Bander bitching about careing more about money?

The money doens't matter Zaitsev.  It should never be about the money.


Sorry, this one is just bullshit.

First, read more about NATO and France before you say things about NATO allies complying.

Second, you say that NONE of our usual allies support us?  What have you been reading?  Who in NATO isn't supporting the US on this?  Out of what, 19 nations in NATO, 3 are not backing the US (France, Belgium and Germany).  Is that NONE?  Turkey has given permission for us to use bases for Air and troops, not as many as the US asked for, but still many bases.  What about Canada and the UK?  I think their governments have pretty much backed the US so far.  

So much for NONE.  


Well, what makes you think nothing has changed in Iraq.  I mean, I haven't made up my mind yet, but you seem sure.  What are your sources, they may help.  Don't just blame the media and Bush, where do you get your evidence that nothing has changed?

Oh, and since we have concent from most of our highly regarded allies, does that mean it's not foolish?


Funny, you make Iraq out to be the completely innocent victim.  You also use scare words like massacre and genocide.  You talk about a huge economic deficit (but, didn't Clinton whipe out $500 BILLION of the deficit in just a couple years?) and you talk about the thousands of innocents.  What about the guilty?

What about the guilty?

Zait can't use the "scare word" genocide, but it is okay for Bush to use the scare word "Weapons of Mass Destruction", "Al Queda" , or "nucular"?  ;D

Also, no Clinton didn't get rid of the deficit...but he did not, while he was in office, add to it.  Then again Zait never claimed that Clinton did get rid of the debt.

Yes, because at least Bushes speach writers are using the words correctly.  


Did I say that Clinton got rid of the deficit?  Nope.  I said he managed to eliminate $500 Billion in a couple years, which he did.  My point is to show that Zaitsev is making $100 Billion out to be much more then it really is.

Now why not touch any of the other points?  You said it was a great paper Blindo, how was I wrong?

Erstens, Bander, must du verstehen, dass Deutsch ebenfalls meine muttersprache ist und dass ich mich nicht ueber deine english kentnisse lustig mache. das waehre sinnloss und wuerde nichts zur diskussion beifuehren. Ich habe bloss gesagt, dass wenn es so enifach his deine argumente abzuschiesen (egal in welcher sprache) dann sind es wahrscheinlich nicht sehr gut auch wenn du flussig english koenntest. egal...und du kannst dich selber ficken gehen, uebrigens. ich will damit nichts zu tun haben.
soll ich auf deutsch weitermachen??
btw, rumsfeld said that about "old-europe" not powell. if your gonna quote ppl at least get it right.
papagei hast du schon selber uebersetzt.....schwanzlutscher. so i am a parrot  because, in this instance, i agree with somthing our government says. give me a break. in that case you are a parrot for repeating the anti-war arguments that gerhard schroeder and the european press have already made.
i agree that people who glorify and promote war before all else are idiots. but in this case the feeling is that over the past 12 years, all those other options have been tried to no avail.
saddam cannot be removed from within, as every iraqi knows, so if the goal is to remove saddam, war is the only option. imo, as ive already said, installing a new regime will help iraq more than the war would hurt it. bander, you take it as a given that the next iraqi regime will be as bad as the current. what makes you say that? if the europeans get involved in the reconstruction and state-building, i don't see why it should be impossibe to create somthing other than a new dictator.
as far as having good relations with arab regimes, this is a double edged sword: being too cozy with egypt or saudi arabia gets us heat for supporting "oppresive regimes", while going it alone gets us heat for being insensitive to arab governments' concerns. take the example of Saddam: you claim the US installed him and the baath, well i hate to break it to ya, but the USSR had more to do with that than we did. our affair with saddam actually start a bit later (ie. late 70s) when the iranian revolution threatens our oil supplying buddys. yet, people like yourself like to point out the "fact" that the US put saddam in power. bs i say. just let me say that i don;t blindly support everything the US does in it's foreign policy. but i believe my goverment is protecting me and my interests as well as it can, as i hope yours does for you. ok, so we have to go abroad to do this somtimes but thats the price of being a superpower.
Bander, you seem to be such a humanitarian, yet every crime saddam has ever committed you brush off by saying it was the US' fault for installing him. stop defending this psychopath!
and for everyone who claims that this war will kill all these poor innocent iraqis: it hasent happened, yet so don't start countng casualties. one possible outcome (and this is what i would prefer to see) would be that somone in saddam's entourage (maybe in the military or intelligence services) who can read the writing on the wall and wants to prevent bloodshed would simply kill or depose him. in that scenario, military pressure would be effective, but not one iraqi (other than saddam) would shed any blood. nobody wants a war and i belive that this outcome would be acceptable for bush.
and im not dumping on europe. in fact i am european and i grew up in europe. it is normal that they have their own priorities, but when the US needs their support, they should be by our side, even if they have reservations about the way the US goes about it. when europe needed nato and US help in the kosovo thing, america did'nt turn its back.....i am sure somone is going to start telling me that kosovo was wrong too, but that not the point, because it was somthing that the US and all of Europe saw eye to eye on.
and bs about good relations with arab countries preventing terrorist attacks. the only reason no Arab terrorist goes to austria is because they dont give a shit about you and your knodelsuppe. in fact one of the reasons bin laden hates the US is because we ARE good freinds with the Saudi monarchy.
bander i dont have a beef with you personally and i am sorry if i came on a bit strong in my last post. you did respond to the points this time so way to go!!! i know you already have me catalogued as a moron because i'm in disagreement with you here, but i do arrive at my conclusions by thinking and not by gulping down what others want me to think. i don't assume that you believe a war is wrong because of what the austrian government's position is, but because you have probably thought about it and come to that conclusion. why can't you extend me the same courtesy?

Abe, well said.  My only fear is it makes too much sense for them to actually focus on.

I find Abe's weakness to be the lack of paragraphs and punctuation personally.  It is a pain in the head to read.

About the Clinton/deficit thing...the way you stated it made the context seem different than you meant it.  That is the downside of written text, I can't tell if you were saying something as a fact or if you were being sarcastic as to something he said.  So sorry about misinterpreting that.

As for it being a great paper...I unlike you am not anal about making sure every detail is perfect.  I thought the overall reasoning makes sense...even if Iraq doesn't technically get the innocent till proven guilty protection.

I have been reading a lot of criticism regarding the fact that many people see me and others as merely opposing the president and not looking at reasons for war independent of the president. Well, despite the fact that I would oppose the war anyway (not what this thread is about however) I don't think its possible to seperate the president from his policies. More important to me than international politics is what happens domestically in this country. I want what's best for this country, and I think whats best for this country is to get the Bush regime out of power as quickly as possible. I fear that if we do have a war in Iraq and it is a success than Bush's popularity will inevitably rise and he will become unbeatable in the next election. I think that this is the worst thing that could happen for the United States. This inner psychological reasoning has a large effect on how I feel on the war.

Look at the other topics now. Even for most of you that do support the war, you agree that the domestic things Bush has done/plans to do are bad (patriot acts, tax cuts for the rich, irresponsible spending). If Bush gets another term in office, he will undoubtedly get to make supreme court nominations and take an even greater license with our already waning freedom. In addition to moral reasons, I cannot support a war in Iraq for these reasons.

I see paragraphs and punctuation.  He could use a few line breaks and some capitalization maybe.  But I could follow it without a problem.  

Now how about focusing on what he said.


Well this is a first.  Accepted.


First, give me a break.  You are pointing out grammar in Abe's posts, nothing to do with context.  Again.

Second, what made sense?  I didn't pick on tiny details, I hammered the whole paper.  Tell me what I got wrong:
A) when it comes to doing right, money shouldn't matter.  From a liberal point of view, you should not have a problem accepting that.  
B) he basis a large part of his argument on NONE of our allies supporting the US.  That is just plain false.  Most of the governments have pledged their support.
C) there are things worth dieing for.
D) the number of people killed in Iraq due to "peaceful" protests.
E) pointing out how he ignores the possibility of Iraq being guilty.

So, what did he get right?  Come on, tell me.


Tasty, as the one dishing out most of that criticism, let me say that I can sympathize with what you just said.  I don't agree with you though.

The problem I have, and it's not just with you, there are many guilty of it, is peole focusing on Bush and not the issues.  If you oppose the war based on the issues, that's well and good, and we can argue those.  If you oppose the war only because Bush is for it, that makes you as short sighted as him.  (I know you said you'd oppose it anyway Tasty, but like I said, this is for more then you).  Pointing at Bush's domestic policy (or lack thereof) is not a reason to ignore what's going on in Iraq or anywhere else.

No matter how much I dispise Bondo or Bander, I'd not disagree with them if they were right.  Even if they were right for the wrong reasons.  

So while I completely agree with you on most of what you wrote about Bush, ecology and the latest security act, I have problems when it comes to letting those issues color other issues, like those in Iraq.  

I have a real problem with the people that think if you don't oppose the war 100% then you are a blind Bush supporter (again, not you here Tasty).  

Too many people can't talk about the actual issues without bringing him into it.

Like I said, it was too difficult to read...and it isn't like it is my duty to reply to everything.  Sorry, but if something isn't typed in a accessable manner I'm not going to bother.  That is something that you definately offer, and I think you'd admit it is something I offer.


A. Money isn't completely out of the picture...he mentions many things including money.  It would be stupid to not consider that at all.  He also mentions loss of life and other such costs that are not financial.
B. Well, none of our allies publics support the war.  I agree that if talking about countries none is incorrect and to say some would be better.
C. Yes, things are worth dying for, but there is no reason to think that the reasoning for having this war is something worth dying for.
D. True, but not every letter needs to be fair and balanced.  Part of politics is to mention the stats that support a side.  Given, I don't think saying war shouldn't happen is the same as saying the embargo should happen instead.
E.  He says they haven't been proven to be guilty and gives his reason for thinking that.  He never says they couldn't possibly be guilty.  He thinks the inspectors should be given more time to determine guilt.

Anyway Bucc, you say first time I've apologized and you accept that...I hope you can honestly see that I'm trying to just argue straight up here.  Perhaps we can bury the hatchet?

You've read and responded to worse.  He makes good points, it's worth the effort.  And you have admitted to not reading all my posts in the past as well.  It would be better to put forth that effort.  Like you have said about Zaitsev, the content is important (when people picked on his jr high writing).


A) he made a rather big deal about the money, not just considered it.  It was one of his major themes.  It shouldn't be.
B) when discussing allies, and in his context, we are talking about governments (he mentioned NATO for example).  Most of the NATO countries have backed the US position.  16-3 or so in favor of the US.  I'd say this doesn't rate a some, but maybe a couple or few.  And not the postion he gave it.
C) I disagree.  This war MAY be something worth dieing for.  We have yet to see everything.  But Zaitsev made it sound like nothing was.  And this was about his post, which would then be wrong.
D) part of a good argument is always looking at both sides, and not just one.
E) Yes, he says they have to be proven guilty.  And that's wrong.  They signed agreements that they would prove all those weapons would be destroyed.  They still haven't.  The burden of proof is on them, even without the parole analogy being corrected.

All in all, for a post you thougt was great, you didn't seem to find all that much that was great about it.

You have to remember this is a letter to the editor that he was writing.  Not an essay relying on empirical proof as would be required in a more acedemic piece.  I think considering the context of the argument some of the things you pick out aren't needed to be good.  I did regardless of its flaws in data, think it made a point and was reasonably written in that it made sense literally and had some general support that makes sense.  If I was trying to take it as more than a letter to the editor than perhaps I would not have thought it as good.

     *gasp of shock!* What's this? Bondo, ignoring an argument for a specious reason? Wow. I, for one, am amazed. This is the first time I've ever seen this happen.

     Bucc, I admire your forum-fu. It is highly impressive. Kind of like watching Jackie Chan fight two opponents at once.

I did read enough of it to know it was a reply to Bander not to me, so I'm not ignoring an argument.  But I'm not going to go out of my way to reply to it when it is so messy.

Bondo, why should a letter to the editor have lower standards as you state?  It wasn't a response, but an editorial.  And like any other argument is either good or bad, depending on how it is made.  A letter to the editor is meant for the general public (being published in a paper or magazine usually), so, as a member of the public, I expect more.

Maybe my standards are just a little higer then yours.

And I still don't see how you could think that the argument was well made.  It's not like there was a single flaw in his argument, or that he just got a number wrong, those are not a big deal to me either.  The foundation for his arguments were seriously flawed, as I pointed out.  And nothing stands on a weak foundation for long.  

Loth, you just made me think of "Legend of the Drunken Master".  Think about it.

Do I need to say it again?

If the UN was smart they'd get the US the hell outta the Gulf and ask them to provide money/tactical support to other UN countries that would undertake the actual fighting. It's not America's war if its actually a violation of UN accord. It's every UN countries war.

UN = UNITED NATIONS! As in everyone united.

Now all you pacifist Euro countries should remember your roots and get out there!!! I wanna see some GG pwnage.

What is so wrong about being a pacifist? To think that war is a thing of evil and that peace is the only right way? It might not work in all situations but it's a good philosophy nonetheless.
Colin, you just want some nice war footage, huh? Why don't you go watch an action flick in that case?
A big part of the argument is how to interpret the 1441. If they really broke it or not, the US has already decided but the UN decision is still pending. I will support any decision the UN makes because everything the UN decides is decided by all the members together.
I'm not sure I agree with this completely but anyway: Thinking that the UN is bad is like thinking democracy is bad because it's too slow and unefficient.

Probably shoulda put in a smiley.

:) :) :) :P

Theres a few to make up for it.

Seriously I just got sick of  this the first time this thread was active. We will honestly just have to wait and see what happens.

Of course US foreign policy is always debated. It always will be.

I just sometimes think it's hard for Bush to see reality for his 10 gallon hat.

Kami, you said it yourself.  The thing that's wrong with thinking peace is the only right way is that it doesn't work in all situations.  Think that over.  Thinking that peace is the ONLY right way, when knowing it doesn't work in ALL situations is the flaw that I've been talking about.

It's PEACE AT ANY PRICE that's wrong.  

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to find the peaceful way or trying to find a way to avoid war.  Only a fool would disagree with that.  But only a fool would sit back and let his life or liberties  be snuffed out because he wouldn't raise a hand to stop it.  Ideals are great, but not practical.  Do I respect the comittment of some pacificsts, yep.  Do I respect their beliefs, for the most part.  Do I think that the ones that are fanatical about it in the face of evil are fools, yep, that too.

That doesn't seem to apply to you, but you get what I mean?


That is one of the down sides to democracy.  Nothing is perfect.  It doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved.  Both the UN and the American Republic (not democracy) could stand many improvements.  So, there shouldn't be anything wrong with bitching about how long it's taking the UN.  The longer they take, the worse things could get.  I mean, some of this shit has been going on for 10 years.  Is it really unreasonable to expect quicker action from them?

Of course peace isn't always possible but I think it should be on every man's agenda to try and achieve peace. I just find it distasteful to use the word pacifist as a curse.

When many countries have different opinions, it takes time, same as in a normal democracy but on a bigger scale, of course waiting 10 yrs is not ok but what can you do about it?

Well, you could say "get off the pot or I'm going to go in and do it myself", which is pretty much what the USA government has said.  And will most likely do if the UN doesn't.  (and expect half a dozen other countries there as well, even without UN support, if it comes to it).

Like I said early on, the USA doesn't have to have UN permission to declare war, they can do that all alone.  It's just better to have it.

Hmmm I want to take a look at the countries that support the war. Ehem I will start:
                                  Estonia
                                  Latvia
                                  Lithuania
                                  Poland
                                  Slovakia
                                  Czech Republic
                                  Slovenia
                                  Romania
                                  Bulgaria

Now someone who knows history, tell me what these countries all have in common. They are all former communist countries, what do these countries want? Membership into the EU and NATO. They are going to get into NATO by sucking up to the United States, the big dog. Its a simple political manuver. You think Bulgaria is actually gonna send troops to the Gulf? Spain is an exception and I have no clue why they are pro-war. I'll read into it later.

Cossack, why did you leave out countries already in NATO that support it (besides Spain)?  The UK and Canadian government said they'd support the US, so have a few others in NATO (I need to look them up as well, because I'll say somthing stupid like Norway and be wrong off the top of my head).

While still others in NATO say yes, but they want to give the UN more time.  

You make it sound like America is standing alone, instead of just out front.

cossack
spain, portugal, the UK and italy are all exceptions. germany and france (nobody cares about the stupid belgians) are the real exceptions in this situation, because they are stubornly refusing to come to turkey's defense and are threatening to alienate our most important muslim ally. what kind of message does it send to
turkey if, instead of coming to it's aid in time need, we simply turn our backs on the only true bridge between the arab world and europe/ the west and the islamic world we have? the way these countries are threatening to undermine NATOs credibility is sad and i only hope they will change their minds. for nato to work, all members have to come the defense of another member, without asking questions or holding long meeting. otherwise, the purpose of the nato mutual defence pact will be defeated and we could simply arrange ad-hoc alliances with freindly states at our convenience.
true, those eastern european governments are all trying to suck yankee cock and don't really care how unconvincing colin powells evidence might be. but you can't blame them for wanting to be on the winning side, for once (ie US), and not the Soviet Union's. i dont think bulgaria will send any troops, but why would they....they arent even in NATO. the czech republic, poland and hungary are however, and i think there is a very good chance they will send troops and equipment (mostly to support US and UK combat troops).

Much of our domestic policy extands to the global stage so how about this:


IN the USA we operate on one judicial platform :INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY so why is it that I hear that Iraq has to prove its INNOCENCE? it doesnt make sense I mean we have nothing more then a hunch that they have weapons and it tingles our spine so that we think we have proof which we dont and we are now prepared to carry out the death penelty WHY it makes NO SENSE.

Germany and France (and Belgium, and no it's not unimportant, no countries are unimportant) doesn't want to support Turkey at this time because they think it might give the message that the war has already started. Turkey is in no need to defend itself anyway.

way to be shortsighted kami,
the US and the UK are likely to be going to war within the next two months. if we are going to move heavy equipment like Patriot SAM missles etc. for turkeys defemse there is no point in doing when the war starts, because by the time the stuff gets there, the war will pretty much be over.

and zaitzev, this is the same point you bring up all the time about saddam being innocent etc. and everytime people tell you the same thing: SADDAM IS ALL BUT innocent. he is a parolee and the parole officer (UN) has been slacking....

Hmm, it seems that back at the start of this post Bucc was acting like Bucc and was doing his usual act but wasn't really being straight about it and so he was being chided by loudnotes about it.  Maybe it isn't just my paranoid mind seeing Bucc do this wrongly.

My last post didnt mean to show that US was standing alone. I worded it badly. I meant to show you that these eastern european countries are probablly just sucking cock to get into NATO. You also forgot Russia being in NATO (to a degree). My news is a bit outdated seeing as I dont have cable and only have access to local news. Forgive me if I dont notice something. Tell me do they support war right now how it is, or when they have more credible evidence?

Also could you give me a list to where I could find the countries that are pro-war or not? I cant seem to find one.

@Abe:


Abe: Eigentlich recht cooles posting. Naja, ?ber EINIGEs k?nnt ich jetzt wieder mit dir streiten aber im grossen und ganzen akzeptier ich eh deine meinung. (wtf: neuen diktator installieren? wie w?rs denn bitte mit demokratier? ah geht ja net, weil wir ja bl?derweise alle oppositionellen iraker schon von saddam t?ten haben lassen. naja halt a neuer diktator her. das ist arsch mann.

Kosovo also had benefits to the U.S.:

For excemple some of the biggest "european" U.S. bases who are now located in (still devastated) bosnia.

And hell yeah i am not saying everyithing u do is shiat (like that uranium ammunition). Lets say i respect your opinion for a basic fact: u obvously take some time to think about what someone has posted.

und sorry die beleidigungen. aber da hatte ich gerade kamis "islam analyse" gelesen und die war so derartig schwachsinning dass ich mir gedacht habe die spinnen einfach alle. is ehhhh wurscht was k?nnen wir schon machen? aber ich wett mit dir - der irak ist dran. wurscht wieviel geredet wird. bush hat schon beschlossen. die saudis sitzen auf nem wackeligen sessel: at last most of the 9/11 terrorists AND osama himself are from Saudi Arabia. I dont think these relations are to be called "friendly".

servas Abe ~

Seems like these countries are in favor of protecting Turkey from Iraq if they are attacked, that seems to be the main subject. I am dissapointed in France, Germany, and Belgium for not sending troops into Turkey. After all they have published a concern with viable reasoning.

da bin ich mit dir 100 prozent einverstanden. bush will einen krieg. glaubst du aber nicht auch, dass saddam diesen krieg nicht verhindern koennte? es gibt genug laender in europa die ihm eine zweite (eher funf hundertste wenn du mich fragst) chance geben wollen und wenn er ernsthaft mit der UNO kooperiert (etwas was er bisher nie getan hat) koennten die Amerikaner nicht viel tuen. aber wie kann man einen man wie saddam, ohne gewalt oder zumindents die drohung der gewalt, zwingen mit der UNO mitzumachen.

i dont know if i would qualify the US bases in kosovo and bosnia as assets. in fact, americans are generally very much against UN/NATO peacekeeping, so that these troop commitments in the balkans are more of a liability. besides, the US has bases in hungary, poland and the czech republic now that they are in NATO. bases there are just as good as bases in former yugoslavia.

the problem with installing a democratic regime in iraq right away is not so much that the opposition and future potential leadership has been killed off, imo, but that iraq has never had fair elections and that there is no democratic culture or civil society in that country. if we held elections there tomorrow, people would probably vote along family, tribal and ethnic lines, rather than on the issues, which will create a joke of a government. i think a semi-democratic ruler like Karzai is what is needed in Iraq and i have a feeling that that is what will happen. on a more sinister note, i heard about a plan of the US military to run the public admistration in iraq. this would be disasterous!! then again, i dont know if this is true or just speculation.

ich verstehe, dass du es nicht gerne hast wenn leute uninformierte beitraege zum thema afghanistan oder islam machen. das gleiche funktioniet aber auch umgekehrt: ich habe es nicht gern wenn leute die gleiche art von dumbheiten ueber amerika ausspucken. ich bin mir selber aller probleme der amerikanischen gesellschaft durchaus bewusst (feuerwaffen, ungesundes essen, beschissenes schul system etc). aber das ist nicht alles was es dort gibt, wie du selber geagt hast. und erzaehl mir bitte nicht, dass oesterreich perfect ist.....ich hab auch dort gelebt (wien) und es gibt dort genauso viele spiesser und dumme leute wie in amerika. und danke,uebrigens, das du mich enlich ernst nimmst......und auch nochmal sorry von mir, wenn ich dich auch etwas beleidigt hab.

Hmm, seems that the only chiding that Loud gave me was to try to forgive a possible translation error of Banders.  When he said he could "Bucc" me, that's not chiding.  To be chiding, it would have to be something bad.  I don't consider him picking apart my post bad at all.

You'll also notice he said overall, we were on the same page.

Not a very strong example there Bondo.


Zaitsev, since it's been said at least a dozen times (half those by me), I have to believe that you just don't fucking bother to read answers to your own questions.  And Bondo wonders why I insult you?  Read before you keep repeating yourself!

IRAQ AGREED TO PROVE THESE THINGS AS PART OF THE PEACE SETTLEMENT AFTER THE GULF WAR.  IN OVER 10 YEARS, THEY STILL HAVEN'T.  

If you read back a little you will find more detail, including the resolution number and everything.  It's all back there.  Please read it.  Then take into consideration the PAROLE example I gave you a while back.  You know about Parole right?  Where you have been proven guilty, and you have agreed to have restriced rights?  Since Saddam admitted guilt and agreed to these conditions, that analogy is much more fitting.

Now, what part of that doesn't make sense to you?


Kami, this was to start PLANNING for defense.  Not to actually start preperations.  This wouldn't have involved the moving of any men or weapons into Turkey, just the discussion of what would be needed and by whom if it came to that.  These talkes are what France, Belgium and Germany veto'd.  That's what I find aweful.  If it were the actual preperations, I could at least see their point (and possibly even agree with it).

Cossack, no worries man.  The BBC web site had a good article a few days ago on where many of the nations stood.  And Yes, while I wasn't taking those former eastern block countries into my argument, I agree that they probably are doing much sucking up to get their foot into NATO as well.

Either way, we are going to see a large amount of protests. Hell the war hasnt started and we already have them. We may have some European governments in our favor but we dont have their populations.
Another reason I think NATO is not getting into Iraq, is because it is a defense orginization. US is attacking Iraq. I happen to think alliances are evil myself, but it is not stated in NATO that you have to help eachother in offensive actions. I am drunk and my post probablly dosent make sense. I think I am delirious.

Yeah Cossack, not get on GR and NetFone.

The NATO part is about Turkey more then anything else right now.  And Turkey is talking about defense in case they are invaded by Iraq.  Think it likely or not, that's still the case, and France and Germany (and not to leave out Belgium) are being asses for not holding up thier end of it and talking about it like they should.

Abe maybe if you remembered Desert Storm that would be better. Scud misslies fell on Isreal because Iraq has been trying to bait Isrealinto a war so that the Arab
Nations will join together in defense of and Arab country to the US put those "Great" PAtriot missiles in Isreals defense and they were less then workable. If we nuke
Saddam which "hasnt been ruled out yet" then I will move from the US

the USA is earning much more money with irak, than france and germany(wich made oil-contracts with irak long before bush junior)....
so why they should support the US?
irak is  an commercial for the US-army,(oil of course), ..you have to destroy the infrastructure, after that you build it up with companies from the west, and so you have a new market for economie-grow...

Thats the same system the US used for europe after 2nd worldwar.....
but now europe is bigger than the US, and they wan't their  bigger "portion"...but they don't get enough to share....so why france and others should support the us?

Why is everyone so ignorant?

j-rocc you are right. France doesn't have to support the US.

France has to support the UN.

face the reality..........the UN is an organisation payed by the US and EU

need i say more?

nothing can stop the irak-war, except the US-nation would be against the war......but they can't make their own opinion because of CNN and junior.....

maybe the next  US-elections will stop the war.......

I thought the US was way behind in it's dues to the UN?  Did we pay up and I missed it??


Hell yes, because you haven't backed anything you said so far.


No, Iraq can stop the war by doing what it agreed to do as well.


Oh, and you can make your own opinions, but we can't.  I see.  Thank you for opening my eyes to the brainwashing that has been done to me with your fine examples.  Bullshit.  I'm sick and fucking tired of Europeans telling me I'm brainwashed just because I don't agree with them.  I'm sick and fucking tired of Europeans accusing me of just getting my information from Bush, CNN or other biased media.  I can read (and do) news from all over.  It doesn't mean I have to agree with you.  By using those stereotypes you are just proving yourself to be as dumb as the stereotypes you are mocking.

propaganda is a hard thing ....especialy when your living in a country wich goes to war....your right I don't life in this country and i can't make the same opinion you have..
but i life in a country wich is responisble for the 2! worldwars...and the damnfucking hell i do!  know what an influence propaganda could have....

the UN isn't directly! payed by the US an EU , but the UN wouldn't exist without them....
In other words: who cares about the UN?(everyone besides the USA)...it's just for TV..
meanwhile the hole world should know the US gonna attack irak ANYWAY...so why waisting dicussions on the UN??

but you're also damnfucking right when you say i should shut up!!..as an european im under the (nearly) same system as you(after 2ndworldwar the USA used the bad situation of europe to flood our marked with US products and companies->US economy-grow ....thats also called the cocacola-system)..the same sytem is now used on the irak...saddam=hitler...middleeast=europe....
so i have to shut up beacause europe isn't participated with this war!I just wanted to give an objective view of the situation
...i gues i was drunk or something.... sorry ;D

hopefully this isn't gonna be the3rd worldwar........(somehow it looks like)

There should be a breathalizer test for posting sometimes.

Abe I dont need your bullshit intimidations to tell me what to say and what not to say. Fine your not an asshole but your views are crazy. The Patriot missiles are out of date, they mis-functioned in Desert Storm and they will agian. Im not scared of  your threats of embarassment and the reason for that is your simply wrong, Attacking Iraq will not solve anything, Isreal is not perfect, they commit attrocities as well and Patriot missiles are just payment for keeping Isreal from taking Iraqs baiting of war. You could be older but you are not smarter on the subject and you have a corrupted view on the world. Im not even gonna bother with a flame war with you because I wont stoop down to your leval and I know they I am right when it comes to how to perserve world peace and no quotation of my past remarks will change that

k, zaitzev you asked for it really badly there....here we go:


nope, to me what is stupid is to assume that, in our world,  you can live in peace and security, without being willing to use force to protect yourself and your interests when it is neccesary. it is naive to assume otherwise....and, well you are pretty naive.


are you a moron? go to google and look up the southern poverty law center and see if noone "curses the KKK" anymore. they may have better ways of denouncing and prosecuting the clan than "cursing" them and calling them 'big meanies', but don't say that noone cares about the clan...
as for our immigration laws. touching american soil doesnt mean shit and hasent for decades (ever heard of the term illegal immigrants????), unless you are cuban. and guess what, shithead? many cubans are black. south asians, east asians, russians, south americans and people of lots of different colors, genders, creeds, sexual orientations etc. all get turned down at out borders, so don't make it sound like where singling out africans or carribean people.


 that is too dumb to even respond to. what the fuck does america have to do with somthing thats been going on in the balkans for almost 1300 years?bah, id like to see the rest of your list. vietnam and grenada are good examples of bad US foreign policy moves but you even screwed those up.

and now to your latest pile of warm brainless parakeet adolescent bullshit. the patriot missles are not out of date. the SCUD-B missles saddam has are. second, the patriot missles are actually SAMs and meant for shooting down airplanes. in the gulf war they were used as ad-hoc missle interceptors to protect saudi arabia, israel and turkey and did a suprisingly good (admittedly not perfect) job of destroying the SCUDs (which are pretty much crap, even if modified or bundled together). why wouldnt they do as well this time? maybe because saddam has better missles than he is allowed and chemical warheads to put on them? but that would mean that he IS in fact a threat as ive been saying all along, so you probably wont admit that. which one is it zaitzev??

next, in my last post i wasnt even talking about the patriot, but about the arrow, which israel has been developing with help from the US. go look that up too.

attacking iraq will not solve everything, but it will solve some things ( im not gonna repeat what). i never said israel was perfect (no country is) and we don't need to give isreal any payment in patriot missles for anything. they are a loyal ally and we give them a hell of a lot of weapons and money so they buy out weapons, anyways (there was a thread about this recently)

i am older than you. i never said i was smarter just that ive been researching and thinking about this stuff longer than you thats all. i didnt say that meant my opinions are better than yours (they are obviously better informed), i just said that you, as a 15 year old, should not berate me the way you did and at least listen to what i have to say.

my views are crazy and i have a corrupted view of the world? why? because i go to college or because i read the newspaper? your views are naive, uninformed and kinda jump-on-the-bandwagonish, if you ask me. i suggest you "stoop down" to my level and take others peoples opinions seriously, then back your views with facts to show that you now what youre talking about.

you my freind are not only ignorant, but also arrogant.


don't you think its a little cocky for a 15-year old to think he knows better than, not only people in this forum, but the people in the security council and the US state department as well?

i gave you a warning so i wouldnt have to do this, zaitsev, but you choose to not give a shit and just go right for the red. when i was 15 my opinions were probably a lot like yours. the difference was that when other people had somthing to say, i listened and took them seriously instead of patronizing them with my "superior" understanding of the situation.

Zaitsev, how can anyone think your world views are right, when all the "facts" you spout off about them are so utterly wrong?

Really, answer this honestly now.  Where did you get your information that Patriot Missiles were a failure?  Was this the same place that you got your information that England came to America's aid in the French Indian Wars?

I call you a sock puppet because it seems to me like you overhear these arguments, probably from people you respect, and without having any idea if they are right or wrong, you repeat them here.

Whaterver the source, you are truely a child of propoganda.  Not only do you have your basic history all mixed up and wrong (all the time), but you completely ignore that, like the "facts" being wrong have no influence on your arguments or opinions whatsoever.  You show all the signs of being a non-thinking liberal zealot (as opposed to a non-thinking conservative zealot, aka a traffic cop  :o )

Abe hit all the main points.  Patriot Missiles were a success, even if not perfect (but what ever is).  And what makes you think that they haven't been improved upon in over 10 years (besides the fact that you seem to think we can do nothing right)?

To My it is stupid to use violence to acheive peace- I stand by this comment. Basic princepal of leadership is to lead by example. As the self proclaimed leaders of the world shouldnt we lead by example. Our nation wouldnt have to defend ourselves with violence if in stead of buying missiles and placing them in the middle east we helped sickness and disease ravaged Iraq. If our billions went to food for the poor rather then the Cruise Missiles that hit the poor then there would be no violence to defend out country.

Nobody Curses the KKK anymore...etc quote- Sure people curse the KKK yea but lets not look at this literally. Lets look at it from the perspective it was meant to come from. When was the last time the KKK was denounced in the news? When was the last time people put up commercials against the KKK? It doesnt happen and I will tell you why, its because the rich right wing people who put up the ads dont give a rats ass about who gets hung ESPECIALLY if its a minority. Nobody says it any more but millions know it underlyingly. Much, not all, but much of the upper class in America hates minorities such as those targeted by the KKK.

Bosnia quote- In the balance of power of Europe pre world war one nobody did anything about the Balkins. There was racial tensions there forever and when the US along side England laid out plans of balancing power not only did they not remember Germany but they looked right past the Balkins which everyone knew was a hot spot. German Chancelor Von Bis marc was quoted as saying the next war will come out of the "damn balkins" and we knew it to and us and our allies we did nothing. So yes the comment was worded wrong but its not like Im a moron on the subject.

World Peace- Where was our beloved state department and intellegence agencies before 9-11? They sure as hell werent doing the job we thought they were. The reason is simple, and it runs through our schools right up to college. All our history books are white washed. In my school there was 1 paragraph alloted to Cambodia, Grenada, the middle east. Then we think that we have "randomly" been attacked on 9-11 and thats just not true. Our foriegn policies, especially in the Middle East, gets us into trouble and those random acts all come from a root such as our aggressive actions in Iraq a decade ago and such as our stone walling of Afganistan once USSR broke up. We can tell ourselves our history is clean and that we are randomly picked on but its quite clear to me at least that the US washes its hands in blood every day and once we acknowledge that we can start really saving our own civilians lives.

Any other things you would like me to clear up Abe or Bucc?

http://the-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/china.13w.html

<>Crazy facts from....THE BBC
The Patriot was widely used in the Gulf War but is not credited with hitting any incoming Iraqi missiles.

<>Crazy Facts in...The U.S. Congress:
a. Summary.-The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements. The public and the Congress were misled by definitive statements of success issued by administration and Raytheon representatives during and after the war. It is probable that many of the individuals giving such statements, including the President of the United States and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, were not aware at the time that the claims of success were false.

read more @http://www.radix.net/~jcturner/patriot.html


So yes, as you clearly see here I did my homework and I presented facts that both have very high levals of credibility and I hope you will re-establish your position on the matter. Anymore questions?

Bucc's Glorius Quotations, Remember your the one who started throwing the dirt


1. Nipponese-
Well thats pretty self explanitory, what you had a meeting on funny racial comments with Trent Lott?

2. Teddy would have nuked Iraq? Speak softly carry a  big stick?

Well that quotation is opened to interpretation but for you to say we should nuke Iraq and at the same time your reason is that they have Nukes, I just dont understand. Because they have something horrible we should use that horrible thing on them? Why not read the book Hiroshima about the skin sliding off the people, the babies who would never walk, but wait, they are just nipponese arent they?

3. The tax guys issue with Bondo. Yes those flying on the right wing of the plane need to understand this equation

 WAR = Spending and LOWER TAXES = LOWE BUDGET and those two clash. You cant expect to save more money and kill more people. Though Im sure bucc you wish you could, Im sorry, it just doenst work like that.

AND SO YOU SEE BUCC, two can play the flame war game, though I prefer not to if you insist upon it I can play it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abe, unfortunetly you dont have an account and most of your entries seem pretty credible but there are two things. The first is there is no need to start a flame war Im sure we can handle our differences in opinion in a mature manner but when I say something the whole "DONT GO THERE GIRLFRIEND BECAUSE ILL SPILL ALLL YOUR SHIT" attitude just doesnt fly.

Secondly on the Saudi thing I mean yea its unfair but so is the USA having nukes and other countries not. Its a shitty world we live in and for you to single out Saudi Arabia like that? I mean I dont see people posting shit about Emmitt Tills and his killers being found innocent or about the daily public lynchings in the south I mean It goes on everywhere and I for one dont support the concept of making a topic on the account of an injustice of the world. Perhaps it was just a form of spam.

)OK, time to open it up a little more.  He just doesn't seem able to get it.


Assumption 1, we are self-proclaimed leaders of the world.  I wouldn't say that.  I would say that we are one of the leading world powers and influences.  "one of" being very important words there.

So, you are saying that if we just tried to ship food and supplies, tried to help people we would never need to buy another missile?  Back that up.  I'm calling BULLSHIT.  We send food and supplies all over the world, all the time.  For the most part, we get NO RESPECT for it.  We get blasted for witholding it (you didn't give when you could have, no matter what the reasons, you are bad).

And if you think that would erase the need for defense, you are just really really blind.  No good deed ever goes unpunished (yes, I wrote that right).  How many of the great peace talkers survive?  Really?  How many of the truely peaceful leaders survived and thrived?  Ghandi?  Rev Martin Luther King Jr?  Keep going.  Find me a leader that thought peace was the only way, that didn't think defense was necessary, that didn't get burned down by something evil.  Fuckers even shoot the Pope (and it wasn't the first time).  It is just a fact that there are evil people in the world.  And if the USA were lead by someone that thought we no longer needed an army, or missiles or defense, it wouldn't last very long before someone moved in and took over.  Why?  Because not everyone is good.  And you have to protect yourself from evil.  And you'd have countries that could help, but would decide not to (*cough*France*cough*) because it wasn't their problem, or they don't want to escilate it.


Hey dumbass, try putting some context around it in the first place.  You are the king of pulling out statements without adding context around them.  (can someone tell me the queen?  ;D)

So, I saw this ad tonight while watching the Red Wings game.  It was from "The Freedom Counsil" I think.  Showed two guys interviewing a latino man.  After he left, the one guy says "well, I think he has all the skills we are looking for", the second guy says something like "well, we already have enough color around here", and tosses the resume in the trash can.  He calls out to his asian looking secretary and asks who's next.  The first guy reaches into the trash, un-crumples the resume, and says something like "I think you should have a look at this one".  

Would that qualify as a commercial against the KKK that never gets on TV?  Or does that "upper class that hates minorities" allow these and only stops the ones that say "KKK" in them?  

Oh, last time I saw the KKK make the news was in a hate crime on the local news.  Just some KKK member that had blown away a couple of black (affrican american if you like) employees at a pizza place.  He was from Howell (which actually has a strong KKK faction).  But that probably doesn't count, because it wasn't focused on the group, just the crime.

So let's talk about this for a second.  Why should you put comercials on against the KKK.  You don't want to spread hatrid towards a group, that's what they do.  What you want to do is put on ads that show why biggotry is wrong, don't you?  After all, the KKK is a group like any other in the USA.  If you believe in our first ammendment, then they have the right to exist and voice their opinions, like any other group, from neo-nazi's to greenpeace to the ACLU.  Or is it ok to hate those groups you don't agree with (but, gosh, then you would be acting JUST LIKE THEM).  So, you want to show ads that point out hate and how to stop it, not specifically the KKK.  

And technically, I am insulted by your representation of the upper class.  Technically, I am one.  I make over $100k a year and have a graduate degree (which puts me up in those single digit percentage).  You are saying I don't care?  Does that mean I can't be a minority?  

I'll put a bottom line to this part of the thread.  Not only are you a dumbass, you are just as stupid as the average member of the KKK.  You point your finger at a group and hang blame for problems on them and spew false facts in your hate.  (in this case, the upper class).

If you weren't a moron on the subject, then you would know that the US didn't agree with the post WW1 layout of Europe in many ways.  That it wasn't England and the USA reshaping the map as much as it was the countries that were ravaged by WW1.  You keep putting way too much of the blame on the USA, like we were the super-power back then.  When the USA entered into WW1, most of Europe thought our troops were going to be a joke.  The USA hasn't been structuring the world since the 14th or 16th or 18th centuries even.  To hold the USA responsible for the crap that has gone on there would be like holding England responsible for the mistreatment of affrican americans in the 70's, because they allowed slavery in the colonies in the first place.  It's BULLSHIT.  Tell me this.  Why don't the people there, killing each other, share in any of the responsibility?  Why is it anyone elses fault?  Who forced them to start killing?  Dumbass.


Man, that explains much about why you know so little.  You go to a really shitty school.  In my Junior High School, I had one 10 week class that did nothing but talk about Viet Nam.  One hour a day, for 10 weeks.  More then one book.  I had a 20 week class on European History in 8th grade.  I had another 10 week class that just talked about 20th centurary conflicts and their causes (this was before Grenada and Panama and a bunch of other shit).  But it did cover some of the Central American conflicts that you don't mention.  Get your parents to send you to private school or something, because it's not our fault that your school sucks so much ass.  One important thing to remember.  Just because your education seems to suck, don't think that everyone else in the USA's is just as bad.  I also don't expect everyone to be so lucky as to have teachers that were both in the war and protesting it so I got to see it from many sides.  That was just the luck of my age.

Now that one is truely crazy.  Because all the evidence shown in your link points to the credit being exagerated.  So, since it was credited with 100% at one time, and I've seen nothing to show a 0% success, showing the BBC say it's not credited is BULLSHIT.  It was credited, you can just argue with HOW MANY it should have been credited with, based upon those later facts.


You looked up a reference, and posted it here, I'll give you credit for that.  What you don't get credit for is your slant on the data.

The way I read that article:

a) that based upon the way it's measured, it could be as low as 9%.
b) that so many SCUDS broke up and were duds, you can't tell if the patriots made a difference.
c) that there were many gaps in the data, and analysis could not be performed.
d) the army used the people that sell the things to report their success (a dumbass move there)
e) because of how shitty the SCUDS were, and how shitty hits were measured, success and failure can't really be determined by the gulf war.

In a nutshell, this says that you can't tell if the patriots worked well or not, because they didn't have a good method to determine it.  The first results were based off the fact that the SCUDS didn't hit and detonate on target, but that is wrong because many of them broke up and were duds anyway.  It also calls for more testing.

Since this was from right after the Gulf War, I'd love to see more recent information and follow up.  Where is that in your homework Zaitsev?

Based on this article, I can't call the Patriots a huge success based on the Gulf War.  But you can't use it to say they were a failure either.  Why?  Because it says their estimates can be off if you read it.  They just didn't measure it right, so any conclusions based on that evidence are tainted.  Yours and mine.

But you didn't touch the part about why don't you think they have been improved in the last 10 years?  And what did your homework tell you about that?

BOY HOWDY, now the real fun starts!


What, you took lessons in racial slurs from Bondo?  Nippon and Nipponese are not racial slurs, I think that's been established.  

So the only thing I find self explanitory there is that you can't read and are a dumbass.


Hmm, so many mocks, so little time.

Go back and read.  I said I think Teddy would have nuked them, because that's the type of guy HE WAS.  I wasn't the one that said I wish he was in office.  I was mocking that.  But I know that reading is a challenge for you litte fella, so I'll try to use even smaller words from now on.

And yes, they are just Nipponese, and I'm just an American.  What is it about using a term that you aren't familure with that you assume it means something wrong?  What makes you jump to that conclusion?  Oh that's right, you don't need anything to jump to a conclusion, you jump to them all the time.


There are three items in that equation, which two clash?  DUH.  LET ME SEE IF I CAN THUNK THIS OUT.


War = Spending and Lower Taxes.  Wow, is that what war is?  I had no idea.  I thought war was that ultimate political statement that should be used only as a last resort.  Here I was wrong that whole time and it is really spending and lower taxes.  Thanks.

Spending and Lower Taxes = Low Budget.  Wow, So I can lower taxes and still spend with a low budget?  WOOOHOO!  YES!  I can still spend while having a low budget!!

Wait, these don't sound quite right to me.

Are you trying to say that we will be spending more because of the war, and we have lowered taxes.  And that all that equals a LOWER ECONOMY maybe?  This is just a wild ass guess, but the best I could come up with based on the shit you wrote.  So maybe:

War Expendatures + Lower Taxes = Lower Economic Growth?  

You could be saying that, but then people could argue how historically, war has actually boosted the economy (defense spending creates jobs too).  So, saying even that wouldn't be completely correct.  If you believe in trickle down economics, then you would be even further off base.  

So, this has nothing to do with what I would like or not like.  It only goes to show that not only can't you read other people's posts very well, you don't communicate very well and you don't seem to know much about economic theory to go with your lack of knowledge on history.  That England coming to our aid in the French Indian Wars comment still makes me laugh.  I shared it with a friend, that teaches High School.  Let's just say you have brought laughter to many people.


Yeah, and it is like watching the Red Wings play against a peewee team.  It's almost too hard to watch.  So you can play the game, but you sure as hell can't play it well.

All you've shown is that you can't actually read other peoples posts correctly, that you can look at an article on patriot missiles and only pull out the information that supports your side while ignoring the rest, and that you have a very shitty history book in your school.  Oh, and don't let me forget the part where you make little to no sense like your economics portion of the post.

Bucc, everyone knows the Canadiens own the Red Wings. ;). just kidding (duh!), but it would be nice.....eh
i didnt really read the rest because im kinda drunk, but youve educated me on the nipponese thing. i still think its a kindof odd word and the fact that several people thought (mistakenly) that it was a slur speaks for it self.

Abe, as long as it's good canadian beer, and you are buying, I wont mock the Canadiens (hey, I'll even point out that they won in Detroit for the first time in like 20 years this year).  But you owe me a Molsen.

It doesn't surprise me that people aren't familure with Nippon, as much as it bothers me that people not knowing it jumped to it having a bad connotation.  I mean, I may show plenty of disrespect to individuals that I regard as dumbasses, but I've never been one to judge based on race or nation or anything that wasn't 100% choice.  I don't hate the Iraqi people, never have I come close to saying that I do.  I hate Saddam, and it sucks that he leads them and that many of them could die along with people from other places, like the USA.  

What it really amounts to is it's easier for people that disagree with me to hang those titles on me and hate me, then to realize that it's not evil or wrong to accept and recognize the harsh truths of the world we live in.  Some people find it more comfortable to hate the people that don't agree with them.  So, I must be evil, and conservative, if I don't agree with the liberals here.  Just like I'm a bleeding heart Liberal to some of the conservatives.  And I must be pro war and murder, if I point out that the burden of proof is on Iraq, and not the US.  It's just so much easier to disagree with the messenger then with the message, when the message makes this much sense.

Oh, and before someone takes that as an oppertunity to use my own words against me, let me point out that it's not insults, labels or mocking, it's making assumptions as to my ideology based on the fact that I don't support your arguments.  

I mean, saying that Iraq has the burden of proof, and that it's wrong to wait forever for them to comply.  Saying that Bush has the right to go to war without the UN's ok.  All this got me accused of wanting to go to war now, even though I posted many times that I didn't think it was that time yet, that I still wanted more facts myself.  Punching holes in other peopels mistakes makes them automatically put me as an evil guy, that is against all that is good and right.

Such bullshit.

Ok, enough of the irish whiskey, it's starting to show.

Now see I have a few bones to pick with your last 4 posts. First is that my school is like millions around the nation and I do reading on the matters that arent in my books outside of school but I know others dont so others are missing out on funding to lrarn truthfulness about the world.

Secondly, Many of the heads of country of Europe had just taken power and we are talking PRE WWI lay out, but otherwise your right we wanted a different plan that congress didnt pass

Third, that commercial is a good example of what I was looking for but thats just one you realize? I mean how many were watching the game then flip away or take a leak during that time, tell me if you see another one

Forth, Is what your saying about defense is that if for one year we did not buy any NEW cruise missiles and thus saved BILLIONS we wouldnt be able to defend our selves? With or without the new shipment we could do just fine in defending our selves I think.

Fifth, The bush administration without a doubt has numerous times sad something like "and we will continue to lead the world" From Bush, down to my little cities Republican party agree that we lead the world, now weather we lead it well or not is in doubt to me but clearly those in power think we lead the world which is why im pretty sure i put it in quotations

Sixth, My information on the failure of the patriot missiles came from the BBC and Congress and they both say that it was an over rated system, I just dont see how you can debate that.

Seventh, I dont need your bullshit about the upper class, my parents both have PhDs and one works for the fed one works at the university so yea I can be called upper class. And you and I and all the rest of the people on here might not be racist but much of the upper class is and I stand by my argument.

Bucc there are some differences between you and me:

Where as I type things with out explaining the full context, you type things based on....thoughts
When I get things from CONGRESS and the BBC, you try to rebuttle thier credibility

Bucc you have to learn just because I am younger does not mean I need to be condesended to and it does make you any better theb me because your not. I think im just as spart as you and just because we have different views on how the world should work doesnt make one of us smarter then the other, and though I could continue with this immature flamewar I wont and I will post on the topic of Iraq like we should be posting.

Although leaders in our country do not listen to terrorists there wants are for the USA to leave the middle east. Now although I do not think that should happen perhaps we can change our policy. We are there obvoiusly because our leaders say we lead the world however we got attacked for our policies. Now here we are again in the middle east attacking just to get one man out of power and It will result with a terrorist attack. Last time it was 3000 at the WTC this time it could be a dirty  bomb in downtown denver 280,000. War, in this context, is simply not the answer

You congradulate bush on pushing his war against Iraq behind talking to the UN but this is overshadowed by the fact that if the UN doesnt take the bait we will attack anyway. Also isnt it true Powell had to convince him?

Your comment about nobody deserving terrorists your right. Thier views are extreme and illegal and im not saying we deserved it but im disagreeing with people saying the attacks were random.

Your nippon comment, although bondo did accept your reasoning and I can seewhere your coming from I still think some Japenesse people would be offended by it

Your Teddy comment. Now saying he would because thats "the kind of guy he was" is one thing but then you said OR do we forget speak softly...etc meaning that the reason he woulda nuked is the speak softly carry a big stick thing which is in correct again I see where your coming from but your the one who used the wrong context this time

Your posts about we cant convince the public we are over spending defense. I doubt that, nobody has even tried and the cant rob peter to pay paul well you have to becasue the US budget to bar inflation operates on a Part-Part-whole meaning in order for one thing to go up, another has to go down.

Also you pinned the "iraq mess" that should have been cleaned up a long time ago on Clinton when infact that was Bush Sr.s time. Clinton had no reason to attack Iraq so he saved lives, unlike what Bush is going to do.

About saying Bush is strong on foriegn policy maybe for the first while after 9-11 he was decent I admit, but now we are right back where started with Millions protesting his foriegn policy because its simply arrogent and will get innocent people killed. We think not doing things will get innocent people killed by Saddam but the US forces commit more attrocities then the enemy themselves. Do you know what the highway of death is? Have you seen the pictures? So you see if we are attacking those who committed attrocities arent our guns pointed in the wrong direction?

Then theres your post about me. Well I feel loved that on Valentines day itself you took the time to write a post about me but really I dont need your coodleing and I dont need you to answer my questions because your views are wrong. Maybe in Michigan or wherever your from you see sense in them but I dont. Now its clear to me we have different opinions and we are entitled to that but your bullshit remakrs about me being a dumbass and me being insulting is not only a mirror image of yourself but it is more childish then I could ever be because you egg on flamewars when thats not what the forum is for

My point that you said I didnt have on Valentines day is that maybe if you, along side the rest of the Republican Party, woke up you would see the world disagrees with us so MAYBE WE ARE WRONG. We have never once in this ordeal asked ourselves is it moral? Is it just? is there evidence? Our Judicial system says innocent until proven guilty and so it should be in Iraq. THAT WAS MY POINT which was backed up by 82% of now a million voters say that the United States is the biggest threat to world peace.

Then there was your complaint to Bondo about him calling our your insults and not ours. Then you said I started it which is complete and utter bullshit. Sorry but my views are flamewars they are just politiccally sound. You started the flame war right along side abe so dont try the he started it first bullshit

Overview is that I, in just my 14 years on this earth, have learned something you have not. And that is to make a point you insult the argument not the person. Your posts repeadedly fail to comprehend that.  And you say I dont have a good political view tell me how this sounds.....


Let Iraq and Korea have full say at the UN so that the United Nations, based on its perpose of collective security, can operate correctly. Re-evaluate our stance on Isreal/Palestine. Instead of buying 50 billion in Cruise missiles, omit that perchase for one year and work in co-operation with the African governments to limit disease and end hunger there. Raise the taxes by some% and enhance domestic programs fighting hunger and homelessness. Then through the UN re-evaluate hot spots around the globe. Once these hotspots are ordered in line of urgency. work in stride with the government this includes hearing both sides and trying to compromise. Knowing that many hotspots have built up over the years no one side will give in, we have to meet in the middle. Using additonal funds saved by the absence of those extra Cruise missiles and the tax raise we launch ads telling facts about gun control in America. Maybe some day our government will really be of the people, by the people, and for the people

     Ugh. Zaitsev, you continue to talk out of your ass. In keeping with your style, your points are either flat wrong or ignore additional evidence and/or context which makes them false.

     Let me do a little roleplaying. I'm now you. Let's say that we are discussing the effectiveness of police in major cities. I read an article that says that police catch or dismiss 82% of murder suspects (I'm just making this up, I didn't get that from anywhere). Now remember, I'm you. I'll now post on the forum: "The article from New York Times says that 18% of murderers never get caught. That's millions of murderers walking the streets of cities. It's obvious that our police forces are completely ineffective and we need to do something about it."

     I'm saying that you take only the data that helps your position, and you ignore the rest of the information about that data. That is a very amateurish thing to do.

First, you are the one that brought up the fact that your school only had 1 paragraph on the subject.  That shows that it sucks (at least as far as history goes) or that you misrepresent it.  Doesn't matter to me either way.  

Second, how many of the millions of schools around the nation have you visited to be able to tell that they are the same?  Since schools are run at state and local levels, I'd just like to call BULLSHIT.


I am not sure what you are saying.  I said you are blaming the USA, holding it responsible for the layout of Europe and the area once known as Yugoslovia.  And I called BULLSHIT.  From this last post of yours, I can't tell if you are defending that the USA is responsible, or coming to terms with the fact that it wasn't.


I see ads from the Freedom Counsel all the time.  This wasn't a first, or just one.  So do you realize that you just may be in a small market, that doesn't have enough viewers?  Or that maybe, the people that own the media in your market don't want to air them?  Or maybe, they just aren't on the stations you watch?  Oh, I saw a FC ad on FNC the other day too.  So they aren't just local.  Your whole argument is shit on this point.


I'll just forget most of the points and give you just one to work with.  WE ALREADY GIVE FOOD AND AID ALL OVER THE WORLD.  BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH EVERY YEAR.  WE GET LITTLE TO NO CREDIT FOR IT.  So how is slashing defense spending to give away more going to change that?  People like you only focus in on the negative.  You ignore that we already do what you say would be good, and it doesn't change any opinions, even yours.


And I've heard it said many times that "we will continue to be a world leader".  And we do lead the world in some things.  So, maybe you should have a lesson in the dangers of taking quotes out of context.  Try this.  "And we will continue to lead the world, in the number of rednecks that pay billions of dollars to watch automobiles drive in circles".  It's real easy to misquote me and say that I said we lead the world.  So don't be an idiot.  Look at the whole picture, not just quotes.  Remember, Gore invented the internet.  And I'm sure I can look up a dumb quote and yank it out of context for any leader you want to name (as long as there are records).

No.  You again see nothing but what you want to see.  I read the links you put up, and I'm not challenging what they say, I'm calling BULLSHIT on how your represent it.  

Congress said that the ARMY's method of rating the success was shit.  That they ran the numbers and it could be as low as 9%.  But they also wrote in there that nothing could be really determined because there were just so many problems with the way it was measured.  From the fact that so many SCUD's never would have made it (so you can't tell if the Patriot did the damage or if it was just the SCUD being shitty) anyway, to the facts that the people measureing shouldn't be the ones measuring.  

I also said that this was from 92, and where is something more recent?  And why don't you think they've improved in 10 years?

So, I'm not questioning the evidence you posted, I'm calling bull to your version of it.  And I'm questioning where some relevant information on how it will perform today is.


Zaitsev, can you smell your own BULLSHIT?  You hung a label of hater, racist, etc on the upper class.  You blamed the upper class for not allowing ads on tv (which I've seen on TV myself).  Now you say you are part of the upper class too.  So I guess it's not the "upper class", it's just some assholes.

You continue to miss the easy, broad points (or just ignore them).

You are as bad as any racist.  Let me say that again.  YOU ARE AS BAD AS ANY RACIST.  You blame a "group" of people for these problems (some of which don't even exist) based upon their income and education (aka, the upper class).  Sure, you can say that you only mean the ones that do it, but it's not what you say.  You hang a title and the blame around their necks, just like some racist murder has hung a rope around a black mans neck.  And you do it with about the same level of ignorance.

You are the great Zaitsev, that has said you can't get peace with violence, and said that you would be one of the first to riot if we go to war.  You are the great dumbass that doesn't even see what a hypocrite that makes you.

Nope.  If you could read without your dumbass filter on, you would see that I changed part of my opinion on the evidence you brought from Congress.  I didn't filter out the parts that don't support my previous postion.  It's not their credibility I rebute, it's yours.

I completely disagree in the way you interpret the data.  You only look at the pieces of information that support your argument, while ignoring the whole message of it.  It may be asking too much for you to be able to see what it means, but I think it's more likely that you just wear your dumbass filters, since you ignore things that don't agree with you.  


Nope.  I happen to think you are a complete dumbass, not because of your age, but because of the bullshit you spout.  You base your opinions and complete and utter bullshit, as has been shown time and time again.  But you ignore it.   The fact that you can't support any of your opinions well, and ignore or overlook any data that doesn't agree with you, that is what makes you a dumbass.

The fact that you are a hypocrite, spouting hate while condeming it.  Saying that violence will never get peace, but saying you will riot.  

And I find it very hard to find the point in many of your posts, because your writing skills suck.  I don't pick on that very often (in relation to as often as I could), because I cut you some slack based on your age.  Well, fuck cutting you some slack.  You are a fucking idiot.


Sure, give in to terrorism.  That's a good way to end it.  That was sarcasim for those that didn't catch it.  And putting a dirty bomb in denver isn't an act of war, it's an act of terrorism.  If you don't see the difference, you really are a dumbass.

we give billions to foriegn aid now great, but we still have a lot more to give, such as a needless 50 billion dollar perchase of Missiles, thats logical

Patriot Missiles
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/09/patriot.missile/
This article says that many of the missiles have been in the 30 years of stockpiling. They missiles have infact been updated however only one of those has been flown and it missed. The 9 succesful flights it mentioned I believe are from the older models which were re-heated pre-test.

 The riot comment which you referred to was simply baitign you to say not to achieve peace with violence and realize thats what Bush is doing.

Now the whole war or terrorism thing, 9-11 was terrorism. Now, according to Bush, we have a  WAR ON TERROR. And Osama Bin Laden has urged a Jihad or HOLY WAR. It has gone from terrorism to war, so yes WE are at war.

I do not urge giving into terrorism I just urge us to re-evaluate our spots not to thier wants but to what is truley equal. Maybe its time we partially swallowed our pride and realized our country has poor foriegn policy and Its not just the republicans either


Okay, your correct, my upper class statement was wrong. Your also correct in that I sometimes rush through refrences without reading the entire article and I will try to be where of that however the argument was over weather or not the Patriot Missiles provided by the US were effective and even the maximum of 9% does not constitute effectivness. So although I agree with you in that I sometimes do not look at all the information in this situation I was still right. Also we dont need all this dumbass filter thing because I mean its obvious I tend to feel the same about you but shouldnt we both show restraint with the sarcastic insults? i know I, at age 14 can.  

Bait?  Nice twist on what I said.  Nice assumptions in there too.  And isn't it true that Powell had to convince whom of what?  I swear, you have the hardest time making a point.

First, I haven't "congradulated" Bush on anything.  I've said look at his actions, they speak louder then the words you quip out out the press.  The actions of the US government in this matter have not been to go to war, but to push the UN into enforcing it's own resolutions.  ENFORCING IT'S OWN RESOLUTIONS.  DUH.


I have never once said that these attacks were random.  Once again, you put words at the end of my fingers that just aren't there.


Thanks for being a dumbass once again.  You think they would be offended by it, but you have no idea.  Look where the fucking word came from.  NIPPON is what THEY CALL JAPAN.  Or are you saying that the name WE AMERICANS give it is what should be used, and that they shouldn't be insulted by Japanese?  Fucking idiot.  You disagree when you know absolutely nothing.  That is a great fucking example of why you are a dumbass.


Show me the wrong CONTEXT you say I used.  DO IT.  The context was in answer to somone thinking Teddy would have had a better forign policy.  So the OR was asking if they forgot that he said it and what it means.  So, explain how the CONTEXT was off.  Come on.


Really?  Nobody tries to convince the public we over spend on defense?  BULLSHIT.  Come on, you aren't even trying now.  As for your part-part, it doesn't impress me that you can spout a term, when, from your previous dumbass comments about WAR=MORE SPENDING=LOWED BUDGET, you obviously know nothing about economics.  And part-part-whole doesn't dispute "trickle down" either.  

Bah, I'm tried of trying to teach you.  I'll just hit one last point.


That only think that fails to comprehend is you.  You don't seem to see anything that doesn't support your position.  You don't see that both your posts, points, evidence, and writing can be insulted and refuted, besides just insulting you.  My posts can multitask.

As for what I think about your political view.  In a few words, over simplistic, communist, irresponsible and over-optimistic.  I could break it down, but it's not worth the effort.

Okay you know Im beyhond caring, we have different views and us repeating our selves wont change each others views. Your vulger ness just makes me less persuaded to see your side of a matter and saying that the attacks were random is said " i disagree with PEOPLE" not you but PEOPLE as in a generalized statement. So Im done and you can post your views andill post mine but the flame war was stupid and immature for both of us  maybe we should accept the fact we both think low of each other and not state it in a rage that really frankly wont solve anything

Or Zaitsev, you can just stop posting stupid, ignorant shit.  I don't care if you think I'm "vulger".  The points have been said nice as often as they have been said, well, not so nice.  By me and others.  You don't know what you are talking about, and you completely ignore any evidence that doesn't match your midset.

You are as bad as any KKK biggot, because you assign labels and views and stereotypes (hell, you still call me a republican).  

So, no, I'm not going to stop calling bullshit where I see it.  The only way to stop it is for you to not post the crap.

     Meh. Bucc, I've been through this with Rapid. He (meaning either Zaitsev or Rapid, take your pick) won't listen to anything that conflicts with his worldview. Period. Although, to be fair, Zaitsev has one up on Rapid, since Zaitsev twists what you say rather than simply ignoring it. But anyway, it's utterly futile to talk with him about anything. So I recommend that you just start ignoring his posts. It's better for your mental health. Heh.

Loth, the only problem with that is someone may actually think he has a fact right and believe his bullshit at some point.  But I get your point.

bucc, i cant believe you still have the nerves, patience and endurance to actually keep arguing with this this brick-wall.

What bothers me personally is that zaitsev feels that his opinions, no mater how badly argued or supported, are universal truths and that he knows better than everyone else. thats why there's really no point in trying to discuss anything with him, so i just began to ignore him.

zaitsev, i posted the saudi arabia thing to see what people thoght about it. if thats spam then i guess this and every other thread here is spam as well. are they?

and the other thing id like to know is where u get the notion that "daily lynchings" are going on in the south. where the hell do you get your information from? maybe your textbooks are too old to have any information on post ww2 conflicts.

im not trying to start any flame wars, but i dont need 14year olds talking to me like im an ass. i get enough people that are a lot older than me giving me shit in real life so i dont need somone who just learned how to wipe wipe his ass to give me any more on here. unless you say somthing really really dumb, im not gonna respond, zaitsev, so shove it.(ughhh, that almost sounds like a challenge......it wasnt meant to!)

Yep Abe, whatever you do, don't encourage him to act any dumber.

And I agree.  Just like the zealots on the other side of th issue, Zaitsev thinks that these are universial truths, not opinions, and that they don't need support, we should all just see the truth in them.  

But, just like most zealots, it's ok for his side to act that way, after all, they are right.  And anyone that doesn't agree or see this must be an ultra right wing republican, and worse (in his opinion) the Bin Laden or Saddam.  

Attitudes like his really burn my ass hairs, and I feel almost a duty to point out the bullshit they spout.

     I sympathize, Bucc. For myself, though, I long ago decided that it was more pleasurable and saner to argue with rational beings. Rational beings are few and far between on this forum, but whenever possible, I try to deal with them.

BACK ON THE SUBJECT OF IRAQ

There simply isnt a reason to go to war in Iraq. We have not found Nuclear Weapons as we were sure we would, Iraq, however slowly, has complied with UN inspection teams and I mean it is just at this point un-nessicary to risk so many lives. Over 50% of Iraq is children and if we attack now then they only know one thing about the US, they killed the parents and the house and my friends up the street. And then they become "Zealots". Until we have a smoking gun or a threat from Iraq there is simply no reason to kill

There are probably other issues I could have commented on but I only had 5 hours of sleep. Now Bucc if you disagree with this point sure yell Bullshit and follow abe and lothario and ignore me but if you agree with them then all this time we have been fighting for the same side and however badly I present my argument it still, in some respects, has a valid point.

Stop saying stupid shit like that.  There is noting simple or clear about this situation at all.  That's always where the bullshit starts.  Read Loth's posts about it.


Nobody has said they have nuclear weapons.  But it has been said that they are trying to create them (that's where the aluminium tubes and magnets come in).  It's not just their having WMD's, but they aren't allowed to seek them or try to create them.  And there are other WMD's besides nuclear.  Where's all that VX gas they had stockpiled?  The mustard gas?  Anthrax?

It's not our duty to find them, or the UN's.  It's Iraq's duty to show the evidence of them being destroyed.  Why do you keep ignoring that simple fact?


Did they do this without the threat of war?  Or did they only really start to cooperate since war has been hanging over their heads?  Answer that for us.  And they still haven't complied 100%.  They've just started moving.


SO WHAT.  I said it before and you haven't addressed it.  What about the situation does the percentage of children change (assuming it's true)?  That they may hate us?  Don't they already according to you?  

Let's pull this into yet another analogy.  

You have a guy, a convected felon on parole, he's holed up in his house with two buddies, their wives and 9 children.  He's armed, and could be very well armed, but nobody is sure, but by not proving it to his parole officer, he has violated his parole.  So the law sends letters and phones for YEARS to get him to surrender himself peacefully.  Then they threaten arrest.  Now, they have the house surrounded, and are telling him to come out with his hands up.  Now, and only now, has he started even talking.  Well, how long does the law have to wait for him to come out before they actually go in and get him?  Is it better to let a criminal go.  Not only go but to just thumb his nose at the law, undermining it?

At some point, he has to either come out with his hands up, or the law has to be enforced.  

And if you look at all that, you'll notice it has nothing to do with the children.  Because for all the children in the home, there are millions of others on the outside.  All of them have to learn right and wrong.  Or would you like the anarchary of a society without law enforcement?

Now, stop being a dumbass.  Don't ignore that Iraq has the burden of proof.  Don't ignore that the've done nothing to honor it except now at the point of a gun.  Don't ignore that Iraq has admitted to not following the rules set down and agreed to (and it shouldn't matter that those missiles are only a little to long range, they are still over.  And those rocket motors are 5 times stronger).  

How about answering this.  What is a reason to go to war in your opinion?  Are there any?  What prices are you willing to pay and see paid?  

Something you have to think about.  What is the price if enforcement doesn't happen?

So no, nothing is simple.  Not much is clear.  And you are still a dumbass that ignores everything that Saddam and Iraq does wrong, twisting the facts to fit his own view.

I see your point on the holed up in a house
I see your point about seeking and making

But isnt it extremly hard to show you dont have somethign I mean it could be in any corner of thier country. Saddam Hussien Is a bad man , yes I acknowledge that but I do not think he would attack other countries after being flatly sent home in Desert Storm. Maybe I am wrong and even when he pushes troops to the borders it is clear to him that the US has a watchful eye on him and I doubt he will make any significant moves outside of Iraqi terreritory

They agreed to prove it.  How hard should it be to prove it?  They acknowledged what they had back then, and how much.  If they had done what they were supposed to do (destroy it with inspectors watching) it's real fucking easy.  But, they haven't cooperated with inspectors in that whole time (and are still not at 100% yet).  

Hey, if they were dumb enough to destroy huge stockpiles of the stuff, and not record it in any way, I'm not going to feel too sorry for them when UN forces go marching in.  They knew what they had to do.  I don't believe that they are that stupid, I believe that it's just that well hidden.  They've had 10 years to hide it.


So, no matter what his intentions, the UN resolutions still need to be enforced, don't they?

Yes the resolution has to be carried out your right but even if Iraq had a record of it and it all checked out I Doubt Bush would accept it just like he hasnt accepted any other documentation of Iraq cooperating with the UN teams. The WMD could be ANYWHERE in Iraq so are we gonna search EVERYWHERE?

I didn't know where to post this so I just posted it here.

This is written by a famous Swedish historian and columnist in the online issue of the biggest evening paper here (Aftonbladet). I translated it myself so please commend me for my splendid language skills. ;)

The American Arrogance Irritates Us Europeans
??In these times I often feel like quoting president de Gaulle who once said that
?France is the light of the world? or president Mitterand who said ?A fair and generous France can enlighten the path of humanity?. They often talk like this, French statesmen, whether they come from the right or the left.
??The more lyrically nationalistic the French statesmen become, the angrier their opponents, especially Brits and Americans. Today the curses rain over president Chirac in the anglosaxon press where the epithet ?perverted? is one of the milder ones.

??The French supremity and unpredictability has always irritated the French allies. That France has its interests to defend, like the US has theirs, and that the French interests aren't always the same as the American, seems to be a constant source of surprise and amazement in Washington and London.
??In the massive anti-war wave that sweeps over the world with millions of protesting people, there is also an ever increasing anti-American wave. Those who deny it, refuse to see the truth and these anti-American feelings have always been exceptionally strong here in France [translator's note: he now lives in France] and not only in the leftist circles.
??The Americans usually attack France for its ungratitude, twice the US came and saved them in the 20th century.
??But the Americans forget that there would never have been a USA, atleast not in 1782, without massive efforts by French troops in the battle against the British army and the first country in the world who recognized the US was France, with Sweden as a good second.
??There are many explanations to why so many Frenchmen and other Europeans today dislike America and Americans. The American arrogance, despotism, righteousness, ignorance of other countries and cultures, irritate of course. But the underlying cause is, in my opinion, an increasing cultural difference. It may sound strange since we Europeans and Americans look alike and often are related to eachother, the language is not a problem, American music is playing everywhere and American movies dominate the cinemas, not to speak about the more and more common seniors, even in Sweden, who walk around with American teenage clothes and eat American junk food.
??Yet there is a fundamental difference already in the outlook on democracy, this idea that the US says itself to be fighting for in the whole world. A real democracy for a Swede or a Frenchman is an equal society, without too big social differences. For an American this sounds like classical communism.

??A Swede or a Frenchman thinks that the government should intervene, protect, and help the citizens. A society without a social safety net, where not everyone has the same right to education, work and residency, is an unjust society. This is why most of the European countries today have well developed, and of course very costly, social safety nets, unemployment funds, sickness funds, support for adult education etc. In all EU countries the citizens have the right to atleast four weeks of vacation.
??All of this goes without saying for us, rights we associate with democracy and justice. But an American thinks that the less the government intervenes, the better. It's up to every man to get an education, plan their social and medical necessities and to negotiate yourself to a vacation.

??In all of the European countries, even in the catholic Europe, church and state are separated. No European politician would call for a combined prayor and political meeting, as they do in the US. European presidents don't call for God's blessing over the congregation and your country in the end of their speeches. Something that is seen as routine in the US.
??Every American is totally convinced that God is with America, as he is convinced that everyone in the world should be like him - to think like an American.

Herman Lindqvist
Published: 2003-02-16

And I scream once again, not liking Bush is no reason to say he's doing the wrong thing.  I don't like him, but that doesn't make him wrong all the time.  It doesn't matter what you think he'll do.  What matters is what has happened so far.  So just give it up.  Be a man and just finish saying you were wrong in this case.  That Bush can do the right things for the wrong reasons, that you were completely off base with the burden of proof shit, and that your anti-Bush attitude colored your conclusions more then the facts.  Don't just try to excuse it away with "I bet he wont accept it if proof comes".  It's weak.

Good post kami to bring that viewpoint in.  I think it generalizes all Americans as the conservative side that happens to dominate all three branches of goverment so I guess rightfully so.  I certainly am with Europe on the goverment providing a social safety net through taxes and so I would tend to have his perspective rather than an American perspective.  But I agree with his main point that the US thinks its system is the best and feels it needs to convince/force others to adopt it.

Well boys...get ready for war. Looks like Bush is going at this like the Lone Ranger. He's ready for war and if Iraq doesn't provide evidence in the next month....they're history. No ifs, ands, or buts. Kill Saddam, Not Iraqis!!!

And I so do.  


Just as the European Arrogance irritats us Americans too.  


Did you translate that part right?  Is he saying that the French are supreme?  If so, is it a wonder why that attitude pisses people off?  

Is he trying to show why Americans think the French are arrogant?  Because he gives a good example of why we would.


Actually, I think that it is the failure to look past it's own needs and to those of NATO as a whole that really shock us.  Speaking for myself anyway.


Nope, haven't forgotten it at all.  But, and there is a but, didn't the USA show gratitude towards France for a long time after that?  And I wouldn't call it massive efforts.  It was needed, and made a difference, but he's overstating it.

And saving France twice in the last 100 years, that is a bit more recent.  It would be nice to see some gratitude maybe.  Some lingering good will.  Not contempt and hostility.

Actually it sounds like socialism, not communism to me.  And socialsim isn't democracy.  And if you believe in what Marx wrote, you'd know that he said a true socialism can only evolve from a democracy (don't quote me, he said it better).  It's one of the reasons he gave that the Soviet Union would fail.

And, I don't care if France, or any other country choses it.  That's all great and find for them.  It's just not where I want to live.

He goes on to talk about some of the differences, but like the European way is better.  That Americans should accept that and adopt it, not like we should accept the differences, that each place can govern itself, and that it's choice is it's choice.

What Americans (like me) fight against is fake or forced democracy / socialism.  Like fake elections in Iraq, where only one party can be voted for.


Really?  Not ever in a time of crisis?  Sorry Kami, I know you didn't write this, but come on.  Does anyone want to bet that I can't find a political statement from a European that invokes the word "god"?  And he's acting like that is the norm!  

Oh, church and state are seperated in America.  There is no national church, or recognized sect.  But seperation of church and state doesn't mean athiest either.  You can have a moment of silence, or call down for "gods" blessing without actually joining the two.  

 

Every one, eh?  Even the athiests?

And what about all those countries that call us "godless"?  

Maybe our views are just somewhere in between.  Maybe most of us thing that the seperation of church and state doesn't have to mean the absense of the word God.  



And just like "every" Frenchman is convinced that the would should be like him, to think like a Frenchman.  You can pretty much replace American or Frenchman with any other nationality, and it will be just as correct, and just as wrong.

This guy seems to be as big a mouth as GWB.  He has to have a big mouth to fit both feet in there.

I disagree in owing when it comes to magnitude of war. WWII was an extreme circumstance and maybe if our country was over run by anti-semites then they would help but its a different context. Thats just my opinion.

Bucc, perhaps it doesn't fit in on you, I never said it did, but in my opinion, it fits in on way too many Americans.

Bondo, Loudnotes, Tasty,  this is one of the examples on why I think quoting is a good thing.  I have no idea what, in the sea of comments thus far, that Zaitsev is talking about.

Ok, I've finished the rest of this post, and come back to the begining.  I think Zaitsev is saying that neither side owes the other any gratitude because of the size of the war.  I don't actually know what he means by that, but I think it's in regards to France thinking it is owed gratitude due to the American Revolution and Americans think they are owed gratitude due to the two world wars.  

I think.  It would be easier to figure out if there was a quote there to work from.


Kami, what makes you think that?  Honestly, how many Americans have you met that it fits, how many that it doesn't?

I read that article and see a Frenchman that is everybit as arrogant as he's claiming Americans are.  Note, I said a man, not all the French.  He questions (you tell me if it was sarcasim or not) why Americans see the French as arrogant, just because they pronounce their superiority?  That's why I asked about it.  He goes on, saying why the European system is better.  Followed by complaining that Americans think theirs is better.

Does nobody see the hypocricy in that?  I don't care if you like one system over the other, isn't he doing what he is bitching about?

And I think it's good that he's a Frenchman.  He's living in a place that he finds right.  I'm glad that America is different, and I live here.  What's wrong with that?  Everyone should live where they feel the best about it.  We shouldn't belittle each others systems.  If it works for them, it works for them, and I'm happy for them.  Our system works for me and is better for me.  So, they don't need to tell me their system is better (Bondo) and I don't need to tell them ours is.  

We can try to learn from each other, better each other, but the guy that wrote it, he's just as bad as what he says Americans are.



Isn't that what he was doing with the "European System"?

And I don't agree that all three branches are dominated by conservatives.  Or is anything not liberal now a conservative?  (just like I get that title so often).  

Republicans control both Houses of Congress, Republicans control the White House, Republicans have majority of the Supreme Court.  That sounds like all three branches to me.

And no, I don't think the Europeans force there ideals on others.  They think they have better ideals but unlike the US they don't actively pressure countries to adopt them...that is the crux of his whole argument.

And I think in the argument he directly stated that France is arrogant and thus has some strained allies.  He isn't denying that.  He is just pointing out that the US too is being arrogant and taking it a step further and is likely to isolate itself from its allies.

God, if only I could jump like your logic, I'd be in the olympics.  Since when does Republican equal Conservative.  There are no liberal Republicans?  No Moderate Republicans?

You want to judge the Supreeme Court, judge them by their decisions, not by who put them in office, especially when the President and Congress both share in the decision, and both were not of one party when most (none that I can think of) of the judges were appointed.

My own opinion is that they've been more liberal then conservative, but closer to moderate then either end.

Our President, ok, he's conservative.  You get one of out of three so far.  But don't say that Republican means Conservative.  Both parties are full of moderates too.  Or don't we exist?

Republican is the conservative political party, Democrat is the liberal political party.  Certainly there are huge variations in the beliefs of people in the party and there are conservatives who aren't Republicans and liberals who, like me, aren't Democrats...but they are proper generalizations.  So don't criticize me for using the well accepted generalizations of the US political system.

Old-Europe, New-Europe BAH.

The U.S. and the Brits (as u already said yourself) dont really need ANY other nation to conquer Iraq.

The only reason they are going for "partners" is to make it look like a "united nations" action - only without the official U.N. sanction ;)

Some Pollak, Chez or Hungarian ex-commies will make absolutely no different on a battlefield that will be a bombed out city landscape.

I really doubt that U.S. will send in troops into the citys. i bet it will be a flight-bomb-return mission again. no casualaties but great tv pictures.
then we will see a few months some "nation building" after U.S. will present us a new Iraqi-Karsai (aka a nice man with no real power) and show us some pictures of "succeed" - then we will move on to the next scene (choose one: iran, north korea, saudi arabia - maybe osama went home - maybe austria, cuz bander is evil etc.)

I am a little better informed than most of ya on afghan issues and besides kabul and khandahar all other cities are as unsecure as before. western funds are not comming in as promised. and many gouverneurs who have been elected in the west have no sympathies among the people who live in their provences. Medical Care is still devastated, Shools not rebuilt, all in all its almost as bad as it was under the taliban (without hyperreligious bullshit. but still not even water or electrical light in 85% of all areas!)

thats why i dont like that "nation building" stuff a lot. its just some cosmetic "happy end" shit wich is only good enuff till the next "terror war" eliminates it out of the media interest.

thats why i hope we can disarm the almost disarmed irak without bloodshed under the iraqi civilians (also those who will be dragged into the iraqi army, as cannonfodder and to save some republican guard asses)

i still say - send in a sniper *bang*, saddam dead. make it look as if some "internal clan struggle" was behind this. whats the problem? never watched james bond or something?

i say IF we say its okay to violate U.N. right then lets violate it this way.
at last it only killes one asshole instead of a lotta poor people.

iraq is a laught, the only state wich could be hit is israel. i guess this is one of the reason the u.s. wants to smash iraq as fast as possible. protecting one violent regime from another one. funny. or is it the oil? or is america really more scared from saddam than from a osama b. (whos still not found.) what a efficient war against terror.

Bander

Conservative, Republicans = CCCP Hard, CCCP Light

Bander

European arrogance isn't what is playing world police.


He is not saying that the French are supreme, he is saying that it's weird how you Americans suddenly jump on them when they've always been the same.

Their only problem with helping Turkey was that it would be like a sign to the world that the war had already started.

He's pointing out that you both have been grateful for a lot but that it's history. Both countries have their history to be grateful to the other about. But now when many Americans are playing on the ?France is ungrateful? line, the French get angry because they shouldn't have to agree with you just because of that.

Well that's what I mean, perhaps it doesn't fit on you, because you're slightly more enlightened than the average Joe who would scream ?COMMIE? without a second thought. Most European systems are tilted to socialism because that's what most people want, but that doesn't mean we don't have democracies, does it? European countries are just as democratic or even more than the US.
He's not really saying that the European way is better, he's not saying that America should adopt our way, he's just saying that atleast we don't try to push our way onto others.

Well just look at any of Bush's speeches, they all end with ?god bless us all?. It happens A LOT more often in America, you'll really have to search hard to find something like that in Europe. In sweden you'd get decapitated in the press if you even mentioned god in that way.
I just get disgusted when I hear him saying stuff like that and thinking that God MUST be with them and no one else. I feel like puking just thinking about it.

I hate people who call you godless as well, because people call me that too. It should mean that you don't mention anything about religion in politics.

A Frenchman is not convinced that everyone should be like him, that's rediculous. That does not fit in on many other people, perhaps radical Islamistic people.
This guy does not have a very big mouth, he's quite moderate on everything actually.

Okay, My last post was achwardly worded. But it seems in most political post I see people saying France owes us for World War I and II. But we didnt join those wars to save France, it was just part of the deal, if France was in a different theatre and they were the only ones attacked we wouldnt have done anything. In addition to this I dont see twhere Owing escalates into them sending troops just because we are one up on them. Maybe if we are over run by a horrible group then they owe us But world war II is a lot different then the upcoming war in Iraq. Totally different scenerios. "Oweing" does not come into effect here.

Buc, I think you're slightly misinterpreting the notion of control that was raised by Bondo. Its not an issue on political slant or the grades of a Republican's or Dem's point of view. It's the fact that they are a social/political group. As such, they are united in goals. They are a unit. Despite that people within, say, the Republican party can and do disagree they function within a greater  framework. Thus, the issue of control over all branches of government is quite valid. They hold majorities in the house and senate, hold the office of the president, and there are more conservative, republican appointed judged on the supreme court. I think there is no better example of proof in regards to the Supreme Court's right-leaning than their interference in the recounts in Florida and their subsequent handing over of the office of the president to Governor Bush.

Additionaly, its is an absolute truth that on the average Republicans are more right leaning (i.e. "Conservative") and Dems are more left leaning (i.e. "Liberal"). Both parties trumpet this. Being a Republican is thus by default the essence of not being liberal -and if you are not liberal, what direction are your politics oriented?

Further the concept that a moderate is going to be "switchable" or "open minded" is broken. A moderate, in my mind, is someone who is on the leading or trialing edge of their party's politics. However, they must still function within the greater frame of their political party. They are not politically mutable, they are just "less" stringent in their adherance to lesser policy issues. Few politicals are truly politically mutable - the senator from Vermont being an exception.

To attempt to argue that because "some" of those in the Republican party are more morderate than others within their party the party as a whole is not conservative is false. To presume that because some within the party are more moderate that the party cannot exicute its control over the various branches of government is further inaccurate. It may make some policy issues harder to overcome (such as making abortion illegal), but in more "broad" issues, like war, we can see the party being incredibly tightly intergrated.

six

I'll criticize anyone for using stupid, over-generalizations.  You, as a so called "liberal" should be against them.  Stereotypes and over-generalizations hold back as much progress as anything.  

No kidding, the more you write, the more you sound conservative.  You back the popular "ilberal" causes like socailism, but your reasoning smacks of "conservative" labeling.

So, be liberal, don't use stereotypes, leave those for Rush.


I disagree, and have said why many times.  So why do you think that?


You are assuming, like many, that Iraq will be bombed back to the stoneage.  It's only an assumption.  Could be right or wrong.


Ok, so it's only a little better there.  Can I ask why it's the USA's responsibility to make it much better?  Afghanistan was a completely different issue then Iraq.  That was an old school (if one sided) war.  Agree that the government was supporting terrorists or not, or that the USA over-reacted or not, It is a different discussion.  None of those things means that the USA "owes" Afghan's anything, does it?  

I think that yes, many countries (not just the USA, but European nations and Russia as well) should help out the Afghans.  Help build schools, build infrastructure.  Help the people in the ways they themselves think they need it.  As long as they, in turn, agree to not harbor terrorists (not much of a price tag).  I think it would be a great thing.  But I don't think anybody "owes" them.  

I completely agree with you.  I hope it doesn't come to war.  But I don't have a lot of hope that Iraq will do enough to stop it either.  


a) James Bond is a joke.
b) Our government has admitted that they don't know how to find Saddam.  They believe that he hasn't actually been seen in public for years.  He's well known to use body doubles, since so many people are out to get him (this goes back to well before the first Gulf War).  And, for anyone that believes it's as easy as the movies, you should read more non-fiction.  I can reccomend two very good books on what we can and cant do ("The Puzzle Palace" is a great one).  But, case in point, we can't find Bin Ladin either.  It just isn't that simple.
c) Everyone and their cousin would know where that bullit came from, it may as well have "Made in the USA" stamped on it, with a picture of the jackass, I mean the President.
d) It's more then a UN rule that we can't assinate a head of state.  And while the government has broken the law, two wrongs don't make a right.  
e) why doesn't anyone else do it?  He's hated by more then just the USA.  Every country out there has snipers that could do the job, if it were as easy as you make it sound.  


Bander, I'm for enforcing the UN resolutions and it has nothing to do with Oil or Isreal.  I could care less about either one.  

Just because you can accuse us of being that stupid, doesn't make it so, especially when you are given other reasons that you haven't (or can't) refute.

No, European arrogance is saying we should ignore it, like they did, and we've all seen where that leads before.  

I've seen just as much ignorance and arrogance from the Europeans as I have from the Americans.  So I'm saying that the writer needs to get off his high horse too, because he was being arrogant as well.

And that's what I said.


So tell me what this means then:
"The French supremity and unpredictability has always irritated the French allies. "

That isn't saying that the French are supreme?  I asked if that was a mistake, but if it wasn't, he sure as hell said France is supreme right there.  

As for suddenly jumping, I'd say Americans make fun of the French more then they do of the Canadians (and we only joke about Canadians because they are like little brothers).  The "sudden" part I think is that it's made the media.  Because so many of us are outraged by them selling out on Turkey like they did.  But, if you look at my comments, I've said that France has always been the stick in the mud of NATO.  


I call BULLSHIT for one reason.  This wasn't asking for troops, weapons or anything but planning for defense.  Planning for defense is somthing that should be a part of peace, all the time.  It wasnt even to ok US troops going there, it was just to plan for defense incase of an attack BY IRAQ, not by the US.  

So, planning for defense is not a sign that war has started.  That's just an excuse that France and Germany are using to try and apply political pressure on the USA.  And I cry bullshit because it was Turkey that requested it, not the USA, and they should have listened.  Otherwise, what the hell good is it for NATO to exist?


I don't think the French should have to agree with us because of WW2.  I know some stupid Americans do, but not all.  I doubt even the majority do (as long as you phrase the question right).  But I think that France should also be more tolerante of Americans as well.  Last time I was in Paris, it's not like I was made to feel at home, like when I was in other countries. (a small example, just to show the point.  First time I was in England, I tipped the bartenders.  They explained with a smile that I shouldn't, it wasn't propper.  That I could buy them a pint if I wanted.  That was their way.  In France, I asked for some Ice in a beverage, which I've come to learn, isn't the norm in most countries I've been to.  But I still like it.  Let's just say it was no smile, but insults that I couldn't follow, but my companion could.  "stupid americans" was muttered often when I was in Paris.  But I never heard it in England or any Spanish speaking countries I've visited).

So, from personal experience, the French could be nicer as far as I've seen.

And on the bigger picture, they should have supported Turkey's request.

I ask it again, where does that come from?  How many Americans have you met that scream "commie" without a second thought?  Other then Spaz here in the forums, how many have given that attitude?  That Europe should change?  

I've seen a bunch of comments about how America should change, but not about how Europe should.  

You are using a stereotype, and one I don't think is near correct.  The real war against communisim ended in the 60's.  Everything after that was lip service.  Communisim was just a handy buzzword for a long time after is all.  But, with just about anything done to "fight communism" after that time, you can find many more pressing reasons as to why it went on.  Kinda like how Bush is using the word Terrorism to do some things that aren't really related to it, because he can.  (I've often said right thing for the wrong reasons, and he does wrong things too).  

Anyway, My point is, I don't see Americans saying Europe should change it's political systems at all.  I see us not like the French for some reasons, Germans for others, but it has nothing to do with their forms of government.  So, who's screaming Commie?


I don't know how you don't get that he's not saying the European way is better, when he is mocking our vacation process amongst other things.  He sure comes off saying that the European way is better the way I read it.  

Like I said, he's welcome to that opinion, and I'm glad he lives there so he can be happy.  But I'm not mocking his way of life, he shouldn't be mocking mine.  I like it this way.

And who is America pushing to adopt it's ways?  America influences many many nations, true.  For lots of reasons.  But who are we pushing?  When was the last time?  If it's "free elections" cases, that's the European way too.  You guys believe in "free elections" as much as we do.  


Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why people find this offensive.  God Bless us All means only Americans?  And wait, even if he said "God Bless America", does that mean God is on our side?  NO.  I still say "Gob Bless You" when someone sneezes.  Does that mean anything?  Does that mean I'm taking his blessing away from someone else?  

If you believe in God and his blessings, then I was taught that his blessings are bountiful.  Without end.  That calling down his blessing isn't the same thing as saying "God is on our side."  Funny, but that's what some of the misguided terrorists say (misguided because that's not what Islam says according to the Iman's).  Wording is important.

If you don't believe, then it's gibberish that means nothing at all.

What's to get offended about?


Just as rediculous as saying an American is.  


Well, if you translated that correctly, and I'm not doubting that you have, I can see that in as bad a light as anything Bush has said.  I'm reading it, I've just re-read it.  He comes off making implacations that the European system is better, and that Americans are pushing their ways onto others (as if France hasn't done enough of that in the past too).  The tone of that article mocked our ways, and came from the 'naturally superior' Frenchman.  GAG

So, I see it differently then you do, does that make me wrong and you right?  Are you right about things Americans say and me wrong?  Or is the truth somewhere in the middle?  That maybe, due to language differences, Bush isn't saying thigs as bad as you think, and neither is this guy as bad as I think?  Or, Maybe your culture judges my culture just as harshly, and we both don't see it from our sides?  

Whichever the case, I'm just giving you my point of view on the article as it stands now, and I haven't heard anything different yet.

Zaitsev, if you posted like that all the time, you'd catch very little shit.

Ah, should be ?sovereignty?, not supremity. Sorry about that mistranslation, I'll comment on the rest another time.

I don't agree with this.  It's too high level for how complex it is.  You can't label all Republicans as being conservative nor all Democrats as being liberal.  That's the combination of party and ideology, which is not always the same thing.

Also, it discounts that often, the individuals do not function as a unit.  Not every Republican votes to support the Republican side of things, and same with the Democrats.  Otherwise, the only bills ever passed would be from the side with the most seats.  That is just not the case.  

Add to all this, that it seperates the groups into the two extremes, disallowing for the middle ground, where many do exist.


Republican appointed and Democrat confirmed, correct?  Just like the others were Democrat apointed and Republican confirmed.  

And I couldn't disagree with you more about the Supreme Court's actions in the election case.  They aren't there to change the laws, just make sure that they are applied correctly.  I think they did a find job of that.  And I really didn't want Bush to win.

How do you think they acted wrong in this case?  


Now, all the rest of your post is really wrapped up right here.  If they aren't Liberal, what are they?  Cna't you be a Moderate?  That is a valid political classification from all my poli-sci classes.  So, if they aren't liberal, they could be either conservative or moderate, right?  and if they aren't conservative, they could be liberal or moderate, correct?

What I've been saying is that you can't take the THREE classifications of Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative and devide them up into TWO political parties and just toss out Moderates.  How does that not make sense to anyone?

Here is the point Bucc...while not all Democrats are liberal, the Democratic party is.  While not all Republicans are conservative, the Republican party is.

You can make those claims just like you could say Greenpeace, PETA, etc are liberal groups while Focus on the Family, NRA, etc. are conservative groups.

Oh, the supreme court. They put the country's "stability" over democracy. That's what they did wrong. Talk about conflicts of interest. Clarence Thomas' wife was a high-level consultant to the Bush campaign. Scalia's sons were part of the Florida litigation team fighting for the Bush campaign to have the recount stopped. As far as I'm concerned these two justices should have abstained from the vote, making it 4-3 in favor of recounts and the democratic process. On a seperate note, does anyone else find it bothersome that the Supreme Court has conservative reactionary judges (Scalia, Thomas) but no judges with significant liberal biases (by significant I mean as obvious and strongly held as the biases of Scalia and Thomas)?

How did they put the countries stablity over democracy exactly?  What exactly was the piece of law that they ruled on?  They don't make the law, they rule on it.

So let me quote from you the supreme court's findings:

"A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State.  The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by the statute (statute number omitted).  The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26.  We granted certiorari and vactated the Florida Supreme Court's decision, findin considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based."

Now, to the facts.  Bush won the first count by a very small margin.  By state law, a second machine count had to be conducted.  It was, and came back with Bush winning again, but by a slightly smaller margin.  So, according to state law, they called for a manual recount in counties that protested.  The date that these had to be done by was also set by law.  The Secretary of State, who could have extened the deadline, didn't (for obvious reasons).  The Florida Supreme Court stepped in and extended the date.  The US Supreme Court was then contacted, and vacated that extension, because they could find no legal basis for the Florida court to do it.  

In other words.  They did their job.  Just like they were supposed to.  They aren't supposed to change the law, but uphold the existing laws (and checking for conflicts within).  There just wasn't any legal reason to extend the deadline.  

I'll also point out that in every count, Bush won Florida.  

So, while I hate the outcome.  I see no reason to blame anyone but the system.  I think the Supreme Court did what it was supposed to do.  The only person that can be pointed to at all was the Secretary of State for Florida, who's actions came close to criminal more then once.  (she did try to block things that she couldn't)

Here is a quote from Scalia on why a recount was unacceptable: "a recount might cast a cloud upon what the Bush campaign claims to be the legitimacy of his election". As if Bush's mere claim to the election matters, or were enough to settle the issue.

Also, many consider the conclusions reached by the recounts to be unfair. The recount included only 60,000 of 175,010 uncounted votes in Florida. It excluded overvotes - including teh nearly 8,000 butterfly ballot votes Gore lost to Buchanan in Palm Beach County and 7,000 similarly mistaken ballots in Duval County on the ground that a ballot containing two choices could not be given to any candidate. There was also the muddled controversy over the rejection of black voters on polling day. Statistics from the Florida election show that one in every seven African-American votes statewide were set aside as invalid. This is ten percent higher than the white vote, even when statistically controlling for differences in education, income, and voting experience. If the two races were equal in this regard, 60,000 more black votes would have been counted, and I think we all know which candidate would have gotten the better deal out of that (93 % of recorded votes by blacks in Florida went to Al Gore). Black and poor precincts tended to have more antiquated voting machines that malfunctioned more often than the ones in wealthier communities, a fundamental disparity in the fairness of our electoral system. In both 1999 and 2000, Jeb Bush pursued an aggressive purging of the state's voter rolls to remove the names of voters who had died, were double-listed, or were convicted felons. Although this is a legal (and justified) operation, it has been reported that blacks were targeted in Florida by the Bush administration and that many who had the legal right to vote were removed from the list.

This is why I believe Florida was unfair. You already touched on the actions of the secretary of state in Florida, so I don't need to go there. I got my facts from the books Jews for Buchanan and The Eagle's Shadow, just so you know that I'm not pulling stuff out of my ass.

Tasty, I'm not refuting that what happened in Florida (calling it an election is a stretch).  

But, what I am saying is that the Supreme Court of the USA did everything right.  They did their job, and didn't overstep their authority (which had to be tempting, given the FUBAR state of things).

The Florida Supreme Court fell into that trap.  

So, why were only a rough third of the votes being recounted?  Point that finger right at the Secretary of State for Florida.  More counties called for them, but she turned them down.  She followed the letter of the law (which is why the courts couldn't step in), but she abused her power.  She had the ability to allow more recounts and more time.  But she didn't.  And, by Florida law, she didn't have to.  

As for that Scalia quote, you can go to the Supreme Court's web site and pull down the PDF's of all their findings and decisions, with their full comments.  It's where I got mine.  (with no editorial spin from any books).  Try those out.  

While I believe that Florida was fucked, I don't think you can call the Supreme Court conservative based on that at all.  Even thought I hated it, they made the right call.