patriot act II

[Cossack]

China, peaceful? Thats bullshit. Since you are a geography major, you should know where the Spratly Islands are. You know what the Chinese want to do there? China still of course wants to take Taiwan. China is more expansionist than ever, and you know whats scary? The Chinese Giant is waking up and relizing its potential. China may be becoming economicaly close, but that means nothing to their "expansionist dreams."  We need a large army, because wether you like it or not, we are a super power with intrests. Wether you like it or not, that is our oil in Saudi Arabia this could come under threat. Drilling in that miserable desert full of hostile people so we dont drill in ANWR and Yellowstone.

As for guns. I love guns, I am a marksman by hobby and hunt when I can. Why because it is fun and white tailed deer are fucking like rabbits. Bander am I sick because I own a gun? I kill Deer wich some PETA nutjobs may find as genocide, but fuck them. I dont go after people and I am not a militia men, eventhough I live in the middle of Texas.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I give you a few breif comments.  But since you ask I'll be more than willing to expand on it.  But my not doing so originally isn't a sign of a weak argument...because it isn't the whole argument...just the thesis.

Nope.  You missed my point.  It's not the brevity of them, but more the overgeneralization of them.  I'll point this out in a second.  But it's your complete overstatements that weaken your arguments the most.

And by developed nation I meant Western Europe and North America.  

Well, expecting anyone else to limit a braod statment like "all developed nations" to only include Western Europe and North America is a bit of a stretch, isn't it.  OK, it's one hell of a stretch.  I think of a developed nation being the opposite of a third world country.  I didn't realize that Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, China, (ok, I'll stop there, but I could go on and on) were not considered "developed nations".

 It is these kinds of statements, which you have to keep redefining, which really make you look stupid.  And you do it all the time.

Back to the major theme:

By reasonable, I meant as a percentage of budget.  And by developed nation I meant Western Europe and North America.  Basically our allies in NATO for this example.  The US spends as much as every other country in NATO combined.  How is that for a sign we spend too much.  

Ok, another small problem.  First you say as a percentage of budget, then you make a big deal out of Combining the rest of NATO.  Well, that's apples and oranges right off the bat.  Stick with one, then move to the other.  Because we could theoretically spend a lower percent of the budget on defense and still outspend them, that's part of the joy of mathmatics (especially when you have a much larger budget to start with).

So first, (I'm going to assume you are correct in saying that America outspends the rest of NATO combined on Defense, but I'm not sure I believe it)  How is it for a sign?  A shitty one.  A meaningless one.  To mean anything I'd have to see the numbers.  Some of those nations could be underspending in my opinion.  For a sign, it needs to be put into some context.

Second, percentage of governemnt spending is a good place to start looking, as long as we keep in mind that it's not a vacume, and there are outside factors that should be looked at too.

We shouldn't play the world's policeman...you should know me well enough to know I think we are too involved militarily around the world.  We should keep a military that can defend our country...something that wouldn't take nearly as much as we spend currently.

Ok, it can easilly be argued that playing the "worlds policeman" is a large part of keeping our country safe.  While the US may use too heavy of a hand in it, I don't think we should go back to being isolationists either.  Read your history and see where that got us in the past.  It's all in moderation.  

And I take it that you are saying the US shouldn't be part of the UN peacekeeping troops then?  

And even if we did cut back on the involvement we take in international affairs, why are you so sure that we wouldn't need to spend as much as we do now??  Many experts think we are not spending enough to keep up anymore with all the cuts that have been made already?  What do you base that opinion on?  I mean, we've decomissioned so much of our Navy, because the ships are too expensive to keep out there.  Our pilots dont' have the budget to spend enough time in the air training.  I could go on a rant with that side, what makes you think we could spend less?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I mean, the UK seems to have a pretty capable army in technology and skill...enough to properly do what they need to.  It isn't like there is any current threat for a mass scale war like WWII.

Well, no offense to my Brit friends here, but Argentina gave them fits 20 some years ago, or did you forget about that?  They found that they were not as well off as they thought they were, and it came as a big surprise.  I know you don't remember Iron Marg first hand, but I do.  What Argentina did to the Brits rocked the whole world for a while.

As for the rest of NATO, most of those countries couldn't defend themselves from a large theat if they stood alone.  They relax their spending, relying on the strength of the alliance instead of their own to protect them if anything were to go wrong.  I don't happen to agree with that in the case of the USA.  I don't think that the one aircraft carrier that France could provide would protect us much if, say, things escalated with North Korea.   Here's another way to look at it.  Maybe they are using the USA a bit.  If the USA were to pull out of NATO, do you think they would spend more on defense, or the same?  I'm sure the UK and Canada wouldn't change much, but I'd bet real money that the rest of NATO would start increasing the spending.

To your point about there not being a current threat like WW2.  First, I'll say that at the first Gulf war, Iraq had one of the largest armys in the world.  Nobody was expecting that war.  Second I'll ask you, how long did it take for Hitler to take a bankrupt country that had no army left, and turn it around, and start WW2?  How many years?  How many innocent lives were lost because nobody was prepared?  Because nobody wanted to spend on defense after WW1, because nobody wanted to play world policeman.  Think about it.  How long does it take for something like that to break out?  I'm not even saying we have to even know who that threat is today, but it sure didn't take Hitler long to go from a cocktail party joke to controlling most of Europe, did it?  Now, how long do you think it would take us to build back up, if we don't bother to keep up (or stay ahead)?  

You see, you don't just prepare for the dangers you know.  You prepare for the dangers that you don't know.

somehow I doubt it because to this day I don't think you've ever said any of my arguments are reasonable.

Somehow, I doubt you have ever really paid attention to my posts.  I also doubt you have gone back and read that post about peacekeepers.  If you did, like I mentioned earlier today, you probably wouldn't make yourself look like such a dumbass with statements like that.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Bucc, your facts are correct on Argentina, way to do your homework however if you remember that then we have to think about Vietnam. The only Differnece between Us in vietnam and Brits in Argentina is that well we did much worse. The European countries dont owe the U.S. shit especially not from WWII because we knew of the massacres and the wars but we were not going to do ANYTHING accept for Lend Lease until Pearl Harbor. So we didnt save them we just got dragged into thier side. And yes the UK could take of Iraq fairly easily regardless of bad technique a few decades ago.

This view of America to UN as big daddy just doesnt make sense. The United States makes up a lot of the UN that is true but dont you think if the US wasnt in the UN then yes France and England and the other countries would step up their spending to make it more powerful? Its not that they are weak its just theres no immediate reason to be strong. I mean really only the US is having MAJOR problems with N. Korea but England and France and all of Europe for that matter are no sissies they are as capable in Warfare when they are united as we are when we stand alone. You say they are in a treaty so they should rely on it for help both military and in the desicion making process and I say well then SO SHOULD THE  UNITED STATES. Because its thoughts of how much better we are then other countries that get people to slam planes into OUR buildings and NOT those in London.

[kami]

I have no problem with people who have hunting licenses and go out into the forest to cap some deer, but when people keep handguns JUST to feel safe, I have a problem.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Alright, I hate this forum word cap limit (I usually dont hit it because I am not tearing anyone a monster sized asshole usually) but I must say that Zaitsev's post was one of the most ignorant pieces of crap I have seen on these forums in a long time. Nearly all of his points are absoultely absurd. I'll elaborate more when I get back on monday - assuming no one else sees how horrible it is and bothers to rip him a new one.

[Ace]

The European countries dont owe the U.S. shit especially not from WWII because we knew of the massacres and the wars but we were not going to do ANYTHING accept for Lend Lease until Pearl Harbor. So we didnt save them we just got dragged into thier side.

Zait, such a simplistic view is preposterous on so many fronts that it's not even funny. I guess saving the free world AND rebuilding everyone's economy (including Germany and Japan) doesn't count for shit anymore.

This view of America to UN as big daddy just doesnt make sense. The United States makes up a lot of the UN that is true but dont you think if the US wasnt in the UN then yes France and England and the other countries would step up their spending to make it more powerful?

Wait, I think I remember this one from history class too. So let's see, you have a major international coalition with the goal of promoting peace led by England and France without the aid of the United States. I suggest you read about the League of Nations Zait. Yeah, I'm sure they would stand up to people.

[*DAMN Bander]

Something about "me" (some of u will be surprised

Bander:

A lazy austrian, working as an art director in a big agency, running a rap-club in the arena in vienna, rapper of a german-language austrian rap-band, who smokes weed cuz he dislike the taste and followups of alcohol (except consuming one fresh cold beer to hold the whole night when he goes to the "flex" - a great viennese music club for electronic music (elektro, breakbeat, jungle, rap etc ...)

He likes Fast-Food a lot (even when he permanently curses it). BigMac, FishMac, Chicken McNuggets YEAH (damn unhealthy but the best thing u can do if everything is closed around you). He likes american rap music, some of his favorite all-time movies are from hollywood - he has been in america more than 4 times, visiting his afghan relatives, who live there in NY and cali.

Bander drives an american car (red cryzler neon. stickshift. 145PS), is clan founder of a great online Clan called *DAMN filled with a huge numer of americans who are called "friends" by Bander.

Hes interested in politics but noticed already that thinking politic must be a global game. He thinks since he explored the internet that it does NOT depend on the nationality of a person, not on his race, skin color, political opinions if u like someone or not. SInce he found out that he tries to keep all the people of this/our planet in his mind when talking about any political issues - to focus the whole puzzle and not just a little fragment. and he always tries to think this way: What if i would actually not be "save" here in austria - what if i would have been born in XXX (insert place here).

Banders english sucks sometimes when he tries to explain complicated things - but at last he can speak a foreign language and communicate in the web with persons of all nations -

Sometimes if Bander runs mad he startes cursing a lot and he does this with purpose - if this happens he uses stereotypics, flame vocabulary and cussings of all sort - this happens when Bander has the feeling to have repeated on that point on and on and when he finds out that someone just doent listen.  Then he dicides that he has delivered all his arguments on that case and moves on -

Bander is very interested in political issues - now and the historical ones - is reading every big paper u can buy here. he is proud on his little but culturally rich, social  and peaceful homecountry wich had a violent history in the past - also with dark shadows. but it seems his countries people learned out of that. And he likes Europe. He already isnt feeling as a "austrian" anymore  only . but as an "European" with Afghan Roots.

People say that europe and the U.S. are like:

U.S. from the Mars - Europe comes from the Venus. Thats shiat. Europeans and Americans are the same people. U live in a young and big country. Sometimes it made shit (like all countries did in history), sometimes it was the "rescue in last time". All in all america is a cool country (cuz its citizen are "good") - but bander actually things that right now a "evil" goverment is manipulating many "good" americans, so they support almost blindly his personal plans.

Thats Banders only dispute that he has with "america". and if he juts dislikes Bushaneer for his furious pro-war (aka killing) arguments this doesnt mean anything about Banders feelings towards the U.S. citizens in general.

End of the "Bander Manual". Hope it answered some open questions.
If not, dont worry - i dont really care

props to all my friends on GR no matter from what hole they come

Bander

[Cossack]

I think what Zait was tring to say is that the Western European nations are not subject to our every whim. By rebuilding their economies we helped them not subordinate them.

UK and France wouldnt be good for the security council. I am glad the US is in the Security Council because then the world would be warped into Russian and Chinese spheres of influence. You take the US out, and I guarantee you, that would probablly happen.

I will tell you what gets buildings slammed into our buildings, its economic expansionism and exploitation. Too much of the world's wealth is in the United States. Russians think they are better than everyone else, and you know the French think they are better than everyone else. You dont see the Kremlin and the Eiffel Tower in flames.

[*DAMN Bander]

P.S.: when i said your education system is "shit" i expected to be flamed down. but hum? now, to be more precise:

it does NOT suck in general. but i have the feeling it depends on WHERE u get education in the U.S. and for my taste its too much focussed on inner-american issues - not on global history and stuff.

Maybe its cuz the american history didnt start that long ago, and its has been needed to develope a "U.S. american identity" in the beginning of the continent. but now, when the U.S. are playing such an important role on earth as "remaining as the last superpower" i think its urgent needed to get a better feeling for the surrounding world, as an american.

if i sounded like "americans are dumb" (lol, i bet it did) i say sorry. thats not what i meant. in fact most americans u meet over here in europe are very nice guys. maybe cuz they arent armed and cuz they can be open minded too.

To the person who asked why austrians "hate" prussians:

ey man. austrians dont really hate em - its like a long going joke - they make fun of us, we make fun of em. we go there to vacation, they come here. austrians only get really mad on em if they beat us up in soccer again

and for the "anschluss": austrians are discussing this point too. my opinion is - when hitler annexed austria and people applauded him on "heldenplatz" this never where all austrians. what would be your feelings if someone anexes your homecountry and eliminates his historical name and history from the landmaps? it would have hurted ME a lot. (and austria had a much longer history than kuwait or U.S. for excemple)

dude: i can tell u a lot negative things about my country too. there is not always black & white only. i dont think its the "best" i think its a good one. and about "Haider": neverthless what he says or does- he never hurt or killed, nor was he involved in any case where someone got killed or hurt during his polical ?ra. I dont like him very much but at last he did something good: He - the anti-foreinger man - suddenly calls himself arab-friend, visits the near east a lot and is (funny but true) our best "protection shield against terror" that we have actually LOL.
its really strange. and by the way: his party killed itself last year. if he ever was a threat - its laughtable anyways now

BAH i go to bed now. g?night yo suckaz!



Banda

[abe]

cossack,
i dont see the kremlin or the eiffel tower burning, but i see hostages being taken in moscow theatres and i have seen bombs explode in the paris metro, bith in reaction to those governments policies. besides, if you look at the post sep. 11th alquaida attacks (i.e. Bali, djerba and in pakistan, you will find that europeans and australinas were better represented amongst the casualties than americans. this isnt somthing btw the US and alquaida, but between the western world and alquaida. economic expansionism and exploitation are not uniquly american phenomena. france does the same thing in africa, but i have yet to see a bunch of pissed off conglolese coming to france to start shit. to me, this is more a question of america being the big guy and others being jelous.

i don't agree with the proposition that europe owes america anything more than they are giving them right now. it would be nice to see that we can count on our allies (as we can with britain or spain) to back us up if we need help, but WW2 in no way obliges europe to do anything. by this logic, we should actually be grateful to the french for helping us defeat britain in the war of independace. besides, russia isnt asking for anything from europe now eventhough they lost 25 million people fighting hitler and actually captured berlin. this argument is extremly flawed and anyone who cites this as a reason for why europe shold be helping us is a knucklehead, imo, pure and simple and should go read up on his history.

zaitsev, drawing an analogy between the vietnam war and the falklands/maldivas conflict is a bit far fetched. argentina invaded a bunch of little islands that they figured the brits wouldnt care since they are inhabited by more sheep than people and have no real strategic value to the UK anyways. Britain sees a threat to its credibility as a major power and reacts militarily, recapturing the falklands in a matter of weeks. now tell me how this is comparable to vietnam. on which you seem to consider yourself knowlegable about......i won't go into the rest of your post because ace already did.

[*DAMN Bander]

cossack,
i dont see the kremlin or the eiffel tower burning, but i see hostages being taken in moscow theatres and i have seen bombs explode in the paris metro, bith in reaction to those governments policies. besides, if you look at the post sep. 11th alquaida attacks (i.e. Bali, djerba and in pakistan, you will find that europeans and australinas were better represented amongst the casualties than americans. this isnt somthing btw the US and alquaida, but between the western world and alquaida.

Abe, Abe:

Dood - please dont force me to point out that the problkems in russia are caused from the russian "war against terror" in chechenia(!) and that this has nothing to do with al kaeeda. If i must this would this would bring you dangerously near to "dumbassism".

BAH - look! Such stupid arguments and u want me and others to discuss with you? lol ...

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I'll elaborate more when I get back on monday - assuming no one else sees how horrible it is and bothers to rip him a new one.

It wasn't going to last close to that long Assassin.

Bucc, your facts are correct on Argentina, way to do your homework however if you remember that then we have to think about Vietnam. The only Differnece between Us in vietnam and Brits in Argentina is that well we did much worse. The European countries dont owe the U.S. shit especially not from WWII because we knew of the massacres and the wars but we were not going to do ANYTHING accept for Lend Lease until Pearl Harbor. So we didnt save them we just got dragged into thier side. And yes the UK could take of Iraq fairly easily regardless of bad technique a few decades ago.

I think ace just about covered this side of things.  And I'd sure like to know what you are basing the UK taking on Iraq of 1990 fairly easilly on it's own??

This view of America to UN as big daddy just doesnt make sense.

This is where all your other mistakes started.  If you had paid attention to my post, you'd see I was talking about NATO, not the UN.  I was talking about how many members of NATO rely on the strengh and size of the US millitay to cut spending of their own.  

Because its thoughts of how much better we are then other countries that get people to slam planes into OUR buildings and NOT those in London.

OUCH, bad example.  How many terrorist bombs go off in England?  Jesus H Christ Zaitsev, think about these examples.  Put a little effort into it.  England has been facing terrorist attacks since before I was born.  It's gotten better and better in the past 15 years, and I can't remember the last time I read about it, which is a good thing.  But damn, use a better example, like Canada.

I have no problem with people who have hunting licenses and go out into the forest to cap some deer, but when people keep handguns JUST to feel safe, I have a problem.

JUST is the key word Kami.  I have both handguns and shotguns.  I don't keep them to feel safe at all.  It's not their purpose.  Both Bambi and Thumper may like to see me not have them though  And I actually enjoy target shooting with the .45 quite a bit.  It's very fun.  Like playing GhR or RS, but with more noise and feeling, but less movement.

[*DAMN Bander]

Bah. Shooting animals. Hope u also eat em then.

If i need the feeling of a gun over here in austria i simply go to a "Bundesheer Schiessstand" and fire some hours with a nice Steyr-STG77 (Armeuniversalgewehr Standart Sturmgewehr)

I dont need a fucking gun at home between my sockets. and if i want to eat some deer i go 180kmh on the "landstrasse" or buy some out of the supermarket fridge.

I also never liked cowboy movies. some prolos running around like cocks with stiff armes, always being paranoid and having to much alcohol and too less sex.

Especially handguns are sick in my eyes. have u ever looked at one, while remembering that this tool is especially designed to kill PEOPLE?

u cant really go hunting with a gun, there u need a rifle. a fucking gun is especially design to take away human live with it. its unnatural to have the permanent oppurtunity to take away someones live at home.
even most animals have natural restrictions so even when they fight among themselves they never fight to the death.

And the funny thing for me: America is sooo religious. But i never heard about jesus carring around a 45er magnum while preacing love and peace. I just mention this cuz american presidents always are seen on cnn, talking about war standing in front of peacfel places like curces, or in kindergardens. this doesnt fit together. this makes me sick.

but all i wrote wont make the asses any more clever.

basta camarillo

Bandah

[abe]

bander,
was soll der scheiss???(wtf for those who dont know german....)

Dood - please dont force me to point out that the problkems in russia are caused from the russian "war against terror" in chechenia(!) and that this has nothing to do with al kaeeda. If i must this would this would bring you dangerously near to "dumbassism".

BAH - look! Such stupid arguments and u want me and others to discuss with you? lol ...

now look over my post.

i dont see the kremlin or the eiffel tower burning, but i see hostages being taken in moscow theatres and i have seen bombs explode in the paris metro, bith in reaction to those governments policies

now.....well, it seems that i was saying that the "problems in russia" are in reaction to that governments poilcy.......don't put words in my mouth, please.

so you think i'm dangerously close to 'dumbassism' because of what you think i am saying? not reading other peoples posts properly is dangerously close to dumbassism if you ask me....

also, komm mir nicht mit solcher dummen scheisse angelaufen, wenn du nicht eimal gruendlich durchgelesn hasst. was versucht du eigentlich zu beweisen?

[*DAMN Bander]

cossack,
i dont see the kremlin or the eiffel tower burning, but i see hostages being taken in moscow theatres and i have seen bombs explode in the paris metro, bith in reaction to those governments policies. besides, if you look at the post sep. 11th alquaida attacks (i.e. Bali, djerba and in pakistan, you will find that europeans and australinas were better represented amongst the casualties than americans. this isnt somthing btw the US and alquaida, but between the western world and alquaida.

I was refering to this. U where talking about checenia and al kaeeda.

The conflict in chechenia should rather make u think:

Its declared as a "war against terror" too. Do u like the outcome so far?
IRA bombs in London? Not anymore. But that was the same effect that u always get if you occupie another nations people for your own advantage.

What should we learn out of this? Occupation brings Terror.
U dont want Terror? No occupation then (i also mean political occupation). But instead learning u think you guys could be successful with tactics wich already proofed emselves as inefficient, by other nations. Thats saaaad!

btw.: your german translator sux. but use it - i still can understand what it produces. at last u are trying

[Cossack]

Actually Bander, Al Queada has and is taking part in Chechnya. The Battle of Kunduz in Afghanistan last year had many Chechens fighting on the side of Al Queada.

The underlying point I was tring to make is that it takes more than feeling like you are better than everyone else to cause a 9/11 catastrophe. (I picked some bad examples) What I am tring to say is that exploitation is the root of the problem.

[abe]

bander,

wenn du mich nicht gern hasst ist das eine sache, aber versuch wenigstens meine argumente so zu lesen wie sie gemeint sind....ich habe klar und deutlich gesagt, dass, meiner meinung nach, der krieg in chechien vollkomen das resultat des verhaltens der russischen regierung dort ist und nicht, wie du es interpretiert hast, dass ich irgendeine verbindung zwischen den chechenen und alquaida mache.

im not going to translate this (i mean use my auto-translator.......LMAO, u arrogant prick) since every literate person on this forum, unlike Bander, saw that i said chechnya is the russian's fault and not alkaida.

the sad thing is, bander, that i actually was warming up to you after your "bander-facts" post, because it gives me a better idea of where your arguments come from. i know, bander......u don't give a fuck. just thought id mention it anyway.

btw, if my german translator could translate your austrian colloquialisms, i think everyone on this forum would have a good laugh.....in case you dont read my posts, i think ive mentioned that german is my mothertongue, so what are you trying to prove by criticising my german? granted its rusty (last time i lived in a german speaking environment was 10 yrs ago) but for somone who is so sensitive about people making fun of his english (which i never did, btw), you are pretty quick to mock others for their language skills.

[*DAMN Bander]

Actually Bander, Al Queada has and is taking part in Chechnya. The Battle of Kunduz in Afghanistan last year had many Chechens fighting on the side of Al Queada.

The underlying point I was tring to make is that it takes more than feeling like you are better than everyone else to cause a 9/11 catastrophe. (I picked some bad examples) What I am tring to say is that exploitation is the root of the problem.

Yeah. Its true that many afghan mujahedeen fight and fought with their chechenian "brothers". In fact even Mullah Omar offered Shah Ahmed Massud a cease fire so they Taliban would have been able to send fighters to "liberate" Grosny. Massud denied with the words "why to fight another war, while we still havent solved the problems in our own country). BUT: even if it should be supported by al-kaeeda (why not also the U.S. again? its the same thing like with the afghans. Just a theorie.) it IS a other conflict. Started back before any osama shiat - remember Commander Dudajev and Company?

I am also not protecting the Chechen terrorists, but whe ever saw the pictures of the capital "grosny" (translated: terrible) will agree that exactly this is the "stony field" where terror must grow automatically.

But lets go back to the topic now greets and Nastrovie Dude!

I am afghan, u are a russ but no bad blood between us. all afghans know well that the UDSSR didnt let many choice to their young men when they sent em towards kabul. we always used to be very good friends before the occupation. another good reason to condemn military violence, no matter for what reason.

Bander

[Cossack]

I agree no bad blood between us. We may have some conflicting views when it comes to Central Asia and the Caucuses. I hope thats what Afghans think, but I doubt it is what the uneducated sheep hearder in the Panjsir thinks.

I have much respect for Dudayeev he is a real patriot, but both sides have degraded themselves too much, that no one shows any moral highground.