No Iraq War [Archive] - JustLinux Forums

rtr

08-30-2002, 07:37 AM

bugfix

08-30-2002, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by rtr

we're the world police, didn't you know :p

Age old question: Who's policing the police? :D

rtr

08-30-2002, 07:44 AM

ummmm, i dunno :confused: :D

gwartheg

08-30-2002, 09:29 AM

Yes, well, I think it's clear that the only U.S. citizens that want a war with Iraq are Dubya and Dubya Sr (regrets over Kuwait, anyone?). Throw Dubya and Saddam into the ring and put it on pay-per-view. Dubya would of course lose, and then some real changes would happen.

JohnT

08-30-2002, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by aaronk42
I quite agree. The level of arrogance rashness the US has been showing in the past year or so (well, ever, but the past year especially) has been astounding, to say the least.

It mostly stems from remembrance of what "can" and most likely will happen after 9/11. It's called pre-emptive striking. I suppose we should sit on our hands and wait for every other nation to take care of terrorism for us. The methods might be out of synch for some, but come up with a better solution and I'm sure some will listen.

medrewsclues

08-30-2002, 09:39 AM

do you really want to sit back and wait fro saddam to get nukes? come on people wake up. do you want to see a whole city ir more get wiped out? do you want to feel the heat of a nuke blast personally or feel the radiation poisoning afterwards? it is obvious that he is trying to get nukes and a lot of evidence says hes close you know as soon as he does he will use them on us thats his whole lot in life now is to hurt the US. im not a war monger and i know it may not be the best thing economicaly or short term wise for pub relations but it must be done or 9/11 is going to look like a day at the beach. realyy if your an american you should listen to talk radio so you know what is really going on, dont just rely on the liberal news agencies.

godot

08-30-2002, 09:43 AM

Not to imply that you guys don't fully understand the complexities of international politics or the necessity of some Machiavellian foreign policy.... oh wait, maybe I am. Anywho, if you really want to understand international news I'd suggest you start reading this (http://www.policyreview.org). I find that this (http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html) article lays it all on the table very well.

The President and his father are not the only American citizens who want this war either, although there certainly isn't an overwhelming majority.. yet. It'll happen, and as much as Europe is complaining they join us, albeit dragging their heals as usual. Afterwards France will tell us how they always wanted to do it and how better it's made the world. We will then proceed to laugh in France's face and give France a big wedgie, as is the American way.

The Iraqi Army will not give the US any problems. What the hell do you think Europe did in the first Gulf War? They provide support and logistics mainly, that's about all their militaries are capable of. It may not finish in 100 hours like last time, but it will be fast. Why do you think Saddam has an Army anyway? They certainly don't love him or worship him. He pays them and they fear what those few that are loyal will do to them if they quit.

Anyway, there are many reasons why I hate discussing politics on the internet. I just couldn't let this go by.

l01yuk

08-30-2002, 09:46 AM

Yeah right, Sadam for US president ;)

MkIII_Supra

08-30-2002, 09:57 AM

That a conflict with Iraq this time involve chemical / biological warfare by the Iraqi's.

As far as praising Clinton.... he's the reason 9/11 happened! He cut our military budget, kept operational tempo, placed us... I am still active duty... in harms way and then never took for action any retaliation for direct attacks on American service men and women. USS Cole ring a bell? Lack of decisive military action, and the fact that Clinton openly disliked the military, oped the door to a direct assault on our home land.

Keep your head in the sand long enough and someone will kick you in your @$$

Icarus

08-30-2002, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by bugfix

Seriously, at least Clinton isn't retarded and when it came to international issues wasn't so self-serving.

War == Votes and another term of office.
So when Clinton set an attack on bin Laden in (I think it was) '98, he did a smart move by firing 30 cruise missiles at a base that was thought to be housing bin Laden, then saying "our work here is done" and send the troops home?

Oh ya, that was genius of Clinton. That sure showed them who's boss...
Considering it took the missiles about 30 minutes to reach their target giving the camp plenty of time to evacuate.

Clinton didn't know his arse from his head, he's idea of 'international relations' is sending aid to China! Not to mention his 'personal relations' with his staff..."What's your definition of sex? Oh, if that is what it is, then no. I didn't have sex with the woman"
He was a master at twisting the truth so it makes him look good. Would you rather have a leader that wants to fight for our country, or an adulterer rapist that can't tell the truth and lies outright?

I'll take a Bush any day over a dick.

godot

08-30-2002, 10:05 AM

Just remember, Clinton would grab a gun and jump in a foxhole to defend Israel. :D

Hahahahaha

Friend of mine's father works for the NSA. He was at 4th of July at the White House lawn in 1998. Some Generals and their families showed up to watch the fireworks. He overheard Clinton's advisors on the front steps saying: 'What are those damn generals doing here.' and 'Why doesn't the military just go away.' That entire administration did everything it could to damage our military.

bogler

08-30-2002, 10:09 AM

Did you know that one fifth that's ONE FIFTH of global oil and gas supplies go directly to the right foot of American drivers. I find that fact staggering.. and you??

Why is Georgie boy not at the summit? What an embarrasing disgrace!

Meanwhile the rest of the world meets to discuss sustainable development, free trade and alleviation of poverty amongst many other topics and the U.S carries on in its isolationist, corrupt and downright exasperating tack of "the good ol American way of life" etc etc puke barf..

bogler

:eek:

kZahradnik

08-30-2002, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by bogler
Did you know that one fifth that's ONE FIFTH of global oil and gas supplies go directly to the right foot of American drivers. I find that fact staggering.. and you??

...snip...

bogler

:eek:
I agree, and please spare us the argument, that so many people life in the US.
In the US cars use like 20+ liters per 100km
here in Europe we won't even buy a car which is using more than 10 liters per 100km

johnno

08-30-2002, 10:20 AM

Just as soon as we stop arguing about artificial divisions and start treating it as a world, the sooner the military budget can go into something useful, like finding us all an inhabitable world to live on, before we stuff this one completely.
(or giving money to the open source community for all the great work being done).
:D

bugfix

08-30-2002, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by MkIII_Supra
As far as praising Clinton.... he's the reason 9/11 happened! He cut our military budget, kept operational tempo, placed us... I am still active duty... in harms way and then never took for action any retaliation for direct attacks on American service men and women. USS Cole ring a bell? Lack of decisive military action, and the fact that Clinton openly disliked the military, oped the door to a direct assault on our home land.

He cut the military budget probably because he took a peek at the $6.2 trillion of debt America owes and thought it probably didn't look all that good. What's the easiest thing to cut back on during peace time? Probably the thing that costs half the national budget. Whereas, GWB took a look at the debt and probably thought "Wow! We really have that much money? Spend! Spend!"

jaygee432

08-30-2002, 10:31 AM

As if the religion thread did not provide sufficient outlet for those inclined to intellectual masturbation!:eek:

fancypiper

08-30-2002, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by gwartheg
Yes, well, I think it's clear that the only U.S. citizens that want a war with Iraq are Dubya and Dubya Sr (regrets over Kuwait, anyone?). Throw Dubya and Saddam into the ring and put it on pay-per-view. Dubya would of course lose, and then some real changes would happen. I doubt that. Have you seen Saddam's paunch? He looks very out of shape.

Dubya by a KO in the 3rd.

Icarus

08-30-2002, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by jaygee432
As if the religion thread did not provide sufficient outlet for those inclined to intellectual masturbation!:eek:
Heh, isn't masterbation considered 'healthy'? :p
Rather be strokin' my brain then my member :D

StriderAragorn

08-30-2002, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by bugfix

He cut the military budget probably because he took a peek at the $6.2 trillion of debt America owes and thought it probably didn't look all that good. What's the easiest thing to cut back on during peace time? Probably the thing that costs half the national budget.

Few things here.
1. In regards to the quote above. Look at history. Every time the military here in the US has been cut we have major conflicts shortly after. Hmm...coincidence?

2. Clinton still brings funny political arguments doesn't he? Or her? No that's both of them now isn't it. Clinton didn't hate the WHOLE US military. His main problem was with the Marine Corps as his first meeting with the Joint Chiefs then Marine Corps Commandant told Clinton he did not respect him and tendered his resignation. Clinton informed him that he would then not salute the Marine. Just look at news clippings. Everytime a Marine was present Clinton did not return a single salute. I was in a security detail in SC when he came to Hilton Head to golf. Did he salute us? NOPE. Did he make life easy on the other Marine present in the formation that was there to great him? Nope. We stood at attention and held our salute for 15 minutes!!! That is blatant disrespect. Budget cuts??? Hmm...not to sound rude but you people talk about it like it was no big deal! Be in service and listen as Clinton continually rejects the budget....you (service men and women) do not get your check for several months and your creditors are banging on your door. HE was the reason I DIDN'T become a LIFER! After having to deal with that 3 times (2 in a row) I would not subject my family to the loss of income/credit because of a single man again! *steps off soap box*

3. To the original post that started this. Remember WWII? Hmm...didn't Churchill warn us about Hitler at that time BEFORE WWII? Hey, personally if I didn't think that the US was the main target I'd say "Sure, lets sit this one out again. Let you in Europe and the Middle east deal with it. We'll get involved later." Now here is Bush. You really think that Saddam is just a poor old guy that is just looking to protect his country?!?! HE KILLS HIS OWN CITIZENS...fires missles at his neighbors...THAT IS WITHOUT HIS CURRENT LEVEL of researching mass distruction weapons and deliver systems! Sure...let him have free reign...sounds real good doesn't it? Personally I don't believe that I should have to wear a turban and grow a beard and face mecca several times a day! This is not aout ISLAM folks. If it were a religious issue I would be the first to shout NOT to do anything! This is about Terrorisim. Take out the leaders and their org network and you are better off! BTW...who equiped that bin Laden? Did we forget? Let me remind you who gave him his original support...CLINTON!!!

4. As to the international issues ... Read Mahdi's post!

Sorry. This is especially a sore spot topic for me. Didn't mean to run on so long but I think it's really important to understand. Do we wait as long as the rest of the European community did with Hitler and suffer as they did back then OR has the world FINALLY learned from history??? As MkIII_Supra stated: "Keep your head in the sand long enough and somone will kik you in your @$$"

PS: My signature is a line from Star Ship Troops...seemed fitting.

JohnT

08-30-2002, 11:18 AM

(Only in defense of accuracy, not an individual)

" Who equipped Bin Ladin"?

24 Dec 1979-Feb 1989 USSR Invasion and Occupation: Wishing to consolidate control of the area and preserve their interests, the USSR invades Afghanistan using the pretense that the Amin Government requested their aid. Dec 1979 Osama bin-Laden: First comes to Afghanistan to fight against the Russians. 27 Dec 1979-November 1986 Babrak Karmal (Parcham Party): Installed by the Soviets as President of the Revolutionary Council, Secretary General of the PDPA and Prime Minister. 1980-1989 Resistance: Hundreds of Thousands of Afghanis flee to Pakistan (centered in and around Peshawar) where many opposition groups unite to resist the Soviet invasion with the help of Arab and American financial and military support. June 1981-May 1988 Soltan Ali Keshtmand (Parcham): In a growing move to quell Khalqi power. The President appoints a Parchami leader as Prime Minister. May 1986 - 1990? Mohammad Najibullah: Succeeds Karmal as General Secretary when Karmal falls from favour with Soviets who are bogged down in the war. Nov 1986-Nov 1987 Haji Mohammad Tsamkami (Acting President):Succeeds Karmal whose fall from power and ill health are finalized. Nov 1987-April 16 1992 Mohammad Najibullah: Is elected President by the Revolutionary Council in a consolidation of his power. 1988-Feb 1989 Soviet withdrawal : After being bogged down in the seemingly unending conflict and motivated by Gorbachev's reforms, the Soviets withdraw. Finish withdrawal Feb 1989

Term of Office: January 22, 1993-January 20, 1997 President: Bill Clinton. ...

ASCI Blue

08-30-2002, 11:26 AM

A larger military isn't always a good thing. It just means there's more potential for people to be there who don't want to be.

George Dubya..after hearing that it may have been his family who helped to raise oil prices (to make him look good) and his orders to the CIA and FBI to hide/destroy all evidence of a report on Bin Laden attacking the US (note to non US citizens I don't use America ever since we're not the only Americans.) how am I supposed to have any respect for the fool. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll go the way of the dodo.

bugfix

08-30-2002, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by StriderAragorn

3. To the original post that started this. Remember WWII? Hmm...didn't Churchill warn us about Hitler at that time BEFORE WWII?

Don't ever compare Churchill to the retarded fool, GWB!

Tulluin

08-30-2002, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by bogler

Meanwhile the rest of the world meets to discuss sustainable development, free trade and alleviation of poverty amongst many other topics and the U.S carries on in its isolationist, corrupt and downright exasperating tack of "the good ol American way of life" etc etc puke barf..

bogler

:eek:

Jealous?
Isolationist? That is odd, considering how many of my tax dollars go to paying for 3rd world countries' food or computers or whatever we send them.

JohnT

08-30-2002, 11:47 AM

quote:Originally posted by bogler

Meanwhile the rest of the world meets to discuss sustainable development, free trade and alleviation of poverty amongst many other topics and the U.S carries on in its isolationist, corrupt and downright exasperating tack of "the good ol American way of life" etc etc puke barf..

bogler

Flatterer!!!

pcghost

08-30-2002, 11:51 AM

And I feel I must remind our English friends that we (the US) is only following the global domination lessons taught to us by the former world dominating English Empire of the last few centuries. We saved you from becoming German (read bailed you out in your time of need) and you cannot understand why we have the policies we do. Iraq needs to be beaten down, why? Because there is a madman who has publicly stated his support for those who would conduct mass killings like Osama Bin Loser and his ilk.

Back up 300 years and tell me that England wouldn't invade a country for the kind of arrogance that Saddam has shown us. As an American who has served in the largest Navy in World history (sorry UK we took that from your example as well) I for one think that any nation (read ANY) that believes that is has the devine right to kill my people should be and will be conquered.

So before you criticize the Gaul of the decadent Americans, my British friends, go study your own history. The parallels are unmistakable.

And by the way, we don't need your approval or assistance to overthrow Iraq. We won our independance a long time ago..

--End of Rant-- :D

bugfix

08-30-2002, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by pcghost
So before you criticize the Gaul of the decadent Americans, my British friends, go study your own history. The parallels are unmistakable.
[/B]

Its true but that hardly qualifies as justification. We did it in the past so its ok for you to do it now. What kind of warped logic is that?

Besides, you're meant to learn from history not mimic it.

pcghost

08-30-2002, 12:02 PM

I am not justifying our actions, as we do not require world approval to protect our people/interests. As long as we feed the world, and we do, we shall make our own foriegn policy decisions. And as is normally expected, Europe will whine. I am only saying that before you throw a stone at my glass house, turn around and look at your own shattered glass house. England is hardly in a position to criticize us. Hey at least we don't occupy our neighbors and transplant our citizens to thier land (read IRELAND)..

Doh - I'm ranting again--

Can't we all just get along? (disclaimer: Iraq not included)

rtr

08-30-2002, 12:02 PM

hehehehe :D

bugfix

08-30-2002, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by pcghost
Hey at least we don't occupy our neighbors and transplant our citizens to thier land (read IRELAND)..

Just you wait until an Irish read that. I suggest you don a particularly effective bomb-proof flame suit.

Ireland and Northern-Ireland are quite different places. I'm sure the British government would love to hand back Northern Ireland but we'd get bombed in to submission if we do and we get bombed if we don't. We're damned either way.

rtr

08-30-2002, 12:13 PM

where's the love man? :D

bugfix

08-30-2002, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by rtr
where's the love man? :D

Sorry, I'm not that way inclined! :p

Stween

08-30-2002, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Tulluin
Isolationist? That is odd, considering how many of my tax dollars go to paying for 3rd world countries' food or computers or whatever we send them.

Lol, I love that, when people argue about money going to help out third world countries, obviously thinking that just having tax money go to the problem they're already doing too much to help. Get a grip, mate, stop being so selfish.

On the topic of the world summit, I too was shocked to hear that GWB was not attending. Perhaps if there had been a decent reason for his absence, but instead the news reports just had a clip of GWB's representative *laughing* at the question of where George Jr was, then off-handishly saying something to the tune of "the president always takes his vacation in August. I think you'll find him sitting on his ranch in Texas".

Biggest sign of how ignorant he is yet. At least Clinton could do public speaking properly, and at least gave the impression that he was making the decisions, unlike Bush who stops and stutters through his speeches.

I remember the claims when he got into power that his IQ was around 90. Isn't that a reassuring thought then, that one of the most powerful people in the western world has an IQ less than that of the average person in the western world?? :)

keating305

08-30-2002, 12:24 PM

I think ther's some mis-conceptions here, so I'll give you my spin;
1.GWB is NOT running the U.S., Dick Cheney and the energy consoritums are.
2.The talk about war with Iraq is a smokescreen to divert attention from the scandals that have come about since Enron started the ball rolling; they're hitting too close to home for the ruling elite.
3.there's no noble cause involved in trying to remove Saddam Hussein; Dubya and the boys are just trying to cover up an economy that's making a swan dive down the crapper (and WAS heading down the crapper long before 9/11!)
4.Let's go over this thread a year from now and see where things went (if anyone can still afford to use the internet after the war/crash/invasion/or whathaveyou.
BTW; American citizen ,Vietnam era Navy vet; chew on that.

pcghost

08-30-2002, 12:26 PM

I sympathise with the plight of the northern Irish, their ancestors were brought to the island by the English for colonization, and then used as political tools. England has it's island, anyone who wants to live under English rule should move to England. Anyone who wishes to live under Irish rule should move to Ireland. England has NO moral/religeous claim to justify their continued occupation of Ireland, if the Northern Irish want to be English, then I say move to England.

And to clarify something, I do not harbor resentment against England, in fact I actually really like England. What I don't like is a country that has a centuries-long tradition of kicking peoples *** without global consent complaining about the US doing the same thing to protect its interests. Your people taught us how to effectivly dominate and police this planet, and we have improved upon YOUR design. We happen to be blessed with greater resources with witch to use to do it. But please don't sit there in the UK like you have some moral high ground and say we are wrong for doing as you have done for centuries. If someone from Iceland would like to criticize us for our actions great, they have a moral foot to stand on. England is the last nation on Earth who should be complaining about this. Remember India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, etc etc. Your Empire was once larger than ours, and was rule with a much heavier hand than we use. We do not seek to colonize Iraq, just kill one man and ensure that the next guy is not another fundementalist freak dictator....

P.S. thanks Europe, for all that you have taught us, we can handle this from here thanks to your teachings.....

:p

bugfix

08-30-2002, 12:33 PM

Its not a matter of 'global consent' its a moral matter and the arugment that England has committed these acts in the past (before a global community had developed) is hardly justification for invading a country.

Icarus

08-30-2002, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Stween
I remember the claims when he got into power that his IQ was around 90. Isn't that a reassuring thought then, that one of the most powerful people in the western world has an IQ less than that of the average person in the western world?? :)
Heh, take a more recent head count :)
After the popularity of TV shows like Survivor and Big Brother, the national IQ has officially dropped to, at the most, 85...:D

pcghost

08-30-2002, 12:37 PM

Remind me again. Are there are are there not occupying English military forces in Northern Ireland as we speak?? Moral??

Global community, count me out.. Socialim for all....

bugfix

08-30-2002, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by pcghost
Remind me again. Are there are are there not occupying English military forces in Northern Ireland as we speak?? Moral??

Global community, count me out.. Socialim for all....

Yeah, there are but if we try and leave then the unionists try and bomb us. If we stay the republicans bomb us. Besides, progress is being made, NI now has its own independant elected parliment and its gaining more freedom every year.

We're more than happy to leave, NI is a financial drain and serves little purpose to our 'empire'.

BTW. Well done for avoiding the actual topic.

pcghost

08-30-2002, 12:49 PM

So if I understand this correct, and please correct me if I am mistaken, but you are saying that the second most powerful country on Earth stays in Ireland because it is afraid of the northern/southern irish. If this is really the case all I can say is "sad, how the mighty have fallen". Pull out, and bomb the piss out of anyone who attacks your country.. That is morally right, as it is a defensive manuever..

I do really love England, and Ireland. My ancestory is English Prod/ Irish Catholic. Very conflicting you know. And to take responcibility for my countrymen for a previous comment. I admit my people do provide the bulk of the money/guns that the IRA use to attack the English and Northern Irish. For that I am sorry. I do NOT support the IRA..

Stween

08-30-2002, 12:54 PM

pcghost, I was willing to let one or two posts go where you referred to Britain as 'England'.

From there, you've continued to display your ignorance. You continued to refer to the largest island within the british isles as England, where in fact it consists of England, Wales & Scotland.

Call it Britain, and be done with it.

pcghost

08-30-2002, 12:58 PM

Please remind me who exactly rules Scotland and Wales??????
A wee bit sensitive eh?

Stween

08-30-2002, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by mahdi

Heh, take a more recent head count :)
After the popularity of TV shows like Survivor and Big Brother, the national IQ has officially dropped to, at the most, 85...:D

lol, point taken. I withdraw my previous comments, and thereby change to something along the lines of:

"us dim-witted westerners are going to try and wage a war with saddam, who probably has not been affected by such tv trash?? Are we mad??"

:p :)

Wibble

08-30-2002, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by pcghost
We saved you from becoming German (read bailed you out in your time of need)

- BOLLOCKS (if you don't know what that means, go look it up, as well as reading some history at the same time)

As for Saddam, Funny how the 2 guys in charge in the last attack on Saddam aren't fully behind this. Powell is very iffy, and Schwarzkopf has said publically that you can't do this on your own.

Now, Saddam is a serious headcase, he is a total nutter, even worse than Hitler, but with less potential to destroy.
He won't use nukes, if he ever gets them. Chem weapons, yup, but nukes no. He knows full well that the first time he does, it is all over, he will be totally destroyed. One sided MAD, if you will (if that is possible).

Stween

08-30-2002, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by pcghost
Please remind me who exactly rules Scotland and Wales??????
A wee bit sensitive eh?

I would be forced to agree, but only if you knew what you were talking about. England is a part of Great Britain, much in the same way as Scotland is, and also in the same way Wales is.

pcghost

08-30-2002, 01:12 PM

I totally agree he's not that stupid, or fanatical. However, remember what happened in the Tokyo subway a few years back? I would hate to see that happen in the U.S. And it doesn't seem far fetched to think that he will send that crap with his cronies to pull off the same type of attack against western countries.

And as a sidenote: I meant no offense before when refering to the peoples of the United Kingdom, I only illustrate that they should not be criticizing our actions without careful review of even their recent history. God bless our Alliance with the U.K. and I hope the efforts being made to peacefully end the troubles work out. Its overdue..
:)

chikn

08-30-2002, 01:21 PM

GWB = The Man- I feel safer with a military minded president vs a dirty minded president. Clinton was a pansy *** horn dog with no military mind at all. His strategy is to weaken defense to show good faith knowing hostile countries will only see opportunity.The part of my tax that supports military and defense operations are the only part of my tax dollars I would give voluntarily.

If america didnt have such a strong military presence in this world how many times do you think we might have been attacked over past century. And who would be there to save the piddly defenseless countries for attack. Theres only been 1 significant and one major terrorist act. With what happened to Japan after their attack Im sure they regret their decision to do it along with those responsible for 9-11(well maybe not they are so religious blinded they probably still think they accomplished something).

Has the US in modern times attacked a country to control it or to stake claim to land or for religious reasons. NO The fact is the UN and American army are the peace keepers in this world and it is their responsibilty to ensure the safety of countries wrongly under attack and prevent such events happening.

But maybe we should wait for Saddam to finish up his nukes and biofare weapons then explode a few in your home town or city before we do something about it.

The US will not attack Iraq without some form of consent from the UN either. Most of you here make it sound like GWB can say attack this country and it happens. Most must not be aware of the way the US presidential and congressional processes of decision making. Im certain the US knows more about what Saddam and Iraq are up to then we and in a better position to determine the appropriate course of action. If the US goes to war with Iraq, it will be a necessity in providing the world- not just the US with a safer more peaceful place to live.

Wibble

08-30-2002, 01:25 PM

I'm sorry, but the line "Well, we saved you from becoming German" is a complete untruth, and is disrespectful to the sacrifices of the people who died actually ensuring that the Germans were unable to invade this country.

The Americans helped us, and many other nationalities liberate Europe, no question of that, but no, you didn't prevent a German invasion of the U.K. That had already been done prior to the U.S. declaring war on Germany.

If anyone has claim to 'saving us from being German' it would, I'm afraid, be the Russians. They managed to stop the Germans, and then push them back, at a horrific cost.

Freeing Europe - joint act, with many nations taking part.
Britain being saved from a German invasion - A (mostly) European endeavour. With the obvious Commonwealth help.

pcghost

08-30-2002, 01:35 PM

I will give you that. It was not the US acting alone to save the United Kingdom from German rule. What I was implying by that is that while we at the time we leaning toward isolationism, our people went to help an Ally in need, and ended up carrying the majority of the burden of funding the joint effort. Again, I said this to illustrate that we came when you called, why now do you abandon us when we need you? And go so far as to s*** on us for dealing with an "evildoer" (sorry couldn't resist) in a way that has been defined by historical context.

P.S. Just in defense of my own knowledge of History, for what its worth I hold a degree in military history. I have studied the British Empire cold, thank you and have been quite impressed with their acomplishments. My opinions you may disagree with, but dont tell me to read a history book. It's all I do....

Wibble

08-30-2002, 01:47 PM

I haven't expressed an opinion on war with Iraq on here. I've said opinion is divided, I've said I don't think Saddam would use nuclear weapons, but I've not expressed an opinon.

To be honest, I am unsure. And, that ain't ****ting on you when you want to stop an evildoer. I have no knowledge of what or who they would replace him with. A possible repeat of '79 and the changing of regimes in Iran is not an impossible outcome.

Blair is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one side is the U.S., on the other side the E.U. (European Union). No wondering he isn't committing himself. got an election to think of, ultimately.
I honestly do not know whether going to war with Iraq is a good idea or not.

If you studied military history, then surely that makes the inaccuracy of your statement even worse ;-).

P.S. Don't know if you know this, or if it is even true, but I have read that during WWII, more than 50% of the Japanese Army never left mainland China where they were fighting. They managed to wage war on 3 different fronts for nearly 4 years. If it is true.

pcghost

08-30-2002, 02:00 PM

I sometimes generalize when trying to make a point. I didn't mean to imply that the US singlehandedly saved the UK from the germans ok! I was illustrating that the support we thought we could count on from our British Allies seems to be paper thin when the shoe is on the other foot. What Gives?

I APOLOGIZE TO ANY MEMBERS OF THE "UNITED" KINGDOM FOR OFFENDING YOU WITH THAT COMMENT.

HOWEVER, I was offended by a thread full of people from the "United Kingdom" complaining about the US doing something that they themselves have done countless numbers of times.

I guess unless Buckingham Palace is hit with an airplane we can't count on the support of the UK, even when we will foot the bill. Good to know for future reference..

Wibble

08-30-2002, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by pcghost
I sometimes generalize when trying to make a point. I didn't mean to imply that the US singlehandedly saved the UK from the germans ok! I was illustrating that the support we thought we could count on from our British Allies seems to be paper thin when the shoe is on the other foot. What Gives?

Well, Tony hasn't called me for my opinion on this, but I can hazard a guess at why it hasn't been recieved with universal support.
There are elements amongst both your Govt, and ours, that are not 100% behind this, as they were for the actions taken after Sept 11th. Also, all of the Arab nations have condemned any attack on Iraq, not like their support for the post Sept 11th military action. Support in Europe is far less than solid too. So, someone like Blair has to juggle the wishes of his Cabinet, his party, the electorate, his military commanders, our partners in the European Union, the U.S.A., the Arab nation. Add all that together, and it can only be one hell of a big mess.

I APOLOGIZE TO ANY MEMBERS OF THE "UNITED" KINGDOM FOR OFFENDING YOU WITH THAT COMMENT. No worries, I'm not offended. Offensive yes, but not offended.

HOWEVER, I was offended by a thread full of people from the "United Kingdom" complaining about the US doing something that they themselves have done countless numbers of times.

We may have done it in the past, but not in living memory. Don't have the power anymore.

QUOTE]I guess unless Buckingham Palace is hit with an airplane we can't count on the support of the UK, even when we will foot the bill. Good to know for future reference.. [/QUOTE]
If another terrorist atrocity happened, you would get the support, no questions, just like in the aftermath of Sept 11th. As for Buck House getting levelled ... hmmmmmm ....... I'm not even going to enter the pro/anti Royalist argument. That's a whole new can of worms.

Frith

08-30-2002, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Wibble
I'm sorry, but the line "Well, we saved you from becoming German" is a complete untruth, and is disrespectful to the sacrifices of the people who died actually ensuring that the Germans were unable to invade this country.

The Americans helped us, and many other nationalities liberate Europe, no question of that, but no, you didn't prevent a German invasion of the U.K. That had already been done prior to the U.S. declaring war on Germany.

If anyone has claim to 'saving us from being German' it would, I'm afraid, be the Russians. They managed to stop the Germans, and then push them back, at a horrific cost.

Freeing Europe - joint act, with many nations taking part.
Britain being saved from a German invasion - A (mostly) European endeavour. With the obvious Commonwealth help.

Well, we did save France from becoming German. From what I heard, the French soldiers started waving the white flags as soon as they saw the German soldiers cross the border. Pathetic. :rolleyes:

Oh, and don't say that the Soviets saved your ***. If the Americans hadn't been there to keep them at bay, the whole of Europe would have turned into one big communist hell.

Wibble

08-30-2002, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Frith

Well, we did save France from becoming German. From what I heard, the French soldiers started waving the white flags as soon as they saw the German soldiers cross the border. Pathetic. :rolleyes:

The French defence plan placed most of their faith in the Maginot Line, a long line of fixed emplacements. The Germans simply outflanked them, and came up upon the rear. The French guns couldn't even traverse to meet this threat. I'm sure you would have fought bravely, barehanded, but there is a difference between bravery and suicide. No surprise they surrendered.
The whole German tactic of Blitzkrieg was unheard of in 1940. The French and the British had no defence against it, despite the French having more armoured vehicles than the Germans. unfortunately, they were dispersed, as opposed to concentrated into 'fighting columns' as was the Wehrmacht armoured doctrine of that era.
There were battles in France, the French did not capitulate as easily as that.

Oh, and don't say that the Soviets saved your ***. If the Americans hadn't been there to keep them at bay, the whole of Europe would have turned into one big communist hell.
You are talking post war, I'm talking during the war.

For the Germans to have invaded the U.K., they needed air superiority. Once this was achieved, they could launch their invasion fleet, without fear of air attack. Also, with no air cover, any naval units moved against the invasion fleet would have been defenceless.
To achieve this superiority, the Germans needed to destroy Fighter Command, the part of the R.A.F that commanded fighter planes defending the U.K. With no fighters to protect them, any bombers in the air would be an easy target. Once the bombers were gone, the required air superiority would be achieved.
During the summer of 1940, an air war was waged over southern England. The Luftwaffe tried to destroy Fighter Command. It failed. So, no air superiority could be attained. no invasion was possible. By Sept 1940, the German invasion plans were scrapped. They could not invade. During the 6 years of war, the R.A.F. was at it's weakest from May - Sept 1940. After that, it grew more stronger. So, if the Germans couldn't get over in 1940, they were never going to get over. This all took place more than a year before Pearl Harbour. Hence, you didn't stop the Germans invading, as I explained in an earlier post.

proffy

08-30-2002, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by RonaldRaygun
I miss the Clinton Administration......

Hell, I miss Reagan!!!

proffy

08-30-2002, 02:57 PM

Am I the only person who is getting tired of this European Anti-American chic?

-Proffy

Wibble

08-30-2002, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by proffy
Am I the only person who is getting tired of this European Anti-American chic?

-Proffy

I LOVE Americans. Couldn't eat a whole one tho :-D

pcghost

08-30-2002, 03:12 PM

I have to say I have enjoyed this diatribe quite alot, except when the europeans are chewing my ***. Does anyone out there know of any good forums designed for political debates like this one. Most Americans don't follow politics well enough to sustain an arguement like this one. i would like to find a forum designed for the purpose where I can argue political stuff with more than just Americans. More diversity of opinions when Europeans etc get involved.
:D

MkIII_Supra

08-30-2002, 04:52 PM

I am sick of the anti-American rants. Personally I tell you all to pi$$ off and take care of your own problems. Personally I DO NOT want to go fight someone elses skirishes / wars. I DO NOT want to be used as another nations cannon fodder then be disrespected!? WTF!!!

It's really to bad we can't see how things would be IF.... like what IF the Americans didn' send, food, medical supplies, weapons etc... to both England and Russia? What if we would have bolstered our nation and stayed out of the European conflict? Think about that for a bit.
If it wasn't for the intervention of our Grandfathers and our Government, would the English been able to hold up against, at the time, one of the best air forces around? And what if the Germans waited until they conquered England before turning on the Russians? Take a look at how much of not just Europe but Africa the Germans were able to defeat in just 2 years! Do you really think England could have made it without our help?

Chew on the possibilities.....

But the bottom line, get off the playing field if you don't like the game, the rules or the players!

danrees

08-30-2002, 05:37 PM

MkIII_Supra - I really hate it when Americans put on their rose-tinted blinkers and harp on back to WWII. Yes, you did save Britain. There's no denying that Britain would not have been able to cope with Nazi forces if America didn't intervene.

But, what has that got to do with Iraq? The fact that the USA saved an ally from its enemy 50 years ago is no justification for expectation of unconditional support of (irrational) present foreign policy.

There is little debate on the question of whether Iraq poses a threat to the USA. It doesn't. It doesn't pose a threat to its neighbours, because they have secured stable diplomatic relations. The only justification for an invasion/war on Iraq would be to protect Iraqi citizens, and the argument has yet to be made for this case.

Your President is ignorant with respect to the Middle East situation, and would rather listen to right-wing Christian and Zionist groups in the US than its allies, so why should its allies support the US policy with regards to Iraq? Resolution of the Middle East conflict is far more important for global political stability (especially within the Arab world) than any regime change in Iraq. Bush fails to see that genuinely renouncing the actions of Sharon (on whom there is good grounds for proceedings regarding war crimes), and supporting an independent Palestinian state with Israel withdrawing to 1967 borders, would at least go some way to stabilising the so called "war on terrorism" (the primary motivation for which seems to be Middle East issues).

If the US attacks Iraq, it will be on its own. Blair won't get the support from the Labour party in the UK, and no other EU country will be fully behind the USA. The only result of which must be the further exacerbation of Anti-American attitudes, and more importantly terrorism.

US citizens - do the world a favour and elect a better President next time...

MkIII_Supra

08-30-2002, 06:02 PM

do with Iraq is simple enough. Stop it before it happens. Had Europe taken military measures sooner Gerrmany would never have gotten the military power to kick it's @$$. So we in America seem to have learned from you guy's... inaction brings bad trouble. Action stops it before it starts. So by kicking the little dictators @$$ before he unleashes Bio / Chem and even possibly nuclear death and misery upon any nation in the world, not just ours, we stop a repeat of 1939...

That's the relation, if you can't see it then maybe it's you that needs to take the blinders off.

MkIII_Supra

08-30-2002, 06:04 PM

The only time Europe is on our side and supports our political decisions is when Europe is in trouble.

Wibble

08-30-2002, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by MkIII_Supra
The only time Europe is on our side and supports our political decisions is when Europe is in trouble.

After Sept 11th, Europe, and the Arab nations fully backed the U.S.'s actions, and quite rightly so (And Europe WASN'T in trouble then).

This time round is different. The Arab nations are united AGAINST U.S. attacks agasint Iraq. F.Y.I. Tony Blair was today, in the press, calling for the rest of Europe to support the U.S. Unfortunately, there is not, and I doubt ever will be, the same type of unanimous support for an attack on Iraq, as there was an attack on Afghanistan.
As I posted earlier, Saddam may a total nutter, but he has a sense of self-preservation. He knows that the second he uses a nuclear weapon, he loses any support from the Arabs, and he will be on the recieving end of a nuclear counter-strike. Chemical weapons are a different matter. He does have, and has used them.

The whole situation is very tricky and unstable. Reports I have seen, read and heard indicate that even among your own Govt there isn't unanimous support for this course of action.

So, to put it bluntly, don't p**s and moan at us/the rest of the world for not being 100% with you, when your own govt isn't 100% agreed on this.

Also, what happens afterwards? Who do you replace Saddam with? Remember the Shah of Iran?

pcghost

08-30-2002, 06:55 PM

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe hamid Karsai of Afganistan is like the Shah of Iran? I don't, I kind of like his style, but I'm curious as to what you all think of Karsai. Couldn't there possibly be a Karsai in Iraq that (with support) could lead Iraq towards a less violent future the way the new government of Afganistan is trying to do?

Wibble

08-30-2002, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by pcghost
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe hamid Karsai of Afganistan is like the Shah of Iran? I don't, I kind of like his style, but I'm curious as to what you all think of Karsai. Couldn't there possibly be a Karsai in Iraq that (with support) could lead Iraq towards a less violent future the way the new government of Afganistan is trying to do?

I have no idea. I don't know anything of any opposition in Iraq. That is the problem. Any opposition would have been driven VERY deep, if any remains at all.

The reason I mentioned Iran wasn't to compare it with Afghanistan, just to illustrate that you remove one tyrant, you could be easily giving power to another.

Stween

08-30-2002, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by proffy
Am I the only person who is getting tired of this European Anti-American chic?

-Proffy

Its not necessarily 'anti-American', you're just hearing a lot of voices from this side of the Atlantic because we're concerned.

Concerned about the US starting a potentially large-scale war. Concerned about possibly being dragged into it. Concerned that president Bush won't sit down until his father has finally gotten rid of Saddam. Hey, as pcghost has pointed out, we've got far more experience on this whole war thing.

If the US really did sit down and just concentrate on it's own *real* issues, rather than go out and look for problems, I'm damn sure you wouldn't hear us Europeans shouting over the water "no!! Don't raise *that* tax!!".

You're big enough to affect us when you do something. Why shouldn't we voice concern??

ovf

08-30-2002, 08:15 PM

I have to agree that we (America) need to be more consertive in our consumption of natural resources but I don't feel responsible for the rest of the world. It's all I can do to take care of my own family.

I cringe every time I hear the phrase "last superpower". What kind of super-power gets attacked by a rag tag band of fanatics and a year later their leader is still alive and ploting to kill again?

I also believe that without our help England would have suffered a lot worst in WWII but Hitler wouldn't have stopped with Europe. We would have ended up fighting him eventually. Pearl Harbor was inevitable.

As for Iraq. I think we need to hit Sadam before he hits us. It's easy for the rest of the world to wag their tongues they're not the ones he's looking to hurt. But, if George Bush was to ask me, I'd tell him we need to get Bin Laden first. I'm really disappointed that a year after attack the bastard is still roaming free. I'd like to see Bush organize an international coalition to go after him. But that not's going to happen. I know England, Canada, and Australia would help. I don't think anyone else would show up.

godot

08-30-2002, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by proffy

Hell, I miss Reagan!!!

Agreed. Although things may look up come November. We few sane people here in MD may actually be able to get a real governor (Ehrlich) for once in the past... oh, 50 years or so. That is of course all dependent on how the graveyards in Baltimore vote. If their turnout is high KKT will win.

johnno

08-31-2002, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by ovf
I have to agree that we (America) need to be more consertive in our consumption of natural resources but I don't feel responsible for the rest of the world. It's all I can do to take care of my own family.

I cringe every time I hear the phrase "last superpower". What kind of super-power gets attacked by a rag tag band of fanatics and a year later their leader is still alive and ploting to kill again?

I also believe that without our help England would have suffered a lot worst in WWII but Hitler wouldn't have stopped with Europe. We would have ended up fighting him eventually. Pearl Harbor was inevitable.

As for Iraq. I think we need to hit Sadam before he hits us. It's easy for the rest of the world to wag their tongues they're not the ones he's looking to hurt. But, if George Bush was to ask me, I'd tell him we need to get Bin Laden first. I'm really disappointed that a year after attack the bastard is still roaming free. I'd like to see Bush organize an international coalition to go after him. But that not's going to happen. I know England, Canada, and Australia would help. I don't think anyone else would show up.

Of course Australia would show.
I'm proud of my country and its record. (And I realise this is another country started by butchering the natives, but we may have progressed a bit since then.)
I must say that I don't agree with war, any more than I agree with killing an animal for anything but food (even my motorcycle clothing is all textile/synthetic).
However, there is such a thing as pride in a job well done, and if any of these lame f***s were serious, there would now be a Lake Afghanistan, and there would have been a Lake Iraq long ago.

Fair bloody go! If ya gonna do it, shut the f**k up and do it! If you truly believe someone to be a threat, surely you don't turn your back while they draw breath?
Tuck your bloody blouses in and get on with it.;)

spiderbaby1958

09-04-2002, 03:17 PM

Well, the Bush administration does have its accomplishments. For example, after almost two years it's still blow job free!

Bush makes statements poo-pooing the idea that the US may be preparing for war. The next week, Chaney makes statements that we have to go to war, and we don't need the approval of anybody to do it, neither at home or abroad. Colin Powell is making statements that seem to contradict the above. I don't know what's more frightening, the thouht that George W. Bush is running things, or the overall impression that NO ONE is running things. Middle east policy changes daily. Global warming? Don't worry, we'll adapt. Besides, we're institituting tough new air control regulations, which take effect in 2019.

Do I miss Clinton? Hell, you can't name a president I don't feel nostalgic for, including Nixon, Warren G. Harding, and Millard Fillmore!

We need the coopration of the rest of the world to oppose terrorism, and Bush doesn't seem to care. He disregards any inconvenient treaty, places the US above international law, and then has the nerve to tell the world: "If you're not with us, you're against us." More and more, they're uniting against us. I guess this is what Georgie meant when he called himself " a uniter, not a divider."

This is Enron's legacy to America. Who was it who decided, before a single vote was cast in any primary or straw poll, that GW Bush was the preordained republican "front runner"? Enron was Bush's no 1 backer from the beginning.

But I suppose we have to invade Iraq. I mean, they've got oil... uh, I mean, weapons of mass destruction.

The oil companies are running things now, and nothing is going to stop their agenda: not global warming, not the election results, not 9/11, not the deaths of innocent Iraquis and a few incidental Americans, not reality.

z911

09-04-2002, 03:59 PM

does anybody think that maybe the US is ready for a new political party that is less big business oriented and more socially concerned (education, medicare, environment, etc...)? would such a party eventually fall victim to corporate lobbying during elections just like democrats and republicans? how can such a risk be avoided?

mangeli

09-04-2002, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by bogler
Who does the US think it is? More importantly.. who does George "dubya" Bush think he is?
The US are making a mistake if they go into Iraq on their own. The Iraqi army would see to that, it would elevate Saddam to martyr status.
Everything is so gung ho with the Bush administration. The US has worked itself into a state of paranoia over Islam. It's also dispicable that George "monkey man" Bush is not at the Earth summit. What an embarrasment for all US citizens? The largest consumers/polluters and they don't care...even when their own houses are floating down the river and all their kids are obese.

Ha:cool:

I realize its a little late to jump in, however, I wanted to point out a couple of things...

A.) The U.S. (yea, other wise its the us, and that makes no sense...) thinks it is one of, if not the, the most powerful nations in the world. It has been wounded. Remember the Dragon in the Hobbit? You know how pissed he was when he learned that there was a theif in his home? Well, its the same thing. For the past decade, the U.S. has been playing the role of peace keeper around the world (Northern Africa, the Balkans (did I spell that right?) and in other places around the world). The U.N. and the rest of the world seem to think that we're the worlds Police force. Which is great when the rest of the world needs something, but its kind of a pisser when we need something (because then we look like a bully).

B.) Last time I checked, George W. Bush is THE PRESIDENT of THE UNITED STATES, and despite the fact that half of the U.S. doesn't think very highly of the man, and despite that half the world doesn't think very highly of him, he is the Leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world. I personally do not know his reasons for being at the summit. I personally could not care. I wasn't even aware there was a summit going on until I checked CNN.com this morning and learned that Colin Powell was being booed. From where I stand, if you did not vote in the election, you have absolutely no right to criticise or belittle those people that were elected. Whether or not you're an U.S. citizen.

I for one, could care less what the rest of the world thinks of the U.S. or its leaders. Its easy to sit back and criticise (spelling) some one else. Its a lot hard to be in their shoes. Bush has a ton of advisors and analysts working around the clock to make sure that he has the best possible information. I am completly certain that he will not make a rash decision. I am also certain, that if he invades Iraq, this time the job will be done correctly, and the U.S. will not withdrawl until Hussen is dead. From what I understand (I was 12 during the Gulf War) we had the opportunity to get rid of Hussen once before, but he promised to behave. Well, we have seen how well thats gone over.

Also, a couple of other things, one, we are by far not the worst polluters. check china and asia. I think you will find that China has the highest rate of Pollution anywhere. Highest ammount of consumers, possibly, but then, most of our country works for a living. They drive cars, they ride buses, they fly, they do other things that require stuff like fuel, food, clothing. Yea, we buy a lot of stuff. So whats your point?

Anyway, guess I'll melt back in to the woodwork.

grandmasterjoel

09-04-2002, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by z911
does anybody think that maybe the US is ready for a new political party that is less big business oriented and more socially concerned (education, medicare, environment, etc...)? would such a party eventually fall victim to corporate lobbying during elections just like democrats and republicans? how can such a risk be avoided?

another party who's presidential candidate would not have his votes counted......

ill_bill

09-04-2002, 05:46 PM

I have something to say about this war on terrorism.

How can a country be fighting terrorism and support terrorism at the same time? When the US decided the certain governments in Central America weren’t to their liking what did they do? They armed rebels with American made weapons and turned them loose against established governments. Oh.. I forgot they were not terrorist they were fighting for democracy. Killing civilians in the name of freedom.

About Iraq. Yes I do believe they are attempting to develop nuclear weapons but how many governments aren't? Besides, nuclear weapons are very hard to produce. I believe china only has about 20 IcBMs and they've been at it for years. I think that it is safe to assume that Iraq has significantly less number of warheads if any.

If Iraq does have nuclear weapons, why would they do the equivalent of committing suicide by blowing up 2 or 3 western cities when we have thousands of such weapons at our disposal? Sadam didn't stay in power this long by being an idiot.

bogler

09-05-2002, 09:50 AM

is the seizure of Saudi oil.

America (and the West) is losing influence in Saudi.
More and more anti-West voices can be heard and the country is in the grip of some extremist ideology. Bin Laden is just one of these voices.

George Bush, Tony Blair et al are very aware of this change in Saudi attitudes and realse the need to ensure that oil supplies are not disrupted, now, or in the future.

The role of Saudi oil in all of this war talk cannot be ignored. They have 40% of World Oil supplies and have acted as a swing producer in the past (on behalf of the west to maintain an economically viable oil price). Western economies would be in big trouble if the price of cride was to triple overnight.

This is what it is all about, it has nothing to do with "a war on terrorism" indeed Blair and Bush are simply going to re-introduce their brand of "terrorism" on the innocent Iraquis once again.

Without direct control of Saudi oil, or the Saudi "Royal" family in the hip pocket, things start to look pretty desperate for the Oil guzzling West, especially if Saudi oil falls into the hands of a hardline Islamic anti West government in Saudi.

That is the real reason so remember that when the cruise missiles are raining down on Baghdad. It will happen. It has to.

bogler

Frith

09-05-2002, 12:16 PM

If Bush was really interested in fighting terrorism, he'd encourage companies to create alternate fuels so that we didn't have to rely on oil.

If we stopped buying oil from the middle east, all of their funds would dry up and they'd all go back to whatever it was that they were doing in the 12th century. :)

n3rxs

09-05-2002, 01:10 PM

No Iraq war, whaaaaa, this is from the same kinda Euro wingnuts that cried and begged for our involvement when Germany was kicking yer asses all over the place during 2 world wars.
Tell ya what, since you are all so damn certain that Sadam is no threat to anyone, even though history shows that he is.. I hope we do sit back and do nothing and when he gets his first ICBM, I hope he drops it in Europe.

n3rxs

09-05-2002, 01:14 PM

True and that's because the rest of the world are a bunch of pansey-assed sissies.

i2balls

09-05-2002, 01:30 PM

yeah just kill him and your problems will be solved ,it only takes one bullet,i thought problems were usually internal. And what was wrong with Hitler he was only trying to create an empire usually these people are imfamous thru history ,he just needed some money so he went to the source .Power goes with money or is it the other way round i seem to keep forgetting. They should just bring back batering.

money,money,money,must be funny

Syngin

09-05-2002, 06:37 PM

Good article, Godot.

I do have one point to make about it though:

Europeans insist they approach problems with greater nuance and sophistication. They try to influence others through subtlety and indirection. They are more tolerant of failure, more patient when solutions don’t come quickly. They generally favor peaceful responses to problems, preferring negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion to coercion.

Isn't that what England's PM Chamberlain did with Hitler? And didn't this attempt at diplomacy give Hitler the needed time to solidify his position on mainland Europe? Most political scientists feel it was a large blunder but then, hindsight is always 20/20 i guess.

bugfix

09-05-2002, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Frith
If Bush was really interested in fighting terrorism, he'd encourage companies to create alternate fuels so that we didn't have to rely on oil.

Rather than blocking moves in Johannasburg to encourage developing nations to use renewable sources? Surely that'd never be the case... :D

bugfix

09-05-2002, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by thayne
I say Nuke the bastard! Come on people SH is the biggest threat to civilized nations out there. He has to go!

Where's your evidence? I'm yet to see anything. Sure, I hear from our government that he's a bad bad man but I haven't heard or seen any recent proof that we should all of a sudden start another war.

Until I see something I'll reserve my judgement.

spacedog

09-05-2002, 07:04 PM

to bogler:
". The Iraqi army would see to that, it would elevate Saddam to martyr status."
are you kidding the minute the Mighty Iraqi army would see american soliders they would drop there weapons like they did in 91. if they were a threat in 91 which barely any americans died they are much weaker today
The US could go in onther own and take over the whole middle east (aside from israel)

bogler "The US has worked itself into a state of paranoia over Islam. "
Saddam hussien is not an islamic figure he has nothign to do with islam except he is a muslim. A war witth iraq has nothing to do with islam.

third bush didnt go to the earth summit because it would have been a waste of time. not the summit , but him going to the summit, he would have gotten booed through the whole thing... he may aswell of stayed home.. anyway those conferences never do anything anyway

stick to linux....

pcghost

09-05-2002, 07:15 PM

Come on, how fierce can the Iraqi Army be when their leaders have to put landmines around their positions to keep the "mighty" Iraqi Army from running like a beaten dog. Give me a break. Iraq was the 6th largest military force on Earth in 1991, but that quickly changed as the troops surrendered as our forces crossed the desert. Besides, the Iraqis have nothing but old Soviet Armor and weapons to combat the most technologically advanced fighting force in history. While tech doesn't exactly win wars, it makes a big difference in conventional combat.

I doubt you could find one soldier in our Army, or better still, our Marines, that is trembling at the idea of going up against the Iraqi Army. Hell Canada alone could beat them. (No offense to our Canadian friends, but they have never needed much of a military to defend their great nation)..

Let's give the Kuwaiti's Iraq, as kind of payback. Then the cheap oil will freeflow again, which is truely what this has been about from the beginning.

Oh, it's time for me to leave work and get into my oversized gas-guzzling SUV and drive 35 miles to my home, and smile all the way basking in my decadence. Welcome to the new world Europe. This thread needs to die out of sheer irrelevence....

--End of Rant--

Frith

09-05-2002, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by pcghost

Let's give the Kuwaiti's Iraq, as kind of payback.

I'd rather give Iraq to our allies, the Zionists. :D

jaygee432

09-05-2002, 08:22 PM

Just had a thought, the Taliban said they would turn over bin Laden if we "proved" he was involved with 911.

cpesq

09-06-2002, 12:22 PM

If you haven't yet heard, a missle/air defense base in Iraq was bombed by a mix of UK and US bombers. With support planes, the total task force involved about 100 planes. This is a precursor to Special Ops troops going in for some surgical maneuvering. The war on Irag begins.......

craigad

09-06-2002, 01:11 PM

Excuse me, can someone kick the s*** out of pcghost - for being such a dumb *** american, who can't see past the end of his nose?

The Yanks get woken up to the idea of terrorism in the world when it suddenly falls on their front door?.............of course it didn't exist before that, did it???

So they come up with a great solution - lets just make war with every body we *suspect* to be a terrorst.

So they rumble inot afghanistan - did they find him????? NOOOOOOO - cause thay are f***** useless in tyhe battle field. They maybe a lot of you - but you ain't got s*** for brains bewteen you!

Hmm let me think - how many blue on blue 'incidents' happened in the Gulf? How many were created by the Americans? God, you lot even made a damn film about it!

It is more dangerous being an ally of the US of A rather than an enemy.

pcghost - grow up!

Craig

pocar

09-06-2002, 01:11 PM

Stop watching cnn and get real!
This war will be a colonial war, only goal is money, so no hard national feelings.

And I don't believe that anyone in White House sleep bad because of that "evil" countries.

And war is not a good thing ...

cpesq

09-06-2002, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by craigad
Excuse me, can someone kick the s*** out of pcghost - for being such a dumb *** american, who can't see past the end of his nose?

The Yanks get woken up to the idea of terrorism in the world when it suddenly falls on their front door?.............of course it didn't exist before that, did it???

So they come up with a great solution - lets just make war with every body we *suspect* to be a terrorst.

So, what's your suggestion, Craig - get steamrolled by another fleet of suicide bombers. Had the planes been flown into parliament, or the beloved Westminster Abbey, or Big Ben, you would be singing a different tune.

So they rumble inot afghanistan - did they find him????? NOOOOOOO - cause thay are f***** useless in tyhe battle field. They maybe a lot of you - but you ain't got s*** for brains bewteen you!

So, Craig, where did you get your information that bin laden is still alive? How do you know he's not in pieces, buried under the rubble of some of those mountains? Maybe it's about time you got your head out of your a s s, looked around and realized that the world is not a cozy little place to go pub crawling, or sitting in the park feeding the ducks waiting for the next strike. It's about time somebody went on the offensive against those b a s t a r d s and stopped terroristic acts before they happen. Too bad your such a chicken s h i t, because Tony Blair is stepping up to the plate to take them on.

pcghost

09-06-2002, 01:30 PM

I must apologize for that last line in my last post. I was sick and tired of you (people of the "United" Kingdom) constantly bashing my nation and myself because you disagree with us. I disagree with the entire parlamentary government system, but you don't hear me calling you names and getting bent out of shape. I got frustrated before my last post and sunk to your level.. Won't happen again.

Could someone please rename this thread
"U.S. bashing party, click here. Europeans only please"

It would be more accurate....

craigad

09-06-2002, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by cpesq

So, Craig, where did you get your information that bin laden is still alive? How do you know he's not in pieces, buried under the rubble of some of those mountains? Maybe it's about time you got your head out of your a s s, looked around and realized that the world is not a cozy little place to go pub crawling, or sitting in the park feeding the ducks waiting for the next strike. It's about time somebody went on the offensive against those b a s t a r d s and stopped terroristic acts before they happen. Too bad your such a chicken s h i t, because Tony Blair is stepping up to the plate to take them on.

Tony Blair is the chiken **** 'yes' man, cause he won't stand up to the US and say 'no you are wrong' to take the action you have / atroke intend

craigad

09-06-2002, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by pcghost

Could someone please rename this thread
"U.S. bashing party, click here. Europeans only please"

It would be more accurate....

.............errr excuse me i think that the number of posts on this thread by non US citizens amounts to a handful. I do *not* call that a US basing party.

Trust trying to make a point that the US are not the Rosey nation they are trying to lead the rest of the world to believe!

craigad

09-06-2002, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by thayne
........they're just pissed cause we rule the world and they don't.... They don't like the fact that we make and execute all the decissions and they have no say in it :cool:

Thats just the kind of statement that gets the rest of the world hating America.

mychl

09-06-2002, 04:24 PM

Please allow me to say a few words.

First I would like to say that I somewhat agree with you brits. Americans - in general- live in fairy land becuase the information we get fed is diluted. many are unaware of the fact that there is a whole big world just outside of our borders. That does not make us all dumb though.

Also, the way the world is situated these past few decades leads to a logical reason why people who are NOT from the US know more about it's foreign policy and actions than people who ARE from the US.

When you live in America, you are 100% sheltered from anything you choose to be sheltered from. The main stories on the news are about the local high school football team and the old lady with all the cats down on 7th Ave. And then there will be a blurb about foreign affairs that make America out to be forever the victim of others hate.

So you see, it is very easy to fall into this trap, and even harder to get out of it. For as soon as you voice a negative opinion about the USA, you are a conspiracy nut or a terrorist sympathiser.

No kidding... I have spoken to people who absolutely will not even consider the evidence or possiblity that we let our government be an ahole in other parts of the world. It's really very scary.

The whole environmental summit is a great example. There *might* be a mention of the summit on the news, and many people do not even consider it. It's terrible.

So you see, while you people from smaller countries, who can see your foreign neighbors easily enough, it makes sense to be aware of the global community. But here in america, the global community is over shadowed with fanciful tales of crap.... and everyone loves it.

Oh, honey look at the TV, they're interviewing a serial killer!!! Start the VCR and call the kids!!!!

Sorry, I can't go out tonight cause OJ Simpson is on TV!!! he killed his wife, I gotta see this.

Things are kept simple for us over here if we let them be. There is nothing put in your face. To see any black marks on the hide of mrs. liberty, you actually have to work and dig.

That is the difference... for better or worse... that's what I think.

Now please flame me kindly my fellow americans, I know it's hard to swallow. Sheesh it's almost like being asked to take the red pill in the matrix.

Frith

09-06-2002, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by mychl
The whole environmental summit is a great example. There *might* be a mention of the summit on the news, and many people do not even consider it. It's terrible.

Wasn't the US representative booed off the stage during his speech even though he spoke the truth?

"In one country in this region, Zimbabwe, the lack of respect for human rights and rule of law has [helped] push millions of people toward the brink of starvation."

"Boooooooo!"

"In the face of famine, several governments in Southern Africa have prevented critical U.S. food assistance from being distributed to the hungry by rejecting biotech corn."

"Hisssssssss!"

How typical of treehuggers and Europeans. And how typical of Zimbabweans who simply can't understand that they need to eat food to keep themselves from starving. :rolleyes:

mychl

09-06-2002, 04:41 PM

There, you see what I mean. I am now labeled a treehugger becuase I voiced a negative opinion of my country. ( I can't wait until the 'if you dont' like it then leave' remarks show up)

And about the booing thing, probably, 'cause it should have been GW who was there. Oh that's right, he was on vacation... probably waiting to hear if there are any more clean air bills he can overturn.

I know, I know, I care more about the environment than war and violence... how screwed up are my priorities.....

Frith

09-06-2002, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by mychl
There, you see what I mean. I am now labeled a treehugger becuase I voiced a negative opinion of my country. ( I can't wait until the 'if you dont' like it then leave' remarks show up)

And about the booing thing, probably, 'cause it should have been GW who was there. Oh that's right, he was on vacation... probably waiting to hear if there are any more clean air bills he can overturn.

I know, I know, I care more about the environment than war and violence... how screwed up are my priorities.....

Does it bother you in the least that the US has attempted to alleviate some problems in third world countries and has made efforts to set realistic goals that would benefit mankind in the next 15 years?

The Kyoto pact was a load of nonsensical BS that pandered to people who couldn't have fulfilled the requirements in it anyhow.

Grognard

09-07-2002, 05:27 AM

The reason no one wants us to go to war with Iraq, is that we WILL win. And afterwards there will be a stable regime, which scares the sh*t out of those Saudi Terror lovers. They know that they are next since they are the money for almost all of world terrorism. If you really want the evil empire, look at the Saudi's. They need to go as well. Let Turkey and Jordan run Mecca.

z911

09-07-2002, 12:29 PM

this is President Carter's article about the war on Irak. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38441-2002Sep4.html)

thayne,

the fox news article mentions possible and potential buildings that could be used for dual role. It doesn't even refer to hard evidence or even reasonable evidence. what the US is doing right now is akin to declaring someone guilty until proven innocent. the US is using the September 11 anniversary to gather popular support for a new war in the middle east. this new war, like the previous one, is about oil not the fight against terrorism.

everybody keeps talking about Saddam Hussein being a mass murderer and Irak not abiding by UN resolutions. how come nobody does anything about Israel the undisputed champ of unrespected UN resolutions (over 65 since WWII)? Israel also possesses nuclear power and weapons of mass destruction for instance. that's a double standard. especially for arabs.

when Mordechai Vannunu, an Israeli citizen blew the whistle on Israel's secret nuclear program, he got thrown in jail and the matter muffled immediately. The US government is not defending the world against a dangerous terrorist ( which Saddam Hussein is in fact) it is just protecting its oil interest. Moreover, the US government could have toppled the Iraki regime the first time over but they didn't. why? to make sure they could go back once they needed a new war.

Go there for info Israel's secret nuclear program. (http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk)

z911

09-08-2002, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by thayne
So I guess we should just wait until he nukes someone? Would that be proof enough?

Whatever, I say nuke the ***** now.

I could care less what the isralies are doing, seems like everyone in the region is out to wipe them out of existance, so more power to them.

oh really? sounds like a very well learned opinion. so no need for proof. just go down there and kill thousands of people because you suspect he might have a nuclear weapon. and then you wonder why your government is hated in the arab world.

Irak is no danger anymore. it's been on its knees for over 10 years now. your government is looking for just another excuse to start a war that's really not needed. except of course by the oil and weapons corporations who got Bush elected president. Saddam Hussein will not go by force. it's too late for that. and it will cost too many civilian casualties. innocent people whom neither your government and the Iraki government care about.

The Iraki government might be a threat to the Israeli government. the US is doing Israel's dirty work. that's all. in fact, the US government is ready to go to war against Irak supposedly over UN resolution but will not budge about over 65 UN resolutions not respected by Israel, a long time rogue nation. your government is supporting the Israeli government which is no more than a fascist, racist and criminal government. there is nothing honourable about going to war against Irak. you'd be punishing the Iraki people, not the Iraki government. get your head out of the sand already.

skamania24

02-09-2003, 05:45 PM

I'm not sure I understand where it is you guys get the idea that the U.S. is overstepping its boundaries. I guarantee that any country that has had a terrorist act on it as devestating as Sept. 11 would change its position real quick. It isn't that the U.S. is show boating, flexing muscle, or anything else. The U.S. was attacked, and for this, the U.S. seeks retribution. For such a catastrophic thing to happen early on in his presidency, "dubya" has done a terrific job in leading his country.
I have great pride in this country and what it stands for. We give out billion$ in aid every year, and all we get is a kick in the *** for it. I say, why not look out for ourselves for a change. Nobody else is. And just keep in mind, everybody hates the U.S. until they need help. Then who do they turn to?

That's right.

GeekGuy

02-09-2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by skamania24
I guarantee that any country that has had a terrorist act on it as devestating as Sept. 11 would change its position real quick.

Given the amount of civillians the US has killed since they nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I'd say take your bloody noses and deal with it.

GeekGuy

02-09-2003, 10:08 PM

Don't forget the last nation to burn Washington to the ground WAS Canada :p ;)

So, you say the slaughter of civillians is OK, as long as that nation attacked first? Hardly logical.

If that is the case, the US should have been destroyed by the world coalition forces for Panama.

That is not the answer. War is not the answer. Every nation has its dirty laundry.

Rather than wanting Iraq oil, GW should be worried about N. Korea, Pakistan, India or Isreal starting the next WW :rolleyes:

pcghost

02-09-2003, 10:47 PM

[i]
Rather than wanting Iraq oil, GW should be worried about N. Korea, Pakistan, India or Isreal starting the next WW :rolleyes: [/B]

There can't be another World War. Europe has become a bunch of tea drinkin pacifists. God this thread is gettin old. :D

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 12:41 AM

if U.S. wants to go to war with Iraq, i say "GO FOR IT"......UN and everyone else should just sit back and let U.S. have a go at Iraq, since u guys are so blood hungry for war..........just go for it then, and leave everyone else out of it.............since u guys are mighty enough and don't need anyone else's help...........

oh, and thayne, since u're so gungho, have u signed up to serve yet?

jbstew32

02-10-2003, 12:48 AM

yeah clinton the new democrat who scaled down defense spending to make entities such as the CIA impotent...yeah where would we be without clinton? ill tell yah. We might have never had 9/11, never been attacked 2 other times by mr bin laden, and well, we wouldnt be having this Iraq situation right now...in all likely hood as it is stemed mostly from post 9/11 scare.

Yes, if only we could have clinton back...i'd like to see what else he could **** up.

dogn00dles

02-10-2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by medrewsclues
realyy if your an american you should listen to talk radio so you know what is really going on, dont just rely on the liberal news agencies.

I think it's weird how a bunch of conservatives on the radio (how come they all sound like they're from New York?) think of better reasons to go to war than the "liberal" (well, bomb-manufacturing liberals :) ) media.

jbstew32

02-10-2003, 12:49 AM

oh and for those worried about World War III, it isnt going to start in the middle east, its gonna start when North Korea becomes even more gungho.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 01:03 AM

oh and for those worried about World War III, it isnt going to start in the middle east, its gonna start when North Korea becomes even more gungho.

And the U.S. isn't getting more gungho?? or even worse, brazen??

dogn00dles

02-10-2003, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by thayne
[B
Sometimes war is the only answer, like it or not, sometimes that's all you can do.... Saddam has had 12 years to comply and disarm. He has not so we shall force him.

Your constant accusation that we are going after Iraq for oil is lame, tired, and without merit. Check the facts... [/B]

The facts are that the "euro" could destroy the American economy, and a 100 billion dollar war for 44 billion U.S. petro-dollars is VERY profitable, and much needed.

jbstew32

02-10-2003, 01:19 AM

This "lets just leave everybody else in the world alone so we can all have peace" mentality that you guys have doesnt work anymore....people dont fight with swords anymore.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 01:22 AM

Not this time, I was there the first time though So there! I'm an ex-marine 1985-1993 That gives me every right to talk about war... Whats yours?

that would make u much older than me........i served in my country's military for 2.5 years........1997 to 2000.

Seph64

02-10-2003, 01:34 AM

Remember folks, "Evil triumphs when good people do nothing." Hussein is evil, he is on his way to creating Nukes. He killed some of his own people.

I say, if Sadam won't disarm his country, we'll disarm it for him. Why should other countries fear Iraq? What's the point? Tell me why we shouldn't liberate the citizens of Iraq so they wouldn't have to fear what would happen to them if they defect to the other side (ours)?

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 01:43 AM

I say, if Sadam won't disarm his country, we'll disarm it for him. Why should other countries fear Iraq? What's the point? Tell me why we shouldn't liberate the citizens of Iraq so they wouldn't have to fear what would happen to them if they defect to the other side (ours)?

that would be good.........but i'm not convinced that Bush is pushing for war against iraq with the well being of iraqi citizens in mind..............

anyway, Seph64, your avatar's cute......Vash The Stampede from the "Trigun" anime series............he who believes that life is sacred. :D

GeekGuy

02-10-2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by thayne
Your constant accusation that we are going after Iraq for oil is lame, tired, and without merit. Check the facts...

I am not the only one with this view. Even world leaders are saying this like it's a fact and who are more educated on politics?

Don't you worry about N. Korea, we shall take care of that problem too.

I am afraid the US will.

Remember, no super power in history has ever remained "king of the hill" and is usually brought down with same measure as it treated its victims.

I just hope all the good US citizens don't all pay for their bureaucrat's stupidity with their lives.

I don't see you Canadians jumping in and trying to do anything about the Korean issue... Why is that?

Canada is a team player with the UN and always has been. If the UN sanctions an invasion of Iraq, you can count on Canadian blood being spilled along with American.

Korea will be no different.

Canada has backed up the US in almost every battle. Even when non-combatants, Canadian recon and technology has fed the US with intelligence.

Being friends with a heck of a lot more countries than the US makes us a valuable information resource :)

Mow

02-10-2003, 10:18 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see you Canadians jumping in and trying to do anything about the Korean issue... Why is that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Totally inaccurate....Canada has always been there when we needed them and will be there no matter what is decided on Iraq. They will be there too.....they are the silent supporters that every superpower needs.

Now what france, germany and belgium did to Turkey by vetoing their protection has me a little irritated today. I'm starting to wonder why France is so against getting rid of Saddam. I steadliy am starting to think of the line that goes something like this: "Methinks he protests too much"

MB[DK]

02-10-2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Mow

I'm starting to wonder why France is so against getting rid of Saddam.

muhahah, ahh american way of thinking comes in to play here:

Ummm yeah so if they are not with us..... Ummmm ehhhh oh yeah they must be against us then, lets say they are terrorists too, and bomb the **** out of 'em, now Billy Bob hand me another one of them brewskies and let's go a-hunting.....

Mow

02-10-2003, 01:06 PM

Ummm yeah so if they are not with us..... Ummmm ehhhh oh yeah they must be against us then, lets say they are terrorists too, and bomb the **** out of 'em, now Billy Bob hand me another one of them brewskies and let's go a-hunting.....

You are just an idiot plain and simple. I posted an honest question, you get defensive and start throwing insults. If all you're going to add is useless low-iq posts like that, then do your country a favor and don't post.

I for one will ignore your useless comments from now on.

Mow

02-10-2003, 02:18 PM

Yeah they will be silent supporters, but my point is why does the rest of the world expect the US to be the forfront country to take care of every little po-dunck dictator? Can't someone else take charge and lead the way sometimes?

From what I have heard the French have a lot of money, maybe questionable money, invested in Iraq in oil contracts, maybe in violation of the UN sanctions. Same thing with the russians

I agree with you and with your last statement that would make sense as to why they are so animate about us not going in. Even to the point of putting Turkey at risk.

One thing is for sure.....everything will come out sooner or later.

MB[DK]

02-10-2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Mow
You are just an idiot plain and simple. I posted an honest question, you get defensive and start throwing insults. If all you're going to add is useless low-iq posts like that, then do your country a favor and don't post.

I for one will ignore your useless comments from now on.

I attack anyone with posts like yours.
All this trying to badmouth europeans, because they are mature enough to try the peaceful solution first, is making me sick, and you are right up there.
So yes, any time you feel like making those idiotic posts, I will be here to posts equally lame replies, simply because I can.

dogn00dles

02-10-2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by thayne
Maybe we should nuke Canada next :p Don't you remeber, Japan started it! They invaded us! Have you forgot Perl Harbor? Maybe these wacko terrorist should have thought about that before they f-ed with us. Now they gonna pay just the the Empire of Japan did 60+ years ago.

Umm, We are dealing with it numb nuts, we're kicking theirs a$$es :D Haven't you been paying attention????

Maybe you Canadians "take your bloody noses", but what you all seem to not undestand is when someone gives use a bloody nose we rip their f-ing hearts out and stomp them into the dirt... Deal with that!

Yes, we made them pay all right. Killed their civilians, take their resources, and forgot about Bin Laden. As for the whole Iraq thing, we destroyed their civilian infrastructure, spread radiation all over their land, and killed millions of innocent people with bombing and sanctions, not even mentioning the thousands of U.S. soldiers who were experimented on and exposed to radiation and chemical weapons.

And we're doing this for the safety of the world, right? Let's send 600-800 cruise missiles to Iraq in 2 days, and kill thousands of innocents to protect the peace. Hell, why not just nuke every country except the U.S.? Because, after all, there is a possibility they could give nuclear arms to terrorists! When the Pentagon says that "there will not be a safe place in Baghdad," you'd better believe it. There's 2 million children there...but I'm sure that if we killed them the world would be much safer.

Whose asses are we kicking, cowboy? And why?

Mow

02-10-2003, 08:15 PM

I attack anyone with posts like yours.
All this trying to badmouth europeans, because they are mature enough to try the peaceful solution first, is making me sick, and you are right up there.
So yes, any time you feel like making those idiotic posts, I will be here to posts equally lame replies, simply because I can.

Okay I need to address your hypocrosy then I will ignore you.........I was being cordial, no name calling or bad mouthing EU at all. Just a lot of unanswered questions. YOU were the one that broke into personal attacks and insults not me. YOU are the one being a child.

EU's decision has ZERO to do with being mature. To think that is just plain ludicrous and blind (which you so animately pointed out that we Americans were doing when you're blatantly doing the exact thing you are flaming about).....it all has to do with business plain and simple.

You obviously lack the ability to comprehend intelligent thoughts so as I said, I will ignore you from now on.......but know this, it's posters like you that disgrace the EU and make all the anti-EU posters tick.

Here let me put it in words I think someone of your low-IQ can even understand........you're a chump and a patsy and not worth the time it took to type this.

France being mature.........man now I've heard it all. And the sad thing is most Americans LIKE/LOVE the EU.......but leave it to you single celled amoeba to ruin that.

jbstew32

02-10-2003, 08:58 PM

i dont know whether its jealousy or what that these people have against Americans...is it because we stand up to our word? Your damn countries have agreed time and time again over resolutions, but when it comes down to the final word of actual violance EVERYTHING changes to "oh lets give them another chance"

We arent "cowboys" we are just doing what we said we would do, nothing less. We arent doing this for any oil, or even the well being of the Iraqi citizens, and we sure as hell arent doing it just to blow some **** up.

We are not seeking to expand out borders, steal Saddams wealth, or anything else....except to protect the well-being of our country and its allies. Saddam pays suicide bombers' families for terrorism, **** him. Saddam seeks to ready uranium for a fission bomb, **** him. Saddam wants to play hide and seek when the rest of the world is serious about security, **** him.

I am sure no American will disagree.

excuse the language, this is my last post on the matter against these naive Europeans. The fact is your countries stand to lose when Iraq goes down, so you dont want it...the risk of a nuke being parked by the Eiffel Tower is fine for you, as long as you profit I assume

jbstew32

02-10-2003, 09:13 PM

LOL Damn, you're an idiot! Everything you wrote is crap and doesn't deserve a real response.... This whole thread is so pointless. It's like trying to explain quantum physics to a toad....

That about sums it up

dogn00dles

02-10-2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by thayne
LOL Damn, you're an idiot! Everything you wrote is crap and doesn't deserve a real response.... This whole thread is so pointless. It's like trying to explain quantum physics to a toad....

"The nationalist not only does not approve of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

-George Orwell

:D

pl1ght

02-10-2003, 09:34 PM

Just dont go making conclusions this is the US. This is Bush and his crew. The majority of Americans are against a WAR. But apparently our "esteemed" president doesnt care. Its a personal vendetta.

mocnicom

02-10-2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by jbstew32
....people dont fight with swords anymore.
I wish we still fought with swords, that would make things alot better. Guns and bombs are for pansies, anyone who thinks they are truly brave ought to fight without these. Hmm that makes me think about something... with the consevative american governments and lobbies so against "immoral" genetic research, then they may find themselves in the predicament of thier guns being the primative weapons, and the less christian extremist countires will be the next superpowers with super soldier, smart virii etc. Power is not so easy, it sometimes will teach you a lesson for your arrogance.
Man you guys are too serious about mere ineffectual talking. None of you are going to change anyones minds here, so why not be less serious. Don't divide yourselves needlessly...Or if these issues are so important to you then do something effective about it. Example: if you "thik europeens are lozers" then go outside and kick the *** of the next foreigner you see, or shut up. OR: if you think that americans are arrogant and are attacking Iraq for oil, then boycott american products, or put up a sign on your windows making some childish insult.

Damn, I think I need some sleep, normally I wouldn't have such inconsitancy to a post. Or maybe the **** music i'm listening to is pissing me off into stupidity.

jbstew32

02-11-2003, 12:11 AM

im arguing for fun, and to learn why these people think the way they do when it makes absolutely no sense...

personally I dont care if some guy in the UK thinks we are cowboys...all i have to say is "yippi ky yah mother****er" (best movie ever)

williamwbishop

02-11-2003, 02:36 AM

You guys need to relax, and raise a pint amongst yourselves. A few points. To the gentleman who asked why we must take the forefront with the Iraq thing and why no one else could. Simple, we put saddam in power, he's our colonial...therefore our mess to clean up. Second, france. True, they are an arrogant lot, but then again so are we. Not everyone who doesn't support us on a particular POINT, doesn't support us overall. To say that anyone who disagrees with one thing that we do is against us is silly. Skip all the dick comparisons about who saved who in such and such war...All that is behind, it's in the past. So what if france doesn't support the war in iraq....a lot of people don't. It's their RIGHT. Next point, no one is suggesting that we are going to nuke the world, to keep america on top, they are responding to a rather hypocritical world view of "for IT or against US".

Last point.....Beer is the only common denominator that is the same around the world, have a drink and lighten up.

slapNUT

02-11-2003, 02:56 AM

Billie badass If you were important then I would have something to laugh at

do_guh_new

02-11-2003, 03:05 AM

All this trying to badmouth europeans, because they are mature enough to try the peaceful solution first

Ya europeans really do have a history of trying to find a peaceful solution :rolleyes:

MB[DK]

02-11-2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Mow
Okay I need to address your hypocrosy then I will ignore you.........I was being cordial, no name calling or bad mouthing EU at all. Just a lot of unanswered questions. YOU were the one that broke into personal attacks and insults not me. YOU are the one being a child.

EU's decision has ZERO to do with being mature. To think that is just plain ludicrous and blind (which you so animately pointed out that we Americans were doing when you're blatantly doing the exact thing you are flaming about).....it all has to do with business plain and simple.

You obviously lack the ability to comprehend intelligent thoughts so as I said, I will ignore you from now on.......but know this, it's posters like you that disgrace the EU and make all the anti-EU posters tick.

Here let me put it in words I think someone of your low-IQ can even understand........you're a chump and a patsy and not worth the time it took to type this.

France being mature.........man now I've heard it all. And the sad thing is most Americans LIKE/LOVE the EU.......but leave it to you single celled amoeba to ruin that.

The fact that I don't care, should annoy the hell out of you.
But it's nice to see you don't refrain from personal attacks of such childish proportions, I make a "funny" post, and you post crap like that. Now this is good fun. Proved my point you did.