NationStates Jolt Archive

What has happened to all of the respect that both the US had and that the US gave to their soldiers. Think about it.

After WW2 the US was one of the most (if not the most) respected countries in the world, now people are burnong our flag for fun. It may be that we have faught unneccesary battles but we still saved the world with the help of the other Allies (Britain, Canada, USSR, Brazil, India which was occupied by Britain, and Australia).

Also, back in WW2 our soldiers were referred to as our brothers. Now we call them evil for dying to protect our freedoms.

I may sound a bit stupid but please tell me where we lost all of this.

How come Rome/Spain/France/Britain aren't powerful any more?

Circumstances change, get over it.

What has happened to all of the respect that both the US had and that the US gave to their soldiers. Think about it.

After WW2 the US was one of the most (if not the most) respected countries in the world, now people are burnong our flag for fun. It may be that we have faught unneccesary battles but we still saved the world with the help of the other Allies (Britain, Canada, USSR, Brazil, India which was occupied by Britain, and Australia).

Also, back in WW2 our soldiers were referred to as our brothers. Now we call them evil for dying to protect our freedoms.

I may sound a bit stupid but please tell me where we lost all of this.
The major loss was during 9/12/01 and until now when the US betrayed the world's good will and managed to overthrow 2 sovereign nations. One against the will of the international community.

What I may sound a bit stupid but please tell me where we lost all of this.
Depends on who you ask, but certain factors are.
MacCarthy
House of Unamerican Activities
Helping Anti-Communist but uber-right wingers into power (eg Pinochet).
Attack democratic nations on pretense of them being un-democratic.
Fear engendered in the American people about the Red Menace (their only two days drive from the Texas border).
Occasionally acts unilaterally.
Seems self serving, will not keep other nations in mind.
Demands respect rather then tries to earn it.

The major loss was during 9/12/01 and until now when the US betrayed the world's good will and managed to overthrow 2 sovereign nations. One against the will of the international community.

The Taliban were NOT a sovereign government....they were only recognized by two other countries as a government at all.

The Taliban were NOT a sovereign government....they were only recognized by two other countries as a government at all.
Which means Afghanistan is up for grabs by the US?

Which means Afghanistan is up for grabs by the US?
I see an easy to justify way to take over the world.
The Taliban were NOT a sovereign government....they were only recognized by two other countries as a government at all.
Pray tell what they were then.

What has happened to all of the respect that both the US had and that the US gave to their soldiers. Think about it.

After WW2 the US was one of the most (if not the most) respected countries in the world, now people are burnong our flag for fun. It may be that we have faught unneccesary battles but we still saved the world with the help of the other Allies (Britain, Canada, USSR, Brazil, India which was occupied by Britain, and Australia).
The constant whining about how you saved the world, pretty pretentiouse since you didnt enter till 1941, and the always popular you owe us. Also the new media like the internet, where people actually can find the info to form their own opinion. Rather then getting it from pro US news sourcses. Thats making people wake up and smell the coffee. And it's at least a week old.

I see an easy to justify way to take over the world.

Pray tell what they were then.

They were a rebel group that held 90% of the country in an iron grip. The other groups making up the northern alliance. They had not real "president" and had a system of "warlords" who ruled their areas as they saw fit. Hardly a "nation" at all.

They were a rebel group that held 90% of the country in an iron grip. The other groups making up the northern alliance. They had not real "president" and had a system of "warlords" who ruled their areas as they saw fit. Hardly a "nation" at all.
Other then the Taliban beeing driven out of Kabul nothing realy changed. Since the Taliban still exist and so do the warlords. Who still rule the country side which they occupy as they see fit.

Terrorism is what happened to it.

And who is seen as the terrorist these days?

The US army.

Can' t respect terrorists, can you?

The US did NOT save the world. If the world was to break out in war again, I hope the US stays OUT of it as we really should have in WWI AND WWII. Such a waste and what did it get us in the end? A status we did not seek.

They were a rebel group that held 90% of the country in an iron grip. The other groups making up the northern alliance. They had not real "president" and had a system of "warlords" who ruled their areas as they saw fit. Hardly a "nation" at all.

So US was like that before the civil war, although they were a bit nicer to their people.

They were a rebel group that held 90% of the country in an iron grip. The other groups making up the northern alliance. They had not real "president" and had a system of "warlords" who ruled their areas as they saw fit. Hardly a "nation" at all.
But how does this not make them a government?

As you said, they ruled 90% of the country, so why are they not considered a government?

So US was like that before the civil war, although they were a bit nicer to their people.

You might want to study some US history....this makes no sense whatsoever.

But how does this not make them a government?

As you said, they ruled 90% of the country, so why are they not considered a government?

because the fighting had not stopped....and since only two countries in the entire world recognized them as the rulers of the country...I would hardly call them the government. Your own country did not agree that they were a government.

because the fighting had not stopped....and since only two countries in the entire world recognized them as the rulers of the country...I would hardly call them the government. Your own country did not agree that they were a government.
So what if they were recognised by only 2 others? Are those 2 not sovereign nations? Or does it take US recognition before it becomes legitimate?

So what if they were recognised by only 2 others? Are those 2 not sovereign nations? Or does it take US recognition before it becomes legitimate?

Ok. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recognized them...the other 200+ nations did not.....so what does that mean?

Ok. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recognized them...the other 200+ nations did not.....so what does that mean?
That 2 independant states recognised them. Which gives them the title of government.

because the fighting had not stopped....and since only two countries in the entire world recognized them as the rulers of the country...I would hardly call them the government. Your own country did not agree that they were a government.
Would you say the Russia is a country?

If only two countries recognised them [the Taliban] as rulers, why were we [the people of the western nations] promised that they would be removed from power?
The fact that they were not recognised by the majority of nations does not mean that they were not a government. Would you say China, after Mao's revolution was not a country?

"I would hardly call them the government"

What would you call them?

That 2 independant states recognised them. Which gives them the title of government.

Well, one could look at it that way...but I would think that if the majority of the world says they are NOT a legitimate government then they aren't in the worlds opinion.

Well, one could look at it that way...but I would think that if the majority of the world says they are NOT a legitimate government then they aren't in the worlds opinion.
If the majority of the world says you are not a human, are you not a human?

Yes.. but who says their vision of government is the same as yours?.. :p

Who says it's up to you to determine the vision of what a government should be?..

But what is government, really?

(Damn TOK.. *smacks self with shoe*)

;)

Well, one could look at it that way...but I would think that if the majority of the world says they are NOT a legitimate government then they aren't in the worlds opinion.
Like Americans care about the worlds opinion.
If the majority of the world says the Iraq war is injust, the Americans say it is just and thats the end of it.
They were the legitimate government.

Look....not ONE other country recognised Afganistan as a governed nation except pakistan and Saudi Arabia...therefore they are the only two who could argue that the US invaded a sovereign nation...no other country can say that because they did not give them the same distiction.

Ok, this has broken down once again to arguing over this or that....facts mean nothing to those who disagree with them...I need to get going anyway....scuba diving in 2 hours. ;)

Look....not ONE other country recognised Afganistan as a governed nation except pakistan and Saudi Arabia...therefore they are the only two who could argue that the US invaded a sovereign nation...no other country can say that because they did not give them the same distiction.
Why? Because we have to agree with our governments?

Ok, this has broken down once again to arguing over this or that....facts mean nothing to those who disagree with them...I need to get going anyway....scuba diving in 2 hours

Where abouts do you dive?

Can we please get back on topic?

One more stick on the fire. It doesn't matter if the Taliban was a legitimate government or not. The reason we went to Afghanistan was because a faction in that country and supported by its leaders attacked us on our own soil and killed 3000 civilians. That was when we decided to take them up on their declaration of war.

Why? Because we have to agree with our governments?



Where abouts do you dive?

No, you don't have to agree, but you must at least know your governments position since it represents you.

We are diving a wreck off Daytona Beach today....a freighter sunk in WWII by german U-Boat. It is in 80 feet of water.

It may be that we have faught unneccesary battles but we still saved the world with the help of the other Allies (Britain, Canada, USSR, Brazil, India which was occupied by Britain, and Australia).


K, here I go again:

America always reminds us of the fact that “they saved our ass” during the Second World War. They seem to forget that indirectly, we saved their ass to. Thanks to the American investments to rebuild Europe, we had the capital to become the world’s biggest importers of American products. We payed our price, you can be sure of that.

We're not obliged to show eternal respect, because of the World War.

Can we please get back on topic?
I have already provided some possibilities.

We are diving a wreck off Daytona Beach today....a freighter sunk in WWII by german U-Boat. It is in 80 feet of water.

Sounds better then the coast of Wales (where visibility is about a foot)

Whats the issue with afghanistan?

ya, there were al quida operatives there, the US messed up its military operations and they all escaped.

it might not have been pretty, but afghanistan is achually pretty justifiable.

I have already provided some possibilities.



Sounds better then the coast of Wales (where visibility is about a foot)

We get about 50 feet visibility here but the best part is that the water is about 85 degrees....so no need for a wetsuit...just a dive skin.

Thanks to the American investments to rebuild Europe, we had the capital to become the world’s biggest importers of American products.


Achually, Canada is the biggest importer of American Products

We get about 50 feet visibility here but the best part is that the water is about 85 degrees....so no need for a wetsuit...just a dive skin.
:jealous:

:wants to move to America:

K, here I go again:

America always reminds us of the fact that “they saved our ass” during the Second World War. They seem to forget that indirectly, we saved their ass to. Thanks to the American investments to rebuild Europe, we had the capital to become the world’s biggest importers of American products. We payed our price, you can be sure of that.

We're not obliged to show eternal respect, because of the World War.

Nope...we did not save anyone...we helped to fight a common enemy...the US is NOT the world's savior nor do we NEED to be or WANT to be.

Achually, Canada is the biggest importer of American Products
Is that taking the whole of Europe into consideration? Or are you dealing simply on the basis of individual nations?

:jealous:

:wants to move to America:

Well....the Keys are even better....100+ foot vis and water temps closer to 90 degrees....but for REAL diving...Cozumel Mexico. 200+ foot vis and a 4 knot drift. I can get almost 1 1/2 hours on an 80 CF tank....

Is that taking the whole of Europe into consideration? Or are you dealing simply on the basis of individual nations?

probably dividing into individual nations...

I think individually we get between 25-40% of American exports...

I think, and im too lazy to look it up

Nope...we did not save anyone...we helped to fight a common enemy...the US is NOT the world's savior nor do we NEED to be or WANT to be.

Well, maybe you really see it like this...but in past Americans told me several times "we saved your ass", so maybe you can understand my frustration a bit.

Fighting a common enemy sounds much better and not so arrogant :)

Well, maybe you really see it like this...but in past Americans told me several times "we saved your ass", so maybe you can understand my frustration a bit.

Fighting a common enemy sounds much better and not so arrogant :)

Well, ok I have to admit: it doesn't sound arrogant at all :p

Well, maybe you really see it like this...but in past Americans told me several times "we saved your ass", so maybe you can understand my frustration a bit.

Fighting a common enemy sounds much better and not so arrogant :)

Well, there are always people everywhere who take extremes..I had people in England when I lived there tell me that the US did nothing to help out...so there are always going to be those people out there.

The US was one of the ALLIED nations...not the ONLY nation fighting the AXIS partners.

Whats the issue with afghanistan?

ya, there were al quida operatives there, the US messed up its military operations and they all escaped.

it might not have been pretty, but afghanistan is achually pretty justifiable.

Pretty justifiable?! And if you think they all escaped, you need to read the news once in a while. To date, we have capture over 70% of the al quida operatives involved. The one that has escaped (so far) is Bin Laden...but he isn't the do all over there any more. He's staying to busy running and hiding and trying to save his butt. His cause goes on, however, all over the world, and we WILL track the Bin Laden wannabees down and take them down. We will not be caught unawares again. Wake up people!! This is WWIII and our common enemy is not within any particular borders.

What has happened to all of the respect that both the US had and that the US gave to their soldiers. Think about it.

After WW2 the US was one of the most (if not the most) respected countries in the world, now people are burnong our flag for fun. It may be that we have faught unneccesary battles but we still saved the world with the help of the other Allies (Britain, Canada, USSR, Brazil, India which was occupied by Britain, and Australia).

Also, back in WW2 our soldiers were referred to as our brothers. Now we call them evil for dying to protect our freedoms.

I may sound a bit stupid but please tell me where we lost all of this.

For starters, very few people burn flags "for fun". They burn them as a sign of protest and because they understand how this is perceived in America. It is akin to somebody deliberatly using an inflamatory word (e.g the N-word) to insult somebody because you know that it will raise a certain level of anger. A middle finger salute that is totally unambiguous as to who it is directed at.

And arguing "Ok - sure we did some bad stuff - but look at the good we did!" is valid on some higher levels, however you have to bear in mind that to the people who were on the recieving end of the bad - the good is irrelevent from a personal standpoint. They know what happened to them personally. e.g: People in Iraq KNOW you supported Hussein for decades while they suffered. Know you played both sides of the Iran - Iraq war thereby adding to the misery. Know that they were held under brutal sanctions for years against the very treaty you signed to end the first gulf war which directed you to phase our sanctions in parallel with the disarmament process. A lot of disarmament went on, no sanctions were ever relaxed. And they know that no matter how hard you might have tried to limit civilian deaths during the invasion, there are a LOT of families that lost loved ones.

But you expect these people to go "gosh - but look at all the humanitarian aid going to Haiti"? That is unreasonable.

As to the lack of respect for the military by other Americans - you can trace that back to Vietnam. I don't care to try and cover the entire movement at the time, but that is where the "baby-killers" BS started. It was unfair then and it is unfair now, but it has lingered in the popular psyche ever since.

You can take individuals to task for their actions if they cross the line, however painting a whole group of people who put their lives on the line for the country is disgusting. Some people do try and denigrate the soldiers for fighting just be cause they disagree with the war. that is directing the anger in exactly the wrong place. Soldiers take orders to go to war. If you have complaints about those orders then point them at the source.


You haven't LOST anything that can't be regained. However this administration sure hasn't helped with the external perception of America. Your internal viewpoints you will have to take care of yourself.

-Z-

:jealous:

:wants to move to America:

An EXCELLENT dive site....going there next month with my GF when she returns from Japan...

http://www.pennekamppark.com/

Pretty justifiable?! And if you think they all escaped, you need to read the news once in a while. To date, we have capture over 70% of the al quida operatives involved. The one that has escaped (so far) is Bin Laden...but he isn't the do all over there any more. He's staying to busy running and hiding and trying to save his butt. His cause goes on, however, all over the world, and we WILL track the Bin Laden wannabees down and take them down. We will not be caught unawares again. Wake up people!! This is WWIII and our common enemy is not within any particular borders.

ummmm, no

The purpose of going into afghanistan was to disassemble the al quida presence there AND to capture Osama (the biggest mission in fact)

regardless of how many opperatives they captured, they did not capture enough (if any) key operatives to do any real harm to the al quida network.

Well, there are always people everywhere who take extremes..I had people in England when I lived there tell me that the US did nothing to help out...so there are always going to be those people out there.

The US was one of the ALLIED nations...not the ONLY nation fighting the AXIS partners.

Well that must have been good for some frustration too...

What I find remarkable, is that when you talk with older people here in the country -like my grandparents for example- , that they are pretty shocked if you say anything bad about Americans, because for them Americans will always be those boys that fought for our freedom and died miles away from home. It tells something bout the impact this whole war had on their lives I guess.
Younger people tend to be more critical.

Well that must have been good for some frustration too...

What I find remarkable, is that when you talk with older people here in the country -like my grandparents for example- , that they are pretty shocked if you say anything bad about Americans, because for them Americans will always be those boys that fought for our freedom and died miles away from home. It tells something bout the impact this whole war had on their lives I guess.
Younger people tend to be more critical.

Thats true...France seems to really hate us right now, but the people of Normandy just love the US....depends on the circumstances.

When DeGaulle demanded that ALL US troops leave France he was asked if that included those buried in Normandy...and he answered with silence. That said it all really...but I have heard that the US flag has been removed from the cemetary as of late, but I cannot confirm this.

When DeGaulle demanded that ALL US troops leave France he was asked if that included those buried in Normandy...and he answered with silence. That said it all really...but I have heard that the US flag has been removed from the cemetary as of late, but I cannot confirm this.

As a statement? Sounds rude. It would surprise me...
You can hear a lot about WW2, but it was from the moment I visited one of those cemetaries, I started to understand how serious it must have been.
Made a lot of impression on me as a child.

ummmm, no

The purpose of going into afghanistan was to disassemble the al quida presence there AND to capture Osama (the biggest mission in fact).

As it is known that Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, and as Pakistan will not give us permission to "invade" that area, how do you propose that we capture him without violating Pakistan's rights? Simply, by doing what we are currently doing...waiting for him to make a mistake. Regardless, his fangs have pretty much been pulled.

regardless of how many opperatives they captured, they did not capture enough (if any) key operatives to do any real harm to the al quida network.

What we have done is much like when you attack a hornet's nest. You see a few hundred of the little beasts and you disable them. Then thousands more come pouring out. They were no less dangerous...they just weren't obvious. Now the terrorists are announcing their presence all over the world. They were just as dangerous before, but now we are being able to find them and deal with them. This isn't a matter that can be handled in just a few weeks, or even a few years. This is a cancer that has been growing for decades...and it's going to take a lot of pain to get rid of it.

Is that taking the whole of Europe into consideration? Or are you dealing simply on the basis of individual nations?

According to the CIA world factbook, the US's exports to
Canada 23.2%, Mexico 14.1%, Japan 7.4%, UK 4.8%

Now, checking the Census Bureau Stats (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/index.html), that 23.2% by the Canada was $160B for '02.

Fortunately, they also include regional stats so you can find

Western Europe 2002: 157B

The definition of Western Europe (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/guide/sec5.html) is:
Western Europe - Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta and Gozo, Macedonia, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Spain, Svalbard, Jan Mayen Island, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, Vatican City.

So, regarding the countries helped out by the Marshall Plan - which was the original premise when it was being described as a return on investment on "Thanks to the American investments to rebuild Europe" - then the sum total still falls short of Canada.

If, however, you want to look at the current situation including Eastern Europe, then yes Europe now takes in more US exports than Canada does.


Of course, if you want to pro-rate that on a per-capita basis...

As a statement? Sounds rude. It would surprise me...
You can hear a lot about WW2, but it was from the moment I visited one of those cemetaries, I started to understand how serious it must have been.
Made a lot of impression on me as a child.

Oh he said it alright...it was in the 1960's when he seperated France from NATO militarily.

I have been to those cemetaries too, it is quite a sight to be sure.

Time for me to head to the beach for my dive trip, just know that not EVERY American will tell you that the US "saved" the world...we are not capable of doing that alone. No country is or ever will be able to do that.

When the public becomes apathetic to a cause, those people will commonly take it out on the first line of action of that cause.

In the case of the US, many citizens are apathetic to the war on terrorism and in Iraq, thus, they take it out on the first line of attack: The soliders fighting both.

What happened to respect? Bush, Clinton(Not to Bad) and Bush again.


We can't forget Watergate or Somalia.

But what do I know I'm only 14.

What has happened to all of the respect that both the US had and that the US gave to their soldiers. Think about it.

After WW2 the US was one of the most (if not the most) respected countries in the world, now people are burnong our flag for fun. It may be that we have faught unneccesary battles but we still saved the world with the help of the other Allies (Britain, Canada, USSR, Brazil, India which was occupied by Britain, and Australia).

Also, back in WW2 our soldiers were referred to as our brothers. Now we call them evil for dying to protect our freedoms.

I may sound a bit stupid but please tell me where we lost all of this.

*wondering if he's asking a question he already knows the answer to*

george bush happened to it.

the world was behind us when we invaded afghanistan. the world was ready to fight terrorism and we all made huge progress in removing terrorists not only from afghanistan but in countries where they had lived in the semi-open for many years. (as in spain)

then george bush decided that he had to invade iraq, a country that had never done anything to us. on lies that he knew were lies. in a situation that had no urgency.

when our close allies objected, he did nothing to appease them. he was arrogant. he, and we, dissed them as if they were some kind of traitors when all they were doing was to press their own national interest.

you can not slap your allies in the face and expect them to be happy about it. you cannot invade countries,with no urgent need, no matter how vile the regime, and expect the world to applaud you.

if we are going to act like the owners of the world, we are going to have to expect to get some reaction to it. that reaction is to have us and our military dissed and to have our flag burned by those who have no other way to get our attention.

when we are no longer the good guys we will not be treated like good guys. we will be treated like the bullies we are fast becoming in the world

As it is known that Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, and as Pakistan will not give us permission to "invade" that area, how do you propose that we capture him without violating Pakistan's rights? Simply, by doing what we are currently doing...waiting for him to make a mistake. Regardless, his fangs have pretty much been pulled.

ya, i do think America should invade pakistan if he is there. But not the same way they did Iraq/Afghanistan. Make it a special forces op.


What we have done is much like when you attack a hornet's nest. You see a few hundred of the little beasts and you disable them. Then thousands more come pouring out. They were no less dangerous...they just weren't obvious. Now the terrorists are announcing their presence all over the world. They were just as dangerous before, but now we are being able to find them and deal with them. This isn't a matter that can be handled in just a few weeks, or even a few years. This is a cancer that has been growing for decades...and it's going to take a lot of pain to get rid of it.

i agree

When DeGaulle demanded that ALL US troops leave France he was asked if that included those buried in Normandy...and he answered with silence. That said it all really...but I have heard that the US flag has been removed from the cemetary as of late, but I cannot confirm this.

Does USA allow any foreign troops to have military base on its soil? When DeGaulle demanded american troops to leave, it just mean that France does not allow any military force on its soil but its own.

You are shoked that when asked if it included soldier burried in Normandie DeGaulle kept silent?
I am shoked that any person would use dead soldier as argument in the settlement of military force on foreign soil.

P.S.: The american flag is still flying above every military cemetary ( WW1 & WW2), that will never change!
France is certainly less antiamerican than america anti France of late.

*wondering if he's asking a question he already knows the answer to*

george bush happened to it.

the world was behind us when we invaded afghanistan. the world was ready to fight terrorism and we all made huge progress in removing terrorists not only from afghanistan but in countries where they had lived in the semi-open for many years. (as in spain)

then george bush decided that he had to invade iraq, a country that had never done anything to us. on lies that he knew were lies. in a situation that had no urgency.

when our close allies objected, he did nothing to appease them. he was arrogant. he, and we, dissed them as if they were some kind of traitors when all they were doing was to press their own national interest.

you can not slap your allies in the face and expect them to be happy about it. you cannot invade countries,with no urgent need, no matter how vile the regime, and expect the world to applaud you.

if we are going to act like the owners of the world, we are going to have to expect to get some reaction to it. that reaction is to have us and our military dissed and to have our flag burned by those who have no other way to get our attention.

when we are no longer the good guys we will not be treated like good guys. we will be treated like the bullies we are fast becoming in the world


I know this is only my opinion, but Bush Jr. wanted to get back at Iraq for making his father, Bush Sr., look like the idiot he was (and still is) when he was president.

Now as for why we (Americans) and the rest of the world look down on US soliders - the Vietnam war. Again - my opinion.

I know this is only my opinion, but Bush Jr. wanted to get back at Iraq for making his father, Bush Sr., look like the idiot he was (and still is) when he was president.

Now as for why we (Americans) and the rest of the world look down on US soliders - the Vietnam war. Again - my opinion.

i dont think that americans DO look down on us soldiers. i think we are ashamed of the way returning soldiers were treated in vietnam.

even those who think that invading iraq was immoral (me) still feel that our soldiers are doing an amazing job in brutal circumstances.

i couldnt be more proud of our soldiers.

I am sorry. I should have worded my reponse better. I didn't mean to imply that all Americans look down on our soldiers - but there seems to be many that do..... Maybe they are just more vocal then those who still respect them and the job they do.

I, myself, do still respect them. Probably because over half of my family is (or has been) in the military. One of my brothers served 2 terms of tour during Vietnam and he will always be a hero to me..... not because he fought in the war - but because he of who he is......

I know this is only my opinion, but Bush Jr. wanted to get back at Iraq for making his father, Bush Sr., look like the idiot he was (and still is) when he was president.

Bush Sr. wasn't allowed to go further(ie. remove Saddam from power), WHY? Remember that it was a coalition force made up of a number of Arab countries(which were opposed to removing Saddam at that time, not to mention the present).

Bush Jr., decided to fight a war to remove Saddam now, rather than 5-10 years in the future. Saddam WAS re-arming(despite UN sanctions), ask France, Russia, Germany. Not to mention his blatant refusal to allow UN inspectors into the country.

Bush Sr. wasn't allowed to go further(ie. remove Saddam from power), WHY? Remember that it was a coalition force made up of a number of Arab countries(which were opposed to removing Saddam at that time, not to mention the present).

Bush Jr., decided to fight a war to remove Saddam now, rather than 5-10 years in the future. Saddam WAS re-arming(despite UN sanctions), ask France, Russia, Germany. Not to mention his blatant refusal to allow UN inspectors into the country.

He has the right to deny access into his country. He took Iraq out of the UN thus meaning he is no part of it and he has the right to deny access to UN Inspectors. No I'm not on his side. Yes he did do allot of bad things.

I am sorry. I should have worded my reponse better. I didn't mean to imply that all Americans look down on our soldiers - but there seems to be many that do..... Maybe they are just more vocal then those who still respect them and the job they do.

I, myself, do still respect them. Probably because over half of my family is (or has been) in the military. One of my brothers served 2 terms of tour during Vietnam and he will always be a hero to me..... not because he fought in the war - but because he of who he is......

actually i DO see certain americans looking down on our soldiers. not because of the job they are doing but because they assume that our military is composed of those who had no other options but join the military.

as if the type of person who joins is not as good as they are but is some kind of lowlife who just didnt know any better

i hate this attitude. thank god for the men and women who are willing to risk their lives to defend their country no matter what reason they had for joining. they do an amazing job in a dangerous world. what would we do without them?

I fully respect the soldiers and always will no matter the cause. Without them the US would not be free today. My brother, went to college for 4 years had a good job but still joined the Marines. So that there proves that not everyone joining has no idea what they are doing. My brother joined to fight in Afganistain because they(Taliban) killed thousands of American civilians including his life-long friend.

I might also mention my cousin joined the National Guard to get through college so he could get a good job and live his life like he wants. He was sent to Iraq last year.

He has the right to deny access into his country. He took Iraq out of the UN thus meaning he is no part of it and he has the right to deny access to UN Inspectors. No I'm not on his side. Yes he did do allot of bad things.


Not according to the cease fire agreement AND UN resolution 687.

Not according to the cease fire agreement AND UN resolution 687.


There goes the UN again. He is NOT in the UN they can NOT tell him what to do!!!!

There goes the UN again. He is NOT in the UN they can NOT tell him what to do!!!!


Then according to your logic, since Iraq isn't part of the UN they represent a greater threat to world security than terrorists. AND, Iraq wasn't following the terms of the cease fire agreement. Thanks!

There goes the UN again. He is NOT in the UN they can NOT tell him what to do!!!!


Really??

http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html

Really??

http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html


They were NOT in the UN when Saddam was ruling you need a more up to date source. Is Iraq in the UN now with the new leader?

then george bush decided that he had to invade iraq, a country that had never done anything to us. on lies that he knew were lies. in a situation that had no urgency.

There's a book you need to read...the 9/11 Commission Report. The 9/11 Commission clearly states that US intel as well as intel coming from GB, Kuwait, France, Russia, and several other countries, pointed to Iraq having WMD. Even the UN believed Saddam had WMD and passed no less than 17 sanctions against his regime. The UN appointed weapons inspectors sent to Iraq were constantly complaining that they were being barred from entering many suspected sites. Given the available intel and Saddam's actions, the logical deduction is that he had WMD. Bush did not lie. He, as well as the previous president and many other world leaders, believed that Saddam (not Iraq) was a threat.

when our close allies objected, he did nothing to appease them. he was arrogant. he, and we, dissed them as if they were some kind of traitors when all they were doing was to press their own national interest.

Your darn right when you say they were pressing for their own national interest rather than the world interest. Especially when you consider that our 3 primary opponents in handling the Iraq situation (Russia, Germany, and France) have since been found to be elbow deep in violating the Oil for Food sanctions the UN imposed on Iraq. They were willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens for the own national monetary interest. I believe we will all be sickened when it is finally revealed how deeply they were involved.

you can not slap your allies in the face and expect them to be happy about it.

This is true. That's why a large portion of Americans boycott French made products. And, just to make sure he slapped the other cheek, good ol Jaques made a point of not traveling a few hundred miles to attend the funeral of President Reagan...a man who made a significant contribution to the encroaching threat that France faced during the Cold War.

you cannot invade countries,with no urgent need, no matter how vile the regime, and expect the world to applaud you.

As stated above, based on intel from all over the world, there appeared to be an urgent need. And do you mean to say that no matter how vile a regime is, it is not our responsibility to stop slaughter and debauchery whenever we can? I noticed that the tune has changed in that respect in Europe since WWII.

if we are going to act like the owners of the world, we are going to have to expect to get some reaction to it. that reaction is to have us and our military dissed and to have our flag burned by those who have no other way to get our attention.

when we are no longer the good guys we will not be treated like good guys. we will be treated like the bullies we are fast becoming in the world

In what way do we exhibit a desire to dominate the world? That we use our might to protect ourselves from those who want to hurt us? If other countries pursue policies that protect their national interests it's acceptable, but if the US does it, then it's an act of bullying? Huh??? Also, since when is it bullying to remove regimes that slaughter their own people and their neighbor's and contribute our resources to help them achieve and enjoy the freedoms that we so obviously take for granted?

We're not perfect, but we are far from a world conquering horde. Our only alternative is to close our borders to everyone, cut off all world trade, withdraw our troops and our money from every other part of the world, and become a closed society. We would suffer, but how long do you think it would take for the rest of the world's economy to collapse?

They were NOT in the UN when Saddam was ruling you need a more up to date source. Is Iraq in the UN now with the new leader?


April 12,2003

http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,182597-1-9,00.html

Here's an interesting quote:

"Despite four years of publicly defending Saddam's government, Aldouri said he hoped his country would be on the path to democracy "without any obstructions and restrictions."

Ok. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recognized them...the other 200+ nations did not.....so what does that mean?

Actually, not that it makes that much of a difference but it was 3, the United Arab Emirates also did.

Not according to the cease fire agreement AND UN resolution 687.

Yes, but USA was also in breach of the ceasefire agreement, not just Iraq.

Does USA allow any foreign troops to have military base on its soil? When DeGaulle demanded american troops to leave, it just mean that France does not allow any military force on its soil but its own.

You are shoked that when asked if it included soldier burried in Normandie DeGaulle kept silent?
I am shoked that any person would use dead soldier as argument in the settlement of military force on foreign soil.

P.S.: The american flag is still flying above every military cemetary ( WW1 & WW2), that will never change!
France is certainly less antiamerican than america anti France of late.

Actually there IS a German base in Arizona....it is a training base for Pilots learning to fly US aircraft. It has been there for decades. Of course it is little known outside the air force community, but it is there nonetheless.

As for the US flag flying in the cemetaries, read my post again, I never said they were NOT flying there anymore...I had HEARD they were taken down.

They were NOT in the UN when Saddam was ruling you need a more up to date source. Is Iraq in the UN now with the new leader?



Iraq has been in the UN since 1945 you fruitcake.

Yes, but USA was also in breach of the ceasefire agreement, not just Iraq.

Oh really? Saddam violated the agreement the very next day. He violated it EVERY day for 12 years. The US had the right to take him out immediately but did not. Therefore the "rush to war" is an illusion placed by those who always find fault with the US, even when we are right.

Oh really? Saddam violated the agreement the very next day. He violated it EVERY day for 12 years. The US had the right to take him out immediately but did not. Therefore the "rush to war" is an illusion placed by those who always find fault with the US, even when we are right.
1) US didn't do anything about that through UN (it would have been easy to get UN approval had they brought that up).

2) If Iraq is violating cease-fire on Americans, it is not a threat to France or Germany. Why should they get involved and waste young French/German lives?

Oh really? Saddam violated the agreement the very next day. He violated it EVERY day for 12 years. The US had the right to take him out immediately but did not. Therefore the "rush to war" is an illusion placed by those who always find fault with the US, even when we are right.

Lets not forget that the deal was for Saddam to allow weapon inspectors in and then sanctions would be lifted, then came the comment by then Sec. of State Albright that sanctions were never going to be lifted no matter what Iraq did. So Saddam stopped any cooperation with the inspectors , thus the UN inspectors withdrew, unlike the myth that floats that Saddam kicked them out, which he never did. Not once.

Lets not forget that the deal was for Saddam to allow weapon inspectors in and then sanctions would be lifted, then came the comment by then Sec. of State Albright that sanctions were never going to be lifted no matter what Iraq did. So Saddam stopped any cooperation with the inspectors , thus the UN inspectors withdrew, unlike the myth that floats that Saddam kicked them out, which he never did. Not once.

True enough....but to say the US violated the cease fire agreement is erroneous. Saddam placed a bounty on any US pilot shot down over Iraq. The US had so many reasons to take Saddam out and could have at any time WITHOUT the UN. Why we did not is a question I asked myself every time I found myself having to go back to the middle east. I watched the strike films and saw the Iraqi gunners firing on the US aircraft.....I also saw a lot of Iraqi gunners die too.

[QUOTE=Opal Isle]1) US didn't do anything about that through UN (it would have been easy to get UN approval had they brought that up).[QUOTE]

The US tried repeatedly to get the UN to back up their own sanctions and threats. We even went so far as to request the UN back us in removing Saddam from power. Our Oil for Food sanction-violating allies on the security council blocked that. The UN is basically impotent and corrupt beyound belief at this point.

What so many people seem to not understand is that we did not go to war with Iraq. We went to war with Saddam and his thugs to liberate Iraq and prevent his attacking our country.

True enough....but to say the US violated the cease fire agreement is erroneous. Saddam placed a bounty on any US pilot shot down over Iraq. The US had so many reasons to take Saddam out and could have at any time WITHOUT the UN. Why we did not is a question I asked myself every time I found myself having to go back to the middle east. I watched the strike films and saw the Iraqi gunners firing on the US aircraft.....I also saw a lot of Iraqi gunners die too.
No one is denying that the US is powerful enough militaristicly to take out Iraq at any time we want. We just did. However, we don't have so much diplomatic power as to just go on an imperialistic conquest wherever we please...

1) US didn't do anything about that through UN (it would have been easy to get UN approval had they brought that up).

2) If Iraq is violating cease-fire on Americans, it is not a threat to France or Germany. Why should they get involved and waste young French/German lives?

1. The US did not NEED to use the UN. However, Bush tried to get help and it was not forthcoming, so he took the action that the UN resolutions allowed and now we have all the whining because he did. Remember, ALL of the UN resolutions authorized ANY member state to take action to enforce the resolutions if needed. So Bush did.

2. Trust me, our European friends (outside of the UK) will NEVER help the US. If we were suddenly invaded by aliens we would be on our own. Hell, they would not even help out in Bosnia until the US went in first, and that is in THERE neighborhood, not ours.

1) US didn't do anything about that through UN (it would have been easy to get UN approval had they brought that up).

The US tried repeatedly to get the UN to back up their own sanctions and threats. We even went so far as to request the UN back us in removing Saddam from power. Our Oil for Food sanction-violating allies on the security council blocked that. The UN is basically impotent and corrupt beyound belief at this point.

What so many people seem to not understand is that we did not go to war with Iraq. We went to war with Saddam and his thugs to liberate Iraq and prevent his attacking our country.
No. The UN felt (properly felt, I might add) that it was out of their jurisdiction to say whether or not Saddam was fit to rule. If he's not a threat to any other nation, there is nothing the UN can or should do about him.

1. The US did not NEED to use the UN. However, Bush tried to get help and it was not forthcoming, so he took the action that the UN resolutions allowed and now we have all the whining because he did. Remember, ALL of the UN resolutions authorized ANY member state to take action to enforce the resolutions if needed. So Bush did.

2. Trust me, our European friends (outside of the UK) will NEVER help the US. If we were suddenly invaded by aliens we would be on our own. Hell, they would not even help out in Bosnia until the US went in first, and that is in THERE neighborhood, not ours.
1. It's called INTERNATIONAL LAW. Not American Law.

2. History says otherwise.

No one is denying that the US is powerful enough militaristicly to take out Iraq at any time we want. We just did. However, we don't have so much diplomatic power as to just go on an imperialistic conquest wherever we please...

You missed the point.....the US tried to get others to help through the UN...and they refused to enforce the resolutions.

So we did it ourselves. Afterall...if you want something done right.....

Lets not forget that the deal was for Saddam to allow weapon inspectors in and then sanctions would be lifted, then came the comment by then Sec. of State Albright that sanctions were never going to be lifted no matter what Iraq did. So Saddam stopped any cooperation with the inspectors , thus the UN inspectors withdrew, unlike the myth that floats that Saddam kicked them out, which he never did. Not once.
*sputter blubber*A liberal atheist lie. The US is the holiests of holy. Remember we saved France.

*sputter blubber*A liberal atheist lie. The US is the holiests of holy. Remember we saved France.
They saved us first.

1. It's called INTERNATIONAL LAW. Not American Law.

2. History says otherwise.

1. INTERNATIONAL LAW says that a violation of a cease fire agreement can be met with resumed military action. Why do I have to explain this?

2. Really? Cite me some examples where our European friends have helped out the US. Can't count the French and the revolution because they were doing so out of their own desire to weaken the British and the US was not a country yet.

True enough....but to say the US violated the cease fire agreement is erroneous. Saddam placed a bounty on any US pilot shot down over Iraq. The US had so many reasons to take Saddam out and could have at any time WITHOUT the UN. Why we did not is a question I asked myself every time I found myself having to go back to the middle east. I watched the strike films and saw the Iraqi gunners firing on the US aircraft.....I also saw a lot of Iraqi gunners die too.

Perhaps, but it was the wrong war at the wrong time. Had the administration just been honest about the reasons for going into Iraq perhaps things would of turned out differently. But they lied. As my husband has shown in another thread, I'd have to ask him which thread it was (he's playing with our son atm) they did know the Intel was more then likely faulty. I just think had the decision been mine, haha, which of course it never will be. Instead of going after a country that had nothing to do with attacking America, I would of put 100% of my effort into going after the people who did in fact attack the US on 9/11. Lets not forget, this war was on the minds of this administration from the day they took office, before 9/11. I don't think it was a fluke that they tried to slip it in as part of the war of terror, that was done with full knowledge that they intended to mislead the American people and the world. That part of the action as we now know is hard to argue it's not true.

You missed the point.....the US tried to get others to help through the UN...and they refused to enforce the resolutions.

So we did it ourselves. Afterall...if you want something done right.....
I'm not arguing with you on any point ever again until you learn more about the United Nations.

Perhaps, but it was the wrong war at the wrong time. Had the administration just been honest about the reasons for going into Iraq perhaps things would of turned out differently. But they lied. As my husband has shown in another thread, I'd have to ask him which thread it was (he's playing with our son atm) they did know the Intel was more then likely faulty. I just think had the decision been mine, haha, which of course it never will be. Instead of going after a country that had nothing to do with attacking America, I would of put 100% of my effort into going after the people who did in fact attack the US on 9/11. Lets not forget, this war was on the minds of this administration from the day they took office, before 9/11. I don't think it was a fluke that they tried to slip it in as part of the war of terror, that was done with full knowledge that they intended to mislead the American people and the world. That part of the action as we now know is hard to argue it's not true.

You are more than likely right. My point is that we did not NEED UN permission to take Saddam out...we had more than enough justification without having to ask.

No. The UN felt (properly felt, I might add) that it was out of their jurisdiction to say whether or not Saddam was fit to rule. If he's not a threat to any other nation, there is nothing the UN can or should do about him.

Not a threat to any other nation?? How many times did he try to invade his neighbors? How many intel reports advised he had plans to attack the US and other Western interests? How many of our airplanes did he have his thugs shoot down? Also, his actions against his own people fit precisely into the UN's jurisdiction. Have you seen the pictures of the mass graves, heard the accounts from his political opponents, seen the pictures of the hideously scarred people who survived his gas attacks? Even now the UN is tap dancing around and saying "Shame on you" while people are being slaughtered by the thousands. The US merely took the incentive where the UN failed to...and they did it legally.

Not a threat to any other nation?? How many times did he try to invade his neighbors? How many intel reports advised he had plans to attack the US and other Western interests? How many of our airplanes did he have his thugs shoot down? Also, his actions against his own people fit precisely into the UN's jurisdiction. Have you seen the pictures of the mass graves, heard the accounts from his political opponents, seen the pictures of the hideously scarred people who survived his gas attacks? Even now the UN is tap dancing around and saying "Shame on you" while people are being slaughtered by the thousands. The US merely took the incentive where the UN failed to...and they did it legally.
He tried invading Kuwait. Hence the first Gulf War.

You are more than likely right. My point is that we did not NEED UN permission to take Saddam out...we had more than enough justification without having to ask.
Out of all seriousnes...

Please, please, please: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

I'm not arguing with you on any point ever again until you learn more about the United Nations.

The UN has NOTHING to do with the US. That we are a member is one thing, but the UN will NEVER have the interests of the US at heart.

You seem to think the UN actually has some sort of power over the US. LOL They had no power over Iraq, so how could they have any over the US?

World opinion? That changes on a daily basis. If we did things out of concern for world opinion we would never get anywhere. Do you do things in your life based on what your neighbor might think? I sure don't.

Lets not forget that the deal was for Saddam to allow weapon inspectors in and then sanctions would be lifted, then came the comment by then Sec. of State Albright that sanctions were never going to be lifted no matter what Iraq did. So Saddam stopped any cooperation with the inspectors , thus the UN inspectors withdrew, unlike the myth that floats that Saddam kicked them out, which he never did. Not once.


This is irrelevant. Madeleine Albright had no say in what the UN decided.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/971113/1997111321.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-11-17-iraq-inspectors_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9711/06/iraq.update.on/

A quote from that site:
"Under the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq is required to submit to inspections to verify that it has destroyed its missiles and weapons of mass destruction."

They saved us first.
*blubber*The US didn't need the French. Nor their powder and training. Because Americans are super humans. The British bullets would have just bounced off of them. Or they would have caught them with their teeth. The American master race would have defeated the British with sticks and stones. WE SAVED FRANCE!!!!!!!1111!!!*sputter*

The UN has NOTHING to do with the US. That we are a member is one thing, but the UN will NEVER have the interests of the US at heart.

You seem to think the UN actually has some sort of power over the US. LOL They had no power over Iraq, so how could they have any over the US?

World opinion? That changes on a daily basis. If we did things out of concern for world opinion we would never get anywhere. Do you do things in your life based on what your neighbor might think? I sure don't.
UN isn't supposed to be concerned with US interests. They're supposed to be concerned with world interests. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

*blubber*The US didn't need the French. Nor their powder and training. Because Americans are super humans. The British bullets would have just bounced off of them. Or they would have caught them with their teeth. The American master race would have defeated the British with sticks and stones. WE SAVED FRANCE!!!!!!!1111!!!*sputter*
Uh huh...then why do we need French help anyway? We are, after all, a super human race...

Out of all seriousnes...

Please, please, please: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

The US is NOT governed by the UN...and neither is ANY other country. The UN is finished in the eyes of the US. Why do you cling to this notion that the UN is all powerful and can tell the US what to do or NOT do? it is merele a social club where diplomats meet to TRY and come to some agreement. The UN has NO troops to command...has NO land other than that donated by the US, nor does it have any way to enforce it's will except by the actions of the member states. Do you remember the uproar when the UN tried to put US troops in the blue helmets and command them? THAT will NEVER happen....

The US is NOT governed by the UN...and neither is ANY other country. The UN is finished in the eyes of the US. Why do you cling to this notion that the UN is all powerful and can tell the US what to do or NOT do? it is merele a social club where diplomats meet to TRY and come to some agreement. The UN has NO troops to command...has NO land other than that donated by the US, nor does it have any way to enforce it's will except by the actions of the member states. Do you remember the uproar when the UN tried to put US troops in the blue helmets and command them? THAT will NEVER happen.... (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)
Click the quote.

You are more than likely right. My point is that we did not NEED UN permission to take Saddam out...we had more than enough justification without having to ask.

One does have to question though if they might not of gotten UN support had they been honest though instead of the run-around of WMD, which is what I believe lost them support. If I recall correctly, which I believe I do, all voted in favour of 1441. Then the US wouldn't allow the inspectors to do their job, they left because they were warned the Americans were going to start the war only 3 months after 1441 was agreed to. One must also look at the fact that Saddam at least by evidence didn't breach 1441 as you can't prove a negative, he didn't have WMD. So if one is to believe he didn't give a full account of what happened to the WMD, in reality what he would of been guilty of is no more then poor book-keeping. I think the world on the most part knew they were being sold a bill of goods. Had they just been honest, they may very well of gotten the support they were looking for, it was poor strategy and diplomacy on the part of this current administration. That's my opinion any way.

UN isn't supposed to be concerned with US interests. They're supposed to be concerned with world interests. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Yes....and often times "world" interests run counter to US interests.

The term "world" interests is also misleading....save a huge asteroid hitting or alien invasion happening, nothing could possibly be of interest to the "whole" world.

He tried invading Kuwait. Hence the first Gulf War.

And.......

Israel, Syria, and anybody else who questioned is omnipotency. Take time to READ!!! This guy took the Hitler handbook to heart and added his own little twists.

Click the quote.

Drink more kool-aid...you must be mad if you actually believe that the American people are going to be ruled by the UN.

Yes....and often times "world" interests run counter to US interests.

The term "world" interests is also misleading....save a huge asteroid hitting or alien invasion happening, nothing could possibly be of interest to the "whole" world.

What happened to the respect? I don't feel like I need to respect anything you say until you take enough time to read the UN Charter that you hate oh so much. psst...clicky... (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)

One does have to question though if they might not of gotten UN support had they been honest though instead of the run-around of WMD, which is what I believe lost them support. If I recall correctly, which I believe I do, all voted in favour of 1441. Then the US wouldn't allow the inspectors to do their job, they left because they were warned the Americans were going to start the war only 3 months after 1441 was agreed to. One must also look at the fact that Saddam at least by evidence didn't breach 1441 as you can't prove a negative, he didn't have WMD. So if one is to believe he didn't give a full account of what happened to the WMD, in reality what he would of been guilty of is no more then poor book-keeping. I think the world on the most part knew they were being sold a bill of goods. Had they just been honest, they may very well of gotten the support they were looking for, it was poor strategy and diplomacy on the part of this current administration. That's my opinion any way.

I am not so sure that they are NOT there. Shells are being found now in the hands of the insurgents that contain sarin and other chemical wapons. The Iraqi air force was found buried in the desert...who says the WMD can't be too. Time will tell...but in this day of quick answers everyone jumps to a quick conclusion. Just give it time and we will see....

Drink more kool-aid...you must be mad if you actually believe that the American people are going to be ruled by the UN.
Ditto for thinking the world will allow the US to rule over it. Before the US empire spreads everywhere, terrorism will flood into the US to flatten that worthless nation as it deserves. Worthy US citizens may flee to Canada until the cleansing of the North American continent is finished.

What happened to the respect? I don't feel like I need to respect anything you say until you take enough time to read the UN Charter that you hate oh so much. psst...clicky... (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)

LOL I have read it...but the UN has NO power over the US. What are they going to do...pass a resolution? LOL

I am not so sure that they are NOT there. Shells are being found now in the hands of the insurgents that contain sarin and other chemical wapons. The Iraqi air force was found buried in the desert...who says the WMD can't be too. Time will tell...but in this day of quick answers everyone jumps to a quick conclusion. Just give it time and we will see....
psst...clicky... (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)

Ditto for thinking the world will allow the US to rule over it. Before the US empire spreads everywhere, terrorism will flood into the US to flatten that worthless nation as it deserves. Worthy US citizens may flee to Canada until the cleansing of the North American continent is finished.

The US does not want to rule the world....that was the idea of your people. Twice I believe. How did that work out for you?

I am not so sure that they are NOT there. Shells are being found now in the hands of the insurgents that contain sarin and other chemical wapons. The Iraqi air force was found buried in the desert...who says the WMD can't be too. Time will tell...but in this day of quick answers everyone jumps to a quick conclusion. Just give it time and we will see....

Yes, however, I believe you have said you're ex-military. So you would also know that the grade of Sarin found in those shells most likely date back to the Iran/Iraq war and experts in the field have said while it would of probably not been safe to drink, it hardly made for WMD, given the shelf life of these Sarin shells were probably in the area of 2 months. So, it's still not WMD.

As for quick conclusions, I find it a shame that the US didn't allow that same grace to the UN weapon inspectors who were saying the same thing "give it time" perhaps a war could of been diverted.

The US does not want to rule the world....that was the idea of your people. Twice I believe. How did that work out for you?
The US very definitely want to rule the world. Pssst PNAC. Ignoramus.

The US does not want to rule the world....that was the idea of your people. Twice I believe. How did that work out for you?
MAH NME IS BIF PIELON AND I HAET DA WORLD AND DA ONLY FORUM FOR INT3RNATIONAL COPERATION B/C THEY GAT IN TEH WAY OF MAH HARDCOR3 PATRIOTISM AND MARICAN SCHEM3 FOR WORLD DOMINATION11!1!11! WTF LOL

Uh huh...then why do we need French help anyway? We are, after all, a super human race...
Thats what I said!!!! The USA never needed the French!!!!! Without the US France would have been overrun by Britain when they declared war on them!! As the master race we would have just flown to London and incinerated it with our heat vision!!!!!

Yes, however, I believe you have said you're ex-military. So you would also know that the grade of Sarin found in those shells most likely date back to the Iran/Iraq war and experts in the field have said while it would of probably not been safe to drink, it hardly made for WMD, given the shelf life of these Sarin shells were probably in the area of 2 months. So, it's still not WMD.

Give it time....afterall Saddam told the world he had NO such weapons....yet here they are. Just ONE such shell shows he lied...give it time.

Sarin does break down over time....but who wants to test that theory? not me...I have seen what even old sarin can do...it is not pretty.

He tried invading Kuwait. Hence the first Gulf War.

He didn't try, Iraq occupied Kuwait.

MAH NME IS BIF PIELON AND I HAET DA WORLD AND DA ONLY FORUM FOR INT3RNATIONAL COPERATION B/C THEY GAT IN TEH WAY OF MAH HARDCOR3 PATRIOTISM AND MARICAN SCHEM3 FOR WORLD DOMINATION11!1!11! WTF LOL

Look...you can put all your faith in the UN if you want to...but the UN is pretty much finished as a world body. It can pass all the resolutions it wants, but it is powerless to enforce them. It gets most of its money from the US, yet refuses to give an accounting on where the money goes. The corruption in the organization is widespread and THATS why the US does not pay its dues. Why should we? It will only be wasted anyway. Plus...how many spies have we deported that were "UN DIPLOMATS?"

The US very definitely want to rule the world. Pssst PNAC. Ignoramus.

Yeah...I have seen that too...I have also heard that the Masons and the illuminati really pull all the srings too...
:rolleyes:

Yes, however, I believe you have said you're ex-military. So you would also know that the grade of Sarin found in those shells most likely date back to the Iran/Iraq war and experts in the field have said while it would of probably not been safe to drink, it hardly made for WMD, given the shelf life of these Sarin shells were probably in the area of 2 months. So, it's still not WMD.

As for quick conclusions, I find it a shame that the US didn't allow that same grace to the UN weapon inspectors who were saying the same thing "give it time" perhaps a war could of been diverted.


Just what could you do with chemical/biological weapons in 4 years???


"U.N. arms inspectors returned to Iraq after a four-year hiatus Monday, calling on President Saddam Hussein's government to cooperate with their search for weapons of mass destruction in the interest of peace."

Yeah...I have seen that too...I have also heard that the Masons and the illuminati really pull all the srings too...
:rolleyes:
Unlike the Masons or Illuminati, PNAC has real powerhungry monsters as a member. Rumsfeld beeing one of them.

Thats what I said!!!! The USA never needed the French!!!!! Without the US France would have been overrun by Britain when they declared war on them!! As the master race we would have just flown to London and incinerated it with our heat vision!!!!!
The question is, if the US is made up of superhumans, why do we need anyone's help in Iraq? Why do you guys keep bitching about the French and Germans for not helping out?

Just what could you do with chemical/biological weapons in 4 years???


"U.N. arms inspectors returned to Iraq after a four-year hiatus Monday, calling on President Saddam Hussein's government to cooperate with their search for weapons of mass destruction in the interest of peace."

Thats been my point all along....they could have hidden those things ANYWHERE and everyone seems to think they would just be out in the open if they were there at all. Simply amazing. Anyone who can hide a squadron of Mig-25's by burying them can hide chemical shells anywhere.

Give it time....afterall Saddam told the world he had NO such weapons....yet here they are. Just ONE such shell shows he lied...give it time.

Sarin does break down over time....but who wants to test that theory? not me...I have seen what even old sarin can do...it is not pretty.

Ok, but there is no evidence to support that these shells were known to Saddam. I mean lets be honest, they could of been found by other groups, they could of been brought into the country by foreign fighters. They could of fallen off a truck and lost years ago, or sure, maybe Saddam was lying. However, there are many theories, we can't just pick the one we wish because it suits our belief without evidence. At least I don't believe we should. There are many other explanations and sure, Saddam is one of them, but by no means the only one.

I just personally believe from all that we now know, WMD was not the reason the Americans went to war with Iraq, I believe it was a strategic move as laid out in the PNAC doctrine. It was for geo-political reasons. However, the Americans could of just said it was to liberate Iraq and they probably would of got further and more support.

Of course these are my beliefs and theory.

The question is, if the US is made up of superhumans, why do we need anyone's help in Iraq? Why do you guys keep bitching about the French and Germans for not helping out?
BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO WHATEVER THE HOLY USA ORDERS THEM TO DO. WE SAVED FRANCE!!! AMERICANS ARE THE MASTER RACE!!!

Okay Witzleben, the joke's not funny anymore.

BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO WHATEVER THE HOLY USA ORDERS THEM TO DO. WE SAVED FRANCE!!! AMERICANS ARE THE MASTER RACE!!!

Ok, please stop this, if you wish to make valid arguments by all means please do, you're coming very close to trolling, please stop.

Thank You,
Stephanie
Game Moderator

Ok, but there is no evidence to support that these shells were known to Saddam. I mean lets be honest, they could of been found by other groups, they could of been brought into the country by foreign fighters. They could of fallen off a truck and lost years ago, or sure, maybe Saddam was lying. However, there are many theories, we can't just pick the one we wish because it suits our belief without evidence. At least I don't believe we should. There are many other explanations and sure, Saddam is one of them, but by no means the only one.

I just personally believe from all that we now know, WMD was not the reason the Americans went to war with Iraq, I believe it was a strategic move as laid out in the PNAC doctrine. It was for geo-political reasons. However, the Americans could of just said it was to liberate Iraq and they probably would of got further and more support.

Of course these are my beliefs and theory.

That is very possible, we may never know, as Saddam was surrounded by "yes men". However, the whole PNAC thing is more of a red herring I think.

Interesting reading:

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request ... [but] the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. (p.61)

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. (p.66)

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. (p.66)

AMERICANS ARE THE MASTER RACE!!!

No, I believe someone named Hitler said that, "Aryans are the Master Race."

That is very possible, we may never know, as Saddam was surrounded by "yes men". However, the whole PNAC thing is more of a red herring I think.

Oh, I believe PNAC is at the very root of this. If you read what their objectives are, it makes perfect sense.

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Geez...for once I try to defend the US...... :p
That will teach me. :D
YAY!!!! Post 666!!!! Whoopy!!

Interesting reading:

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request ... [but] the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. (p.61)

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. (p.66)

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. (p.66)

Absolutely. We KNOW Saddam and Bin Laden had some sort of RELATIONSHIP. That it was not to the hand-holding stage does not mean they were not talking to each other. There is NO evidence that Saddam even knew about the 9-11 attacks...but he did say on that day that the attack was "Americas birds coming home to roost." So it is possible that he "might" have known, but we may never know.

Oh, I believe PNAC is at the very root of this. If you read what their objectives are, it makes perfect sense.

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

1. We already HAVE troops in Southern Europe...since 1945. Southeast Asia? Are we going to Vietnam again? The Middle East? We were not there until Saddam invaded Iraq. We will be there for years to come because of this, not becase of some "grand plan."

2. Failing to modernize is preparing to fail. EVERY country modernizes their militaries. China is in the middle of a HUGE program to modernize their military. MANY companies that sell Chinese goods to the west are OWNED by the Chinese Army and use prisoners as workers to produce their goods.

3. A "Global" missle defense system? Would that not negate our own missles? I seriously doubt we could or even would attempt this.

4. We already do....we built the internet for military use and there are "two" internets. GPS system as well...we can "turn off" any area of the world we want but military units would still operate.

5. Wow....a .8 incrase in spending....which MIGHT keep track of inflation, but probably wont. Where you see a threat...I see prudent actions.

bump