NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush accuses other countries of having WMDs, and invades those that don't even have them. Yet it is America which has the most Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world! THIS IS A DOUBLE STANDARD THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED.

Bush accuses other countries of having WMDs, and invades those that don't even have them. Yet it is America which has the most Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world! THIS IS A DOUBLE STANDARD THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED.
Yeah, because the U.S. might use their WMDs against their ethnic minorities, hold entire regions hostage to fear of their WMDs, or use them in attacking nations for no reason. :rolleyes:

Hey, this is what happens when you give internation legitimacy to such a flawed body as the United Nations. :rolleyes:

Yeah, because the U.S. might use their WMDs against their ethnic minorities, hold entire regions hostage to fear of their WMDs, or use them in attacking nations for no reason.
Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but I cant work out if this is supposed to be earnest or sarcastic, it kind of has a sarcastic ring to it, but....

I know. I never understood why it was OK for the US, but not for other countries.

Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but I cant work out if this is supposed to be earnest or sarcastic, it kind of has a sarcastic ring to it, but....
It's sarcasm.

Expose what? The world has known that the US is a nuclear power for 60 years. Nukes were used once. The aftermath of that has haunted the US ever since. Another sure sign is that the US has not conducted any nuclear testing for years and in full view of the world destroyed most of what they had. What threat is there to expose?

People ask this question often enough. I respond with another question that historically applies.

What country would you better trust with WMD? Hitler's Nazi Germany, or the United States?

Think about the countries we condemn having WMD (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Lebanon...or whatever its spelled), and think about the countries we do not (Britain, France, Isreal, etc.)


Can you name the differences between these two groups of nations?

Actually the USA is the ONLY country to ever use a nuclear weapon on another country.

Actually the USA is the ONLY country to ever use a nuclear weapon on another country.
The USA is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon on anyone. Any other nuclear explosions have just been tests.

Actually the USA is the ONLY country to ever use a nuclear weapon on another country.

To date. As I said before, we have lived with the awful aftermath of those nuclear bombs as well as the Japanese. Since then, the only time we have ever threatened nuclear attack is in direct response to nuclear threats against us. We have avoided the consideration of nuclear attack and destroyed most of the nuclear weaponry that we had.

Chong-il, on the other hand, has made it clear they have developed nuclear weapons and intend to use them and sell them. And, do we really believe that Iran is developing nuclear power plants?

The US has made some horrendous mistakes...but I think we've gotten a hell of a lot more right than wrong.

The USA is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon on anyone. Any other nuclear explosions have just been tests.

Yup, that's right. So really Bush has no reason to say "this person can't be trusted , but we should" It's that simple.

Yup, that's right. So really Bush has no reason to say "this person can't be trusted , but we should" It's that simple.

60 years of not using them and working to curtail their spread!! as opposed to countries racing to develop them to use against their enemies. What is so hard to understand here?

To date. As I said before, we have lived with the awful aftermath of those nuclear bombs as well as the Japanese. Since then, the only time we have ever threatened nuclear attack is in direct response to nuclear threats against us. We have avoided the consideration of nuclear attack and destroyed most of the nuclear weaponry that we had.


I can't actually prove this but I remember the government using nuclear weapons in Iraq to get at buried bunkers and WMD facitlities. Does anyone else remember this or did I just imagine this?

I can't actually prove this but I remember the government using nuclear weapons in Iraq to get at buried bunkers and WMD facitlities. Does anyone else remember this or did I just imagine this?
You probably imagined it. They were talking about R&Ding some weaker "bunker buster" type nuclear warheads for this purpose however.

I can't actually prove this but I remember the government using nuclear weapons in Iraq to get at buried bunkers and WMD facitlities. Does anyone else remember this or did I just imagine this?

What you're thinking of is a bomb called the motha of all bombs (or something like that). It's what they think may have gone off in North Korea. It isn't nuclear, it's just huge and creates a mushroom cloud.

I can't actually prove this but I remember the government using nuclear weapons in Iraq to get at buried bunkers and WMD facitlities. Does anyone else remember this or did I just imagine this?
I think it was proposed but it never happened.

Saying the US can't be trusted because we used nuclear weapons sixty years ago in World War 2 is silly.

I can't actually prove this but I remember the government using nuclear weapons in Iraq to get at buried bunkers and WMD facitlities. Does anyone else remember this or did I just imagine this?

If I'm correct there was talk about funding and developing a nuclear weapon exactly like this...small and meant merely for taking out bunkers. Though I've yet to hear of one actually being made nor have I heard of any being used, and I'm pretty sure we'd be hearing a wee bit if we did use one.

What is very interesting is that people are not keeping in mind what we have to do with our nukes. We still have to doccument how many we have, where they are, and what they are. We have also taken all of our biological and chemical weapons and either destroyed them or put them in a center in Utah. We have worked since the 50's with the Russians to slow down the production of these weapons and would never sell them to terrorist organizations due to the extreme stupidity that would require.

Britain, France and Israel are good like that for my knowledge. Russia has had issues since the USSR fell in keeping track of it's nukes, but it certainly isn't selling them. India loves the USA and has no interest in encouraging terrorism (unless it's against the Pakistanies). The Pakistanies are too concerned with keeping the Chinese, Indians and Americans from killing them/turning on them to start messing around with selling them off. China probably wants the ones it has, but I could be convinced that they've sold them off. Iraq tried and Israel blew them up because they're smart. Iran could seriously use them, especially in what will be a coming war with the US and would like to see the US a smoldering hole more than anything else, making them dangerous. North Korea is ALWAYS looking for something to bargin with as they have absolutely nothing economically.

The ones that make the US and the rest of the world nervous make us nervous for good reasons. Why are we exempt? Because we've been good little girls and boys and happen to consist of 90% of UN troops in any given action. We get special treatment because other nations are...less militant shall we say.

-R. S. of UC

Yet it's not for the USA to decide who can have them and who can't either. It's not their right or place. The USA has also recently pulled out of an agreement to secure all of the former USSR's nuclear weapons, so it's just a lot of hyperbole on the part of the US.
We can't decide who can and who can't because we're the most powerful, we have the largest military budget, we can back up our words, unlike the IAEA or other agencies that rely on nothing.

Saying the US can't be trusted because we used nuclear weapons sixty years ago in World War 2 is silly.

Yet it's not for the USA to decide who can have them and who can't either. It's not their right or place. The USA has also recently pulled out of an agreement to secure all of the former USSR's nuclear weapons, so it's just a lot of hyperbole on the part of the US.

We can't decide who can and who can't because we're the most powerful, we have the largest military budget, we can back up our words, unlike the IAEA or other agencies that rely on nothing.

You can't take on the world. So no, you can't stop people from having them as evidence clearly shows. You may be the single most powerful country. But you're not more poerful then the entire world.

You can't take on the world. So no, you can't stop people from having them as evidence clearly shows. You may be the single most powerful country. But you're not more poerful then the entire world.
We're not. We can try the best to do what we can to stop proliferation. We're not acting totally unilaterally, in North Korea we have 6-way talks going. If we can stop 5 countries out of 10 from having nuclear weapons, we've done better than zero.

Yet it's not for the USA to decide who can have them and who can't either.
The more countries have them the more likely it is that they are used. So I understand the US position and see it as justified. By the way. All countries of the world - except Israel, Pakistan and India - have signed the non-proliferation treaty. That means that those who have the nukes don´t proliferate them - and those who haven´t don´t develop them. North Korea has signed it in 1994.
But now it is obviously acting in breach of it. It seems to be too late to do something about it though.
The next case is going to be Iran. Probably it is not possible to prevent this development. But that is making the world a more dangerous place. The next are than Saudi-Arabia, Turkey, Greece and probably others.
And in East Asia probably - in order to defend themselves against North Korea - South Korea and Japan.

That is a very dangeroud development.

Yes, America is the only nation to ever use Nuclear Weapons in combat, but that saved more lives than it cost, an invasion of Main Land Japan would have cost millions of lives. Estimates show that 1 Million Americans, 500,000 British, and well over 10 Million Japanese would have died in an invasion of main land Japan.

If Japan wanted to surrender we would have known within hours, if not minutes, we could decode the Japanese transmissions faster than they could type them, if an order had been sent out to the Japanese military to stand down we would have known, no order was given. We dropped the first bomb, nothing happened, we dropped the second bomb, Japan finally understood we could defeat them without landing a single soldier on the island, finally they surrendered.

And let's examine this argument that the US wanted to drop the bombs on a city to see it's effectiveness. We dropped the bombs, hundreds of thousands of people die, we know the destruvtive power, everybody is stunned, the moralitly of Nukes is questioned, Nuclear weapons are never again used in combat. Now, let's see what happens if we do not drop the bomb. We do not know the true effectiveness of the bomb, North Korea invades S. Korea, the US and S. Korean forces are pused back to Pusan, with their backs to the sea MacArthur decides to drop the bomb on N. Korean forces, it is a success, US lands more troops at Pusan and the push towards the 38th Parallel starts, China threatens to get in on the side of N. Korea, MacArthur threatens to drop the bomb on Chinese cities if they do. China, not knowing the effectiveness of a Hydrogen bomb invades, pushing the US and S. Korean forces back, MacArthur makes good on his threat to bomb Chinese cities. From Okinawa a lone B-29 takes off, flying towards China, suddenly Shanghai is no more. Shocked by the use of the bomb on a Communist country, the Soviet Union bombs Sapporo in northern Japan. The US bombs Vladivostok. WWIII starts, the Soviet Union over runs Berlin, West Germany is next, France is holding on by a thread, Greece and Turkey are defeated. New York, Washington, Norfolk, Boston are simultaneously destroyed when Russian Submarines detonate nukes on board. Murmansk, Beijing, and St. Petersburg are hit. Bomb dropped on Moscow fails to detonate.

See, we may not have know the true potential of Nuclear Weapons without the use of the bomb on Japan. My doomsday theory is probably a little far fetched, but it was possible non the less.

But one positive note about Nukes, how many wars have their been between Pakistan and India once they got nukes?

You know what? Of course the US has nukes because we don't want some militant crazy ass jihad lover to get ahold of 'em. So you know what I say do steal every single nuke on the face of the earth. Destroy all the research on them then blow 'em up. Somewhere safe.

We're not. We can try the best to do what we can to stop proliferation. We're not acting totally unilaterally, in North Korea we have 6-way talks going. If we can stop 5 countries out of 10 from having nuclear weapons, we've done better than zero.

I think or at least believe the question for many of us around the world who could easily build nukes (Canada) if we so wanted them, is does the US do this out of self interest to keep the rest of the world hostage, or is it really about not allowing dangerous nations to have nuclear weapons. I think that is a question with a lot of merit. Because the answer certainly isn't clear based on some of the actions of the USA when it has come to proliferation agreements of the past/present.

I think or at least believe the question for many of us around the world who could easily build nukes (Canada) if we so wanted them, is does the US do this out of self interest to keep the rest of the world hostage, or is it really about not allowing dangerous nations to have nuclear weapons. I think that is a question with a lot of merit. Because the answer certainly isn't clear based on some of the actions of the USA when it has come to proliferation agreements of the past/present.
The US are a dangerous country aiming for world hegemony by military force. I think the US should not have nuclear weapons and should have inspectors in the country, checking what other weapons (biological, chemical) are being developed and hidden. The US has no moral highground to be allowed to have nuclear weapons or other WMD while other countries are not allowed.

I think or at least believe the question for many of us around the world who could easily build nukes (Canada) if we so wanted them, is does the US do this out of self interest to keep the rest of the world hostage, or is it really about not allowing dangerous nations to have nuclear weapons. I think that is a question with a lot of merit. Because the answer certainly isn't clear based on some of the actions of the USA when it has come to proliferation agreements of the past/present.
We have to trust the US. Because only with the US and under US leadership it is possible to change the world into a better place. Without it is impossible. We have to work with it.

We have to trust the US. Because only with the US and under US leadership it is possible to change the world into a better place. Without it is impossible. We have to work with it.
You are once again wrong. Sucking at the arselips of the US - as usual.

Check out this website www.imao.us its got the funniest article on nukes ever. The article also makes some sense. It's called Nuke the Moon.lol

The more countries have them the more likely it is that they are used. So I understand the US position and see it as justified. By the way. All countries of the world - except Israel, Pakistan and India - have signed the non-proliferation treaty. That means that those who have the nukes don´t proliferate them - and those who haven´t don´t develop them. North Korea has signed it in 1994.

North korea pulled out of the NNPT over a year ago. The problem with the treaty is you can't attack someone who's broken the agreement if they've already developed nukes secretly, but if they pull out there's no automatic consequences if they announce it 90 days in advance.

The US are a dangerous country aiming for world hegemony by military force. I think the US should not have nuclear weapons and should have inspectors in the country, checking what other weapons (biological, chemical) are being developed and hidden. The US has no moral highground to be allowed to have nuclear weapons or other WMD while other countries are not allowed.

If we wanted to try and unite the world by military force it would have happened already, WWIII would already have been fought, probably in 1992 right after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now, if Saddam was willing to use his stock piles of Chemicals and Biological weapons on Irani troops and the Kurds who is to say he would not have used nukes? It has been 59 years since the US used a Nuclear Weapon and 86 years since we used chemical weapons, Iraq has used them multiple times in the last 20 years.

Why?

Yes, America is the only nation to ever use Nuclear Weapons in combat, but that saved more lives than it cost, an invasion of Main Land Japan would have cost millions of lives. Estimates show that 1 Million Americans, 500,000 British, and well over 10 Million Japanese would have died in an invasion of main land Japan.

If Japan wanted to surrender we would have known within hours, if not minutes, we could decode the Japanese transmissions faster than they could type them, if an order had been sent out to the Japanese military to stand down we would have known, no order was given. We dropped the first bomb, nothing happened, we dropped the second bomb, Japan finally understood we could defeat them without landing a single soldier on the island, finally they surrendered.

And let's examine this argument that the US wanted to drop the bombs on a city to see it's effectiveness. We dropped the bombs, hundreds of thousands of people die, we know the destruvtive power, everybody is stunned, the moralitly of Nukes is questioned, Nuclear weapons are never again used in combat. Now, let's see what happens if we do not drop the bomb. We do not know the true effectiveness of the bomb, North Korea invades S. Korea, the US and S. Korean forces are pused back to Pusan, with their backs to the sea MacArthur decides to drop the bomb on N. Korean forces, it is a success, US lands more troops at Pusan and the push towards the 38th Parallel starts, China threatens to get in on the side of N. Korea, MacArthur threatens to drop the bomb on Chinese cities if they do. China, not knowing the effectiveness of a Hydrogen bomb invades, pushing the US and S. Korean forces back, MacArthur makes good on his threat to bomb Chinese cities. From Okinawa a lone B-29 takes off, flying towards China, suddenly Shanghai is no more. Shocked by the use of the bomb on a Communist country, the Soviet Union bombs Sapporo in northern Japan. The US bombs Vladivostok. WWIII starts, the Soviet Union over runs Berlin, West Germany is next, France is holding on by a thread, Greece and Turkey are defeated. New York, Washington, Norfolk, Boston are simultaneously destroyed when Russian Submarines detonate nukes on board. Murmansk, Beijing, and St. Petersburg are hit. Bomb dropped on Moscow fails to detonate.

See, we may not have know the true potential of Nuclear Weapons without the use of the bomb on Japan. My doomsday theory is probably a little far fetched, but it was possible non the less.

actually they couldn't really decoded that fast.But true they had no plans to surrender.But,the Japanesse emperor was extremly kind to his people and the united states in his very last official action.He told the Japanesse people over the radio to not resiste the occupying forces.Had he not done this,the Japanesse people,who had the emperor up there with the gods,would have driven out the united states.

The US are a dangerous country aiming for world hegemony by military force. I think the US should not have nuclear weapons and should have inspectors in the country, checking what other weapons (biological, chemical) are being developed and hidden. The US has no moral highground to be allowed to have nuclear weapons or other WMD while other countries are not allowed.

I agree with you.

Once again www.imao.us read it. NOW I COMMAND YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

If we wanted to try and unite the world by military force it would have happened already, WWIII would already have been fought, probably in 1992 right after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now, if Saddam was willing to use his stock piles of Chemicals and Biological weapons on Irani troops and the Kurds who is to say he would not have used nukes? It has been 59 years since the US used a Nuclear Weapon and 86 years since we used chemical weapons, Iraq has used them multiple times in the last 20 years.
It is no secret that the US are aiming for world hegemony. Check out the Project for a New American Century, if you do not know about the plans.

But one positive note about Nukes, how many wars have their been between Pakistan and India once they got nukes?
THere was a standoff in 1999 which resulted in fighting. That was very serious.
Probably nukes make wars between some countries unlikely. But I don´t think they make them impossible. Therefore it was good that the Cold War ended in 1991.
If more countries get them the risk for their use gets higher and higher. And one day it is going to happen if the development is not stopped - if it possible to stop it after all.

I really dont like the face my country possesses WMDs. However I have come to the conclusion that WMDs already in existance have served to deter an all-out world war.

I say that each country w/WMDs now proportionally reduce its stockpile to the point that in the (tragic) event they do get used, there arent enough to destroy humanity entirely. Rogue countries, however, need to have *all* their WMDs removed

I think or at least believe the question for many of us around the world who could easily build nukes (Canada) if we so wanted them, is does the US do this out of self interest to keep the rest of the world hostage, or is it really about not allowing dangerous nations to have nuclear weapons. I think that is a question with a lot of merit. Because the answer certainly isn't clear based on some of the actions of the USA when it has come to proliferation agreements of the past/present.

If I remember correctly, you're Canadian, right? I distinctly remember Canada being ever so thankful that the US had nukes when the USSR was threating to invade from the north...right through that country that only had guys dressed in red riding on horses for protection. But, that's a different matter...Canada isn't currently threatened and capitulates to socialist ideas, so the US shouldn't have nuclear power...unless Canada needs them to.

North korea pulled out of the NNPT over a year ago. The problem with the treaty is you can't attack someone who's broken the agreement if they've already developed nukes secretly, but if they pull out there's no automatic consequences if they announce it 90 days in advance.
Thank you for that information.
Well: it would not be justified according to international law -like in the case of Iraq. Though "international law" can be "developed" by precedents.

If I remember correctly, you're Canadian, right? I distinctly remember Canada being ever so thankful that the US had nukes when the USSR was threating to invade from the north...right through that country that only had guys dressed in red riding on horses for protection. But, that's a different matter...Canada isn't currently threatened and capitulates to socialist ideas, so the US shouldn't have nuclear power...unless Canada needs them to.
Oh.. how could we forget to bow in eternal gratitude to the almighty US empire for not yet nuking the planet and saving mankind. Canada, Germany and everyone else... what luck that we still exist. If not for the invulnerable and omnipotent gods from the US, we'd all be dead by now.

The US is not trying to unite the world. This is another "9/11=Jewish Conspiracy" BS argument. If we were trying to unite the world through military force we would have tried already, every day China get's stronger, every day the EU gets a little stronger. North Korea get's that much closer to a nuclear weapons program (or are they? anybody else see on the news that a mushroom cloud 2 miles in diameter was spotted over North Korea? South Korea says they have a Nuclear Testing Facility there.), Iran is now in the hot seat, France, Germany, and the UK are sending a lot of heat towards Iran, three years late but still, it is a start.


http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/world.htm

Check that out, funny 3 minute video about the end of the world.

I know. I never understood why it was OK for the US, but not for other countries.

I don't know why I'm choosing to answer you in particular, but maybe it's becuase I've explained this to you four or five times.

The reason that it's ok for the U.S. to have nuclear weapons but not North Korea (for instance) is that neither the current administration, nor any recent administration, has any history of the use of such weapons. If North Korea got nuclear weapons the chance that they would be used is far greater so the efforts of nations like the U.S. to prevent the proliferation of such weapons is both reasonable and non-hypocritical. If nothing else it is entirely reasonable for a country to say "we don't want you to have bigger bombs."

Oh.. how could we forget to bow in eternal gratitude to the almighty US empire for not yet nuking the planet and saving mankind. Canada, Germany and everyone else... what luck that we still exist. If not for the invulnerable and omnipotent gods from the US, we'd all be dead by now.
Is it just me, or does nearly 100% of your posts have something to say about your dislike for America/American government?

Is it just me, or does nearly 100% of your posts have something to say about your dislike for America/American government?
In my experience once trolls find a niche they don't change anything.

Is it just me, or does nearly 100% of your posts have something to say about your dislike for America/American government?
Not 100%, I'd say 90%. This may be due to the fact that I dislike the USA and their foreign policy and that I think Bush needs to be neutralized.

Oh.. how could we forget to bow in eternal gratitude to the almighty US empire for not yet nuking the planet and saving mankind. Canada, Germany and everyone else... what luck that we still exist. If not for the invulnerable and omnipotent gods from the US, we'd all be dead by now.

Hehe, funny :)

I also don't recall Canada ever getting threatened by any such thing.. but hey, maybe Zooke knows more about Canada then me.. I doubt it though ;)

The US is not trying to unite the world. This is another "9/11=Jewish Conspiracy" BS argument. If we were trying to unite the world through military force we would have tried already, every day China get's stronger, every day the EU gets a little stronger. North Korea get's that much closer to a nuclear weapons program (or are they? anybody else see on the news that a mushroom cloud 2 miles in diameter was spotted over North Korea? South Korea says they have a Nuclear Testing Facility there.), Iran is now in the hot seat, France, Germany, and the UK are sending a lot of heat towards Iran, three years late but still, it is a start.
It is of course nonsense that the US wants to unite the world. But it wants to pacify it. And one way to do is is to dominate it (not just via the use of force). I´m actually - as a non-American - i favour of that - if the US has a clear strategy that could lead to a Pax Americana.

Not 100%, I'd say 90%. This may be due to the fact that I dislike the USA and their foreign policy and that I think Bush needs to be neutralized.
eh, so long as we both agree that Bush needs to get the hell out of the Oval Office...

Not 100%, I'd say 90%. This may be due to the fact that I dislike the USA and their foreign policy and that I think Bush needs to be neutralized.

The American People can not be blamed for Bush's short comings, 500,000 more people voted for Al Gore than George W. Bush, it was the electorate that voted Bush into office.

In my experience once trolls find a niche they don't change anything.

Just because some one may disagree with you or not like a country.. that doesn't make them a troll. I think you should look up what a troll is and is not on this site. I keep seeing you use the term "troll" wrongly in quite a few threads. Is it an attempt at a subtle flame?

Just because some one may disagree with you or not like a country.. that doesn't make them a troll. I think you should look up what a troll is and is not on this site. I keep seeing you use the term "troll" wrongly in quite a few threads. Is it an attempt at a subtle flame?
No, its not trying to flame someone, its just my word for people like Gigatron, Nazi Weaponized Virus, Chess Squares, Von Witzel...whatever. I don't know what it is on this site, in particular, I'm just using the word from my experience on other sites, that being when people spam responses to Kybernetia with things like "You are once again wrong. Sucking at the arselips of the US - as usual" or any of the usual unsubstantiated posts that have no point but insulting the original poster that certain people make 50% of their postcount.

eh, so long as we both agree that Bush needs to get the hell out of the Oval Office...
That wouldn´t make much of a difference because he is standing for virtual the same foreign policy. Though it would make the relationship a bit better.
On the other hand he has protectionist tendencies. That could harm Europe. Therefore I rather like Bush. He doesn´t force anybody (Coalition of the willing) and he stands more for free trade than the Democrats.
Either way: we have to work with whoever is elected.
And the transatlantic partnership is important and we have to repair it.
I think a Bush II would do that as well - though it would be difficult to present it as a new begining - simple because it is necessary. There is no way around it. And also Chirac - and even more the new president after 2007 (Chirac can´t run again) - especially if it is Sarkozy is going to do so. That is also the case for Germany.

Just because some one may disagree with you or not like a country.. that doesn't make them a troll. I think you should look up what a troll is and is not on this site. I keep seeing you use the term "troll" wrongly in quite a few threads. Is it an attempt at a subtle flame?
Kwangistar cant deal with criticism on his country. Seems to come with the new militarist and ultra-nationalist ideology of a large portion of the US population. It becomes ever more evident that any form of dissent or if people do not suck up to the US, they are anti-American, evil, trolls, etc. Instead of looking at their own faults and problems and solving them, the US are used to pointing the finger and blaming others for their shortcomings.

[QUOTE=West Pacific] If Japan wanted to surrender we would have known within hours, if not minutes,

Japan wanted and tried to surrender before the first bomb was dropped and made several peace offers whcih were turned down by US. The reason only thing separating the two warmakers was that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese would remain in place. Militarily it was an unconditional surrender.

In addition most people at the time believed that Japan would have surrendered totaly unconditionally even without nukes. Which was also sustained by a post-war self-interogation. According to The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

So why nuke?
Well, US knew Sovietunion would declare war on Japan the 8 and it was likely that Japan would rather surrender to two powers than one. By dropping the bomb 2 days before they made sure a Japanese surrender to US only and consequently would be the sole occupier of postwar Japan

Further it is true that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were saved from previous bombings to make the psycological effect on the Japanese popultion stronger. And that Truman, to soften american public reactions initially declared Hiroshima, in public speaches, as a military base.



China, not knowing the effectiveness of a Hydrogen bomb invades, pushing the US and S. Korean forces back.

This is what happened anyway luckily it stopped here. Probably more because US military command understood from the 2 previous bombs what kind of reaction it would be from a united world and fromwhitin.

China, not knowing the effectiveness of a Hydrogen bomb invades, pushing the US and S. Korean forces back.

This is what happened anyway luckily it stopped here. Probably more because US military command understood from the 2 previous bombs what kind of reaction it would be from a united world and fromwhitin.

That was my point.

Kwangistar cant deal with criticism on his country. Seems to come with the new militarist and ultra-nationalist ideology of a large portion of the US population. It becomes ever more evident that any form of dissent or if people do not suck up to the US, they are anti-American, evil, trolls, etc. Instead of looking at their own faults and problems and solving them, the US are used to pointing the finger and blaming others for their shortcomings.
We can deal with criticism. Spamming "you're just following your master the USA" "all he does is sit and watch propoganda" "clearly he's been brainwashed with propoganda" etc. does not amount to criticism but rather spam.

No, its not trying to flame someone, its just my word for people like Gigatron, Nazi Weaponized Virus, Chess Squares, Von Witzel...whatever. I don't know what it is on this site, in particular, I'm just using the word from my experience on other sites, that being when people spam responses to Kybernetia with things like "You are once again wrong. Sucking at the arselips of the US - as usual" or any of the usual unsubstantiated posts that have no point but insulting the original poster that certain people make 50% of their postcount.

Ok fair enough. I was just curious as to why you kept using the term. Thanks!

We can deal with criticism. Spamming "you're just following your master the USA" "all he does is sit and watch propoganda" "clearly he's been brainwashed with propoganda" etc. does not amount to criticism but rather spam.
I'm not "spamming" these replies. Those are my replies to posts you make when you clearly spam propaganda. Seems instead of backing up your posts you now try to silence the "opposition" by claims of trolling and involving moderators to get me removed. I hope you'll fail with this tactic.

I'm not "spamming" these replies. Those are my replies to posts you make when you clearly spam propaganda. Seems instead of backing up your posts you now try to silence the "opposition" by claims of trolling and involving moderators to get me removed. I hope you'll fail with this tactic.
I didn't ask the moderators to do anything. I didn't even ask them to do anything when I got a death wish this morning. :rolleyes:

Back to the topic, the US abuse their "super power" position to justify their overblown military which also includes WMD of all couleur. When I recently saw the spending of the US on their military, I almost didnt trust my eyes. It is, close to 50% of the entire budget, spent on a warmachinery that is used to invade other countries and spread americanization. I do not support this and will never understand why the US need to have WMD while select other countries may not. It would be better if *nobody* had nuclear weapons, alas since that is not possible, I am for controls in the US just like other nations are being controlled. Unfortunately, the US consequently remove themselves from international treaties or UN activity, which would mean revealing something of their arsenal. This is very suspicious behaviour. Also seeing the PNAC, I am worried what these WMD will be used for in the future - and I am sure that they will be used.

Care to give me a source?

Care to give me a source?
For what?

But the US is starting to heal the wounds in our relationship with Europe, especially over the WMD issue. Iran is starting to get a lot of heat for their Nuke program, as you may recall they are part of what Bush labeled the "Axis of Evil." France, Germany, and the UK are preparing to bring the issue of Irani nuke program to the Security Council, the US has been pushing for this for over a year. And I have already mentioned this but I will do it again, a mysterious mushroom cloud was picked up on satellite over North Korea, South Korea says that they have a Nuclear Devolopement Program there. Did North Korea set off a nuke?

But the US is starting to heal the wounds in our relationship with Europe, especially over the WMD issue. Iran is starting to get a lot of heat for their Nuke program, as you may recall they are part of what Bush labeled the "Axis of Evil." France, Germany, and the UK are preparing to bring the issue of Irani nuke program to the Security Council, the US has been pushing for this for over a year. And I have already mentioned this but I will do it again, a mysterious mushroom cloud was picked up on satellite over North Korea, South Korea says that they have a Nuclear Devolopement Program there. Did North Korea set off a nuke?
Unless there is word from N. Korea itself, we will never know. I do not trust any outside sources since they are guessing or propaganda, which are very bad sources to base such claims on.

We have to trust the US. Because only with the US and under US leadership it is possible to change the world into a better place. Without it is impossible. We have to work with it.

Now remember, Kybernetia, the US is a republic. That means it's run by a group of human beings, humans just as bigotted (sp?), short-sighted, and corrupt as other people. Trusting the US government like an organization run by the gods is taking patriotism a bit too far. Even other Americans like my self don't trust the US government entirely. No one should trust any government entirely. Corruption just comes with power.

Unless there is word from N. Korea itself, we will never know. I do not trust any outside sources since they are guessing or propaganda, which are very bad sources to base such claims on.


But then again, is North Korea a reliable source either...?

Kwangistar cant deal with criticism on his country. Seems to come with the new militarist and ultra-nationalist ideology of a large portion of the US population. It becomes ever more evident that any form of dissent or if people do not suck up to the US, they are anti-American, evil, trolls, etc. Instead of looking at their own faults and problems and solving them, the US are used to pointing the finger and blaming others for their shortcomings.

We admit our mistakes and shortcomings. We also point out that when any of our allies need help, we are there. We have lost 1000 in Iraq and helped secure a chance for democracy for 30 million. We lost 10,000 in 1 day, D-day, and helped secure freedom for how many millions? We expediently ended a war by dropping nukes, but by doing so inflicted generations of suffering...much more than I think even our nuclear scientists suspected. The debate on the justification of that will never be resolved. It just confounds me how viciously a few of our allies attack the our world policies and the American people in general, but then expect all to be forgiven and forgotten when they want something from us. Hypocrisy in action!

Why did we go to Iraq? The UN, GB, Russia, Israel, and countless other intelligence agencies agreed with our intelligence assessment that Saddam had WMD and intended to use them on the US and Israel. He played games with the UN weapons inspectors for 12 years and ignored 17 UN sanctions. Guess what!! It looks like they were ALL wrong or he had them shipped to Syria. He had publically stated he would attack the US and Israel and had even had American planes shot at while patrolling the Iraqi border under UN sanctions. But, after dozens of attacks on US interests by Muslem militants and finally the coup-des-gras, 9/11, would any country have taken the gamble that he didn't if they were in that position?

I also don't recall Canada ever getting threatened by any such thing.. but hey, maybe Zooke knows more about Canada then me.. I doubt it though.

Look at the projectile paths of the nukes the USSR had aimed at our northern cities. Hundreds of bombs flying over Canada...all with little more than a 60% chance of reaching their target. That means almost 40% would land on our northern ally. Canada was screaming for us to back them down...and we did.

Bush accuses other countries of having WMDs, and invades those that don't even have them. Yet it is America which has the most Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world! THIS IS A DOUBLE STANDARD THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED.

Yes, it's really shitty, I agree. Wish it would end.

We admit our mistakes and shortcomings. We also point out that when any of our allies need help, we are there. We have lost 1000 in Iraq and helped secure a chance for democracy for 30 million. We lost 10,000 in 1 day, D-day, and helped secure freedom for how many millions? We expediently ended a war by dropping nukes, but by doing so inflicted generations of suffering...much more than I think even our nuclear scientists suspected. The debate on the justification of that will never be resolved. It just confounds me how viciously a few of our allies attack the our world policies and the American people in general, but then expect all to be forgiven and forgotten when they want something from us. Hypocrisy in action!

Why did we go to Iraq? The UN, GB, Russia, Israel, and countless other intelligence agencies agreed with our intelligence assessment that Saddam had WMD and intended to use them on the US and Israel. He played games with the UN weapons inspectors for 12 years and ignored 17 UN sanctions. Guess what!! It looks like they were ALL wrong or he had them shipped to Syria. He had publically stated he would attack the US and Israel and had even had American planes shot at while patrolling the Iraqi border under UN sanctions. But, after dozens of attacks on US interests by Muslem militants and finally the coup-des-gras, 9/11, would any country have taken the gamble that he didn't if they were in that position?



Look at the projectile paths of the nukes the USSR had aimed at our northern cities. Hundreds of bombs flying over Canada...all with little more than a 60% chance of reaching their target. That means almost 40% would land on our northern ally. Canada was screaming for us to back them down...and we did.
Hmm I'm wondering which path these nukes could have taken... afaik, Canada is north of the US and north of Canada is no other country. If the USSR had intended to shoot ICBM they'd just shoot them from their submarines or from West to East over the Pacific or from East to West over the Atlantic.

Unless there is word from N. Korea itself, we will never know. I do not trust any outside sources since they are guessing or propaganda, which are very bad sources to base such claims on.

True, and I must stress only South Korea is saying it was a nuke, Colin Powell has said it is not, and we have sensors that should be able to detect a nuclear explosion.

BUT, what if it was a nuke, the only reason the US would want to keep it secret was if they were planning a strategic strike on the reactor that is being used to refine the Uranium. And this happened 3 days ago.

Think about the countries we condemn having WMD (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Lebanon...or whatever its spelled), and think about the countries we do not (Britain, France, Isreal, etc.)

Can you name the differences between these two groups of nations?
That is an incredibly good point.

Yeah, because the U.S. might use their WMDs against their ethnic minorities, hold entire regions hostage to fear of their WMDs, or use them in attacking nations for no reason. :rolleyes:
So, we're very, very unlikely to use our WMDs... and yet for some reason, we still have them?

[QUOTE=Gigatron]When I recently saw the spending of the US on their military, I almost didnt trust my eyes. It is, close to 50% of the entire budget, spent on a warmachinery that is used to invade other countries and spread americanization. QUOTE]

50% Please source this statistic.

Americanization? You mean a system that defends human rights and created the largest and most prosperous nation in the world? Oh NO!! Can't let that spread around!!

The US are a dangerous country aiming for world hegemony by military force. I think the US should not have nuclear weapons and should have inspectors in the country, checking what other weapons (biological, chemical) are being developed and hidden. The US has no moral highground to be allowed to have nuclear weapons or other WMD while other countries are not allowed.

Think about this, Gigatron. We don't need to have plutonium to build nuclear weapons; all we need is uranium. Since uranium is natural, it can't be legislated out of existance. Terrorism isn't limited to US targets; anyone who doesn't follow a certain set of ideals is a target for a terrorist group, and since many different terrorist groups exist with different sets of beliefs it would be impossible not to get attacked. And to be entirely honest, it doesn't take extremely high-grade uranium to make a bomb that'll explode (sure, you won't get much force out of it, but it'll still work if you have enough uranium). So wouldn't it be logical to assume that a terrorist organization could get it's hands on uranium and attack countries? Maybe mine, the US? Maybe yours? we need to know who we can trust. North Korea and Iran definately can't be trusted; they've already stated that they'd use WMDs on other countries if they had them. And while the US can't be entirely trusted, they haven't used a nuke since the 40s. Our best protection is nuclear deterrant, and the countries that have them right now are, so far, our best cantidates for the job.

Hmm I'm wondering which path these nukes could have taken... afaik, Canada is north of the US and north of Canada is no other country. If the USSR had intended to shoot ICBM they'd just shoot them from their submarines or from West to East over the Pacific or from East to West over the Atlantic.

It's a short 90 miles march over icepack from the former USSR to Alaska and the Arctic. They had nuclear placements all over the Arctic and subs crusing the coasts up there. They also had subs off both our coasts and in the gulf. If war had broken out there would have been so many of those things flying around they would have been colliding all over the northern hemisphere.

Hmm I'm wondering which path these nukes could have taken... afaik, Canada is north of the US and north of Canada is no other country. If the USSR had intended to shoot ICBM they'd just shoot them from their submarines or from West to East over the Pacific or from East to West over the Atlantic.

But we knew where the Russian missile subs were, or atleast most of them, we had them tracked by USN attack subs, the knew they could not rely on the subs alone.

And try looking at a globe instead of a map, it is a shorter distance for land based ICBM's to go over the north pole as opposed to over the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans.

The US and Canada worked together alot during WWII and the Cold War, Canada and the US built a highways stretching from Washington (I think) to Alaska in only 8 months, and during a Canadian winter no less. America and Canada for the most part have always been allies, we stick together, some people will say that Canada is America's bitch, they do as we say, I think that it is because Canada and America share the same views and interests.
Canada and America share the longest unprotected border in the whole world, if we really distrusted each other you would see more than just a few checkpoints, you would see armed guards at the border.

So, we're very, very unlikely to use our WMDs... and yet for some reason, we still have them?


OK....so the US is disarmed....and in due course, all of the free world. Can you say "shooting fish in a barrell". The WMDs aren't for use so much as for a deterrent. And a pretty damn good one, too!

[QUOTE=Gigatron]When I recently saw the spending of the US on their military, I almost didnt trust my eyes. It is, close to 50% of the entire budget, spent on a warmachinery that is used to invade other countries and spread americanization. QUOTE]

50% Please source this statistic.

Americanization? You mean a system that defends human rights and created the largest and most prosperous nation in the world? Oh NO!! Can't let that spread around!!
Americanization? You mean the system which commercialises everything and bankrolls and bankrupts whole nations depending on whether they offer a good trade deal?

BTW, what did you mean by "biggest"? Largest population (you're not), largest landmass (you're not). Wealthiest? No, you can't mean that, cos you said prosperous as well. Biggest egos? Maybe, if you're anything to go by.

US is third in the world by Population and I believe 4th in the world by land mass. But economically we are the biggest, our GDP is over 5 Trillion USD a year, I believe China is second at 2 Trillion USD, Germany 3rd at 1.8 Trillion, France with 1.7 Trillion and then Japan with 1.5 Trillion, something like that, I saw the numbers recently but forgot where.

Americanization? You mean the system which commercialises everything and bankrolls and bankrupts whole nations depending on whether they offer a good trade deal?

BTW, what did you mean by "biggest"? Largest population (you're not), largest landmass (you're not). Wealthiest? No, you can't mean that, cos you said prosperous as well. Biggest egos? Maybe, if you're anything to go by.

I misspoke when I said largest....I meant most powerful. Yes, we are a commercial nation. And we didn't gain our wealth by making trade deals unfavorable to our economy. We hand out charity in other ways.

Yup!! I do have an ego...I'm American and real proud of it!! Ever notice how we have to guard our borders to keep people out but we don't have to close them to keep people in? Must be doing something right whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

Look at the projectile paths of the nukes the USSR had aimed at our northern cities. Hundreds of bombs flying over Canada...all with little more than a 60% chance of reaching their target. That means almost 40% would land on our northern ally. Canada was screaming for us to back them down...and we did.

Oh, so we should be grateful for you involving us in your conflict. I see. I don't recall the USSR having a problem with us. I don't believe any one has ever had a problem with us except America, but we fought and won. Don't bother btw, I know it ended officially in a stalemate in 1814, but the fact that the US invaded us and gained nothing from where they started, stalemate signed or not, I consider that a victory for Canada.

Oh, so we should be grateful for you involving us in your conflict. I see. I don't recall the USSR having a problem with us. I don't believe any one has ever had a problem with us except America, but we fought and won. Don't bother btw, I know it ended officially in a stalemate in 1814, but the fact that the US invaded us and gained nothing from where they started, stalemate signed or not, I consider that a victory for Canada.

You must have missed reading this post....

The US and Canada worked together alot during WWII and the Cold War, Canada and the US built a highways stretching from Washington (I think) to Alaska in only 8 months, and during a Canadian winter no less. America and Canada for the most part have always been allies, we stick together, some people will say that Canada is America's bitch, they do as we say, I think that it is because Canada and America share the same views and interests.
Canada and America share the longest unprotected border in the whole world, if we really distrusted each other you would see more than just a few checkpoints, you would see armed guards at the border.

Oh, so we should be grateful for you involving us in your conflict. I see. I don't recall the USSR having a problem with us. I don't believe any one has ever had a problem with us except America, but we fought and won. Don't bother btw, I know it ended officially in a stalemate in 1814, but the fact that the US invaded us and gained nothing from where they started, stalemate signed or not, I consider that a victory for Canada.
Also, it wasn't OUR conflict. It was a conflict between democratic nations (including the US and Canada) and communist nations.

1814 invasion? Are you kidding?

First off folks, for the past 30 years the US has been reducing its stores of nuclear weapons. Biological weapons are illegal for production or usage in the US under federal law. Chemical weapons production has also ceased during the Reagan Administration(exception riot control agents such as tear gas). As for nuclear weapons the US is currently retiring or modifiying 6 Ohio class SSBNs to carry non-nuclear Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. The US is also dismantling the Peacekeeper MIRV ICBMs. So why should we be able to tell other nations that they cant have WMDs?

Well lets look at who we're telling= Iraq, Iran(and about 3-4 other middle eastern countries), North Korea.

Why? Because North Korea would, with nothing left to lose really, hold the entire region hostage demanding concessions from the RoK, and Japan. God knows what those demands might be and quite frankly I hope we never find out. Those middle eastern countries would more or less spark a nuclear war between Israel and whoever develops the bomb and Israel considers a threat. (Israel doesnt consider Pakistan a thread because Pakistan is more concerned with India's nuclear weapons.)

Oh as for the US seeking a global hegamony...you idiots are off your rockers quite frankly. The US had its chance after the Soviet Union collapsed and frankly instead of being the typical super power like Rome, or Great Britian, we sat on our hands and allowed the world to do what it wanted for a good long time. We sent billions to the Russians to try and get them back onto their feet. We watched as the Balkans ripped itself apart with little done by the UN in terms of peacekeeping. We let terrorists strike at US targets world wide with only a marginal response. What part of any of that is the US trying to seek military dominance in the world?

The US military from the end of the cold war till today has actually decreased drastically. Back in 2003 one of the largest naval bases on the planet was closed in Puerto Rico. But hey whatever we're trying for global hegamony..because...of what again?

It's not a double standard for two reasons, one is theres nothing the rest of the world can do about it and the other reason is we didn't invade Kuwait in the 90s.

And American's wonder why we get such a bad rep.

It's not a double standard for two reasons, one is theres nothing the rest of the world can do about it and the other reason is we didn't invade Kuwait in the 90s.

The US military from the end of the cold war till today has actually decreased drastically. Back in 2003 one of the largest naval bases on the planet was closed in Puerto Rico. But hey whatever we're trying for global hegamony..because...of what again?

Roosevelt Roads was shut down? Wow.

The US and Canada worked together alot during WWII

Well, sure all the allies worked with the USA once they decided to show up. Canada was there in 1939. You didn't show up until 1941. Canada didn't take "help" per se like the rest of Europe from the Americans. You ran lend-lease Canada ran "Mutual aid" we (Canada) were the UK's chief supplier for most of WWII. Canada was a stronger country in terms of military going into WWII then the USA was. At the beginning of WWII the Americans only had a 17,000 man army. While the rest of us were fighting America built up it's resources before joining. Coming out of WWII is when America became a super-power. They were not before. Then the US and USSR made deals of who would get what (splitting the kitty if you will) that's why you beat the USSR is the space race, because you had first pick at the German scientists. Canada has never asked the USA for help. On the other hand we have helped out in almost every American conflict in the last 60 years, with the exception of Vietnam (which we were right not to) and Iraq (again we were right not to)

Canada is not the USA, we're more peaceful, more liberal and far more liked. We are a member of the G8 and NATO. We are no one's push over and we are proud of our country because went invented peace-keeping. We have given to the world in a selfless manner that the US government could never understand. We have done it because we thought it was the right thing to do, not because there was some thing in it for us unlike the US.

You may disagree with me all you wish, that is your right. However this is my opinion and what I believe. You certainly won't change that.

Roosevelt Roads was shut down? Wow.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/facility/roosevelt-roads.htm

March 31st 2004, so my timing was alittle off.

Well, sure all the allies worked with the USA once they decided to show up. Canada was there in 1939. You didn't show up until 1941. Canada didn't take "help" per se like the rest of Europe from the Americans. You ran lend-lease Canada ran "Mutual aid" we (Canada) were the UK's chief supplier for most of WWII. Canada was a stronger country in terms of military going into WWII then the USA was. At the beginning of WWII the Americans only had a 17,000 man army. While the rest of us were fighting America built up it's resources before joining.

Its easy for you to say "Hey we were in it in 1939!" Because I can then say so what? You guys back then were patriotic to be part of the greatest empire on the planet..you got dragged into the war. What were you going to do? Tell Great Britian no you guys can handle it on your own? Its funny because you constantly complain about the US having no right to stick its nose in peoples business but you play up how your country jumped into a war that started in Europe and had little to do with Canada.

Also, the US had a far larger industrial base than Canada. Its why by mid-42 we eclipsed you in terms of weapons and aid. The US having given somewhere in the amount of 31 billion dollars worth of aid to Great Britian alone. But hey drown yourself in the delusion all you want. Revisionist history sure has a strong way up there huh?

And at the beginning of WWII who didnt have a military larger than the US? We dismantled pretty much most of our weapons of war after WWI hoping we'd never see another conflict again. We restricted ourselves with the washington naval treaty but hey whatever..if you want to compare military numbers at the height of WWII we had more people in military uniform than there were people in Canada at the time.

OK....so the US is disarmed....and in due course, all of the free world. Can you say "shooting fish in a barrell". The WMDs aren't for use so much as for a deterrent. And a pretty damn good one, too!
Right, but if you know they're not gonna be used, then it doesn't deter you. Its like knowing the guy across the table from you is bluffing.

I misspoke when I said largest....I meant most powerful. Yes, we are a commercial nation. And we didn't gain our wealth by making trade deals unfavorable to our economy. We hand out charity in other ways. You can't get richer unless you take more than you give. That means that your charity to other countries is negated by american corporations screwing them, not that unfair trade deals are negated by a foreign aid handout (of which you give next to nothing compared to most other developed countries)

Yup!! I do have an ego...I'm American and real proud of it!! Ever notice how we have to guard our borders to keep people out but we don't have to close them to keep people in? Must be doing something right whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
I acknowledge that people like the idea of living rich and easy in America, but then, St Petersberg is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and it was built on the bones of ten thousand workers. The fact that people, even a lot of people, like it doesn't make it automatically right.

Oh as for the US seeking a global hegamony...you idiots are off your rockers quite frankly. The US had its chance after the Soviet Union collapsed and frankly instead of being the typical super power like Rome, or Great Britian, we sat on our hands and allowed the world to do what it wanted for a good long time. We sent billions to the Russians to try and get them back onto their feet. We watched as the Balkans ripped itself apart with little done by the UN in terms of peacekeeping. We let terrorists strike at US targets world wide with only a marginal response. What part of any of that is the US trying to seek military dominance in the world?
Cite source please "billions to Russia".

Its easy for you to say "Hey we were in it in 1939!" Because I can then say so what? You guys back then were patriotic to be part of the greatest empire on the planet..you got dragged into the war. What were you going to do? Tell Great Britian no you guys can handle it on your own? Its funny because you constantly complain about the US having no right to stick its nose in peoples business but you play up how your country jumped into a war that started in Europe and had little to do with Canada.
What, you don't think that Hitler was gonna be a threat across the Atlantic? Besides, people had actually been attacked in WW2, unlike in Iraq.

if you want to compare military numbers at the height of WWII we had more people in military uniform than there were people in Canada at the time.

I did state at the beginning, I know that was not the case by the end. Although per capita we gave more to the WWII effort then any other country. While I do realize it doesn't work that way, it's worth mentioning. Also Canada was expected to fight in WW1, but we didn't have to in WWII, it was our decision. I also do fully admit I know that the largest reason for the victory of WWII goes to the former USSR and then the USA. However USA or not, it still would of been won, just perhaps later then sooner, but the USA left WWII sitting rather pretty didn't they.. selfless act of liberating Europe my ass!

Cite source please "billions to Russia".

After the collapse of the Soviet Union? What havent we sent them billions for. We had to help them dismantle their own nuclear weapons. Fine though. Here you go:

http://www.indexmundi.com/russia/economic_aid_recipient.html Thats in 2001

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/bank/hba51201.000/hba51201_0f.htm September 10th 1998, House of Representatives discuss recent choice to give IMF 18 billion dollars to help Russia. And talk about post totals given or promised to Russia if they can get their economy in decently livable stable shape.

Cite source please "billions to Russia".

you can start here....

http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/russia/russia4.cfm

What, you don't think that Hitler was gonna be a threat across the Atlantic? Besides, people had actually been attacked in WW2, unlike in Iraq.
No one attacked? Let's ask US pilots, Kuwaitis, and the Iraqi people about that. And as far as attacks during WWII...we were just acting like good citizens not bothering anybody when Japan attacked us and got us into the war. Now, what is the US supposed to do...sit quietly, let militants kill our people, damage our economy, pass out money on demand, and only get involved when expressly invited or it directly benefits one of the countries condemning us now?

By the way (I don't know if this was said yet, but I don't feel like reading dribble), it is CHINA that has the most nuclear weapons, followed by Russia, and coming up behind is the US, Britain, and France.

you can start here....

http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/russia/russia4.cfm
Is that the right page? That seems to be opinion polling for foreign aid, not actual amounts supplied/not supplied.

I did state at the beginning, I know that was not the case by the end. Although per capita we gave more to the WWII effort then any other country. While I do realize it doesn't work that way, it's worth mentioning. Also Canada was expected to fight in WW1, but we didn't have to in WWII, it was our decision. I also do fully admit I know that the largest reason for the victory of WWII goes to the former USSR and then the USA. However USA or not, it still would of been won, just perhaps later then sooner, but the USA left WWII sitting rather pretty didn't they.. selfless act of liberating Europe my ass!

Tell me on those 90 degree days, when it gets really hot do you take off your tinfoil hat or are you afraid of US satellites reading your mind?

Anyway, what else would you call it? Because if you look at western europe..and you look at eastern europe..how many of those countries in Western Europe were threatened with invasion in 1950s? 60s? If I remember it correctly it was the Soviets who made sure that each government in eastern europe was strictly hardline communist..and even resorted to military invasions to keep that status quo in check.

As for the US sitting rather pretty..whats your point? What was the US suppose to do? Not build up? Canada was fighting a war in Europe, and the US was fighting a war in the Pacific and Europe. Keep in mind that WWII wasnt just solely Europe. There is this large body of water called the Pacific and it was a major battleground. I give credit to the Russians for keeping most of the German army occupied, but it was the US, Brits and Canadians, and others who liberated Italy. It was the US, Brits, and Canadians who liberated France, and Western Germany. Not the Soviets.

As for your per capita contributions to the war..thats not so hard to do with a population of 12 million at the time. Sure I'll give you guys credit for fighting above and beyond most of the time. But frankly you're just as bad as Americans who feel the US won the war single handed with your blind patriotism and dislike for the US.

As for not being expected to fight in WWII, did Canada have a massive isolationist movement that the history books have forgotten?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union? What havent we sent them billions for. We had to help them dismantle their own nuclear weapons. Fine though. Here you go:

http://www.indexmundi.com/russia/economic_aid_recipient.html Thats in 2001

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/bank/hba51201.000/hba51201_0f.htm September 10th 1998, House of Representatives discuss recent choice to give IMF 18 billion dollars to help Russia. And talk about post totals given or promised to Russia if they can get their economy in decently livable stable shape.
Yeah, but the point (the important part of the point) was aid immediately after the end of the Cold War, and I don't think that that happened that much. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm wrong, if there's a source...

Is that the right page? That seems to be opinion polling for foreign aid, not actual amounts supplied/not supplied.
oops...worry....wrong one....try about 1/4 of the way down on this page..

http://www.gwu.edu/~csol/us-russia-conf/ruoped.htm

What, you don't think that Hitler was gonna be a threat across the Atlantic? Besides, people had actually been attacked in WW2, unlike in Iraq.

Hitler himself was a known Anglophile. He never wanted to fight the western allies. His cheif thing was killing Soviets. Hitler wanted to expand East and smack down Russia. Hitlers early goals were never complete domination of the world, and neither where they his later goals.

No one attacked? Let's ask US pilots, Kuwaitis, and the Iraqi people about that. And as far as attacks during WWII...we were just acting like good citizens not bothering anybody when Japan attacked us and got us into the war. Now, what is the US supposed to do...sit quietly, let militants kill our people, damage our economy, pass out money on demand, and only get involved when expressly invited or it directly benefits one of the countries condemning us now?
Now hang on, when was the last time a US pilot was shot down in Iraq? When was the last time Kuwait was attacked by Iraq? And the Iraqi people, they've been suffering for decades. How do you use any of these for justifying going to war at the time that you did? If you want my opinion, we should've had Saddam out a long time ago, but no, the US waited til it was politically viable and used a climate of fear to con the public into going to war. Now that, combined with the broad cynicism of using the well being of Iraqi people to justify a war for which the reasons were entirely self motivated, is what I find objectionable.

Yeah, but the point (the important part of the point) was aid immediately after the end of the Cold War, and I don't think that that happened that much. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm wrong, if there's a source...

We're not going to send aid immediately after the cold war because Russia was an unstable mess. Sending money then would have been a waste. Although whats your point? I said since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not directly after the cold war ended. That was on a different subject all together.

Now hang on, when was the last time a US pilot was shot down in Iraq?

Shot down?91. Shot at? 91 to 2002. If anything Clinton should have delt with Iraq back in 98 when he kicked inspectors out..oh well.

Tell me on those 90 degree days, when it gets really hot do you take off your tinfoil hat or are you afraid of US satellites reading your mind?90 degree days in Canada? Hey, maybe global warming ain't all bad.

Anyway, what else would you call it? Because if you look at western europe..and you look at eastern europe..how many of those countries in Western Europe were threatened with invasion in 1950s? 60s? If I remember it correctly it was the Soviets who made sure that each government in eastern europe was strictly hardline communist..and even resorted to military invasions to keep that status quo in check.You're right. Funding millitants in Afghanistan and trainin contras in Iran and Nicaraguia... that wasn't remotely military orientated.

As for the US sitting rather pretty..whats your point? What was the US suppose to do? Not build up? Canada was fighting a war in Europe, and the US was fighting a war in the Pacific and Europe. Keep in mind that WWII wasnt just solely Europe. There is this large body of water called the Pacific and it was a major battleground. I give credit to the Russians for keeping most of the German army occupied, but it was the US, Brits and Canadians, and others who liberated Italy. It was the US, Brits, and Canadians who liberated France, and Western Germany. Not the Soviets.Of course they liberated Western Germany, there were Germans between Russia and Western Germany. Are you saying Russia should have tried to outflank them round the North sea?

As for your per capita contributions to the war..thats not so hard to do with a population of 12 million at the time. Sure I'll give you guys credit for fighting above and beyond most of the time. But frankly you're just as bad as Americans who feel the US won the war single handed with your blind patriotism and dislike for the US.Per capita is used because it illustrates how hard it is for a country to pay. The US could shell out 200 million dollars without breaking a sweat, its only $1 a citizen. But if Sweeden put the same amount of money forwards, it'd be $20 dollars each. It shows that its tougher for them to afford. If anything, paying larger amounts per capita becomes easier with larger populations, because wealth increases faster with large populations.

My point is that the USA was hardly as alturistic and willing to set aside old differences in Russia as you'd like us to believe.

Umm and yet billions were still sent throughout the 90s....I think we pretty such aside those old differences. Stop putting up strawman arguement on this point.

We're not going to send aid immediately after the cold war because Russia was an unstable mess. Sending money then would have been a waste. Although whats your point? I said since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not directly after the cold war ended. That was on a different subject all together.My point is that the USA was hardly as alturistic and willing to set aside old differences in Russia as you'd like us to believe.

oops...worry....wrong one....try about 1/4 of the way down on this page..

http://www.gwu.edu/~csol/us-russia-conf/ruoped.htm
I'll let it slide cos it wasn't hugely important anyway, but the largest number on that page is $1.27 billion, which technically wouldn't be described as billions, but I'll conceed anyhow.

Now hang on, when was the last time a US pilot was shot down in Iraq? When was the last time Kuwait was attacked by Iraq? And the Iraqi people, they've been suffering for decades. How do you use any of these for justifying going to war at the time that you did? If you want my opinion, we should've had Saddam out a long time ago, but no, the US waited til it was politically viable and used a climate of fear to con the public into going to war. Now that, combined with the broad cynicism of using the well being of Iraqi people to justify a war for which the reasons were entirely self motivated, is what I find objectionable.

So, did we go to war too early, too late, or for no reason? I think we should have mopped Saddam up in 1991. But, we listened to the folks at the UN. There was an hysterical climate of fear in this country...and for good reason. The 9/11 attacks shocked the whole world. But it has been proven by several independent commissions, that the public was not conned. Incorrect intel, possibly intentionally encouraged by Saddam to make him appear stronger than he was, led the US to attack. You can call it cynicism if you want, it may be in part, but, even though we didn't find WMD, the world is safer without Saddam and his boys. As shown by the Iraqi people's recent reaction to the ongoing conflict with Sadyr(sp), they're learning to stand up and fight for their rights. A free, self-governing nation will be less likely to support militants and extremists, eventually making Iraq an ally to all of the western world.

90 degree days in Canada? Hey, maybe global warming ain't all bad.

Being sarcastic to a sarcastic comment...the point of this being?

You're right. Funding millitants in Afghanistan and trainin contras in Iran and Nicaraguia... that wasn't remotely military orientated. . Both of those taking place WELL after WWII AND after Soviet invasions of Eastern European nations...and Korea...and Vietnam...and the list goes on.

Of course they liberated Western Germany, there were Germans between Russia and Western Germany. Are you saying Russia should have tried to outflank them round the North sea?.
Your missing the point of what I was saying...Steph says Russia won the war, I say sure, but the western allies liberated their fair share as well..and did it much nicer than the Russians.

Per capita is used because it illustrates how hard it is for a country to pay. The US could shell out 200 million dollars without breaking a sweat, its only $1 a citizen. But if Sweeden put the same amount of money forwards, it'd be $20 dollars each. It shows that its tougher for them to afford. If anything, paying larger amounts per capita becomes easier with larger populations, because wealth increases faster with large populations.

Right care to explain why China was dirt poor for so long? Or how about India? Population does not equal wealth.

I know. I never understood why it was OK for the US, but not for other countries.

The distinction is some countries, like Iraq and North Korea, aren't supposed to have WMD's because of their past actions against their neighbors or their own people. These are resolutions set up by the UN. The US has never attacked another country without provocation. And the US is not the only country allowed to have WMD's. Russia, China, and many European countries also have them. Read a book, people. :rolleyes:

Hitler himself was a known Anglophile. He never wanted to fight the western allies. His cheif thing was killing Soviets. Hitler wanted to expand East and smack down Russia. Hitlers early goals were never complete domination of the world, and neither where they his later goals.
Put yourself in the jackboots of a mad, paranoid mustachioed Austrian dictator. You've got plans to conquer Europe (note please, France is to the west of Germany), and now sitting across this tiny stretch of water are the British, a group of people who tend to take the whole not-being-oppressed-by-Germans thing quite seriously. The Americans are there as well, across a slightly larger stretch of water, and they have similar sentiments regarding Teutonic oppression. Together with a bunch of other nations, these people whupped your countries ass in a war which you yourself fought in, and forced your country to agree to a treaty which became publicly regarded as the ruin of Germany. Now would you let them off? If you honestly believe that Hitler would have, then you have a lot more faith in the man than I do.

I'll let it slide cos it wasn't hugely important anyway, but the largest number on that page is $1.27 billion, which technically wouldn't be described as billions, but I'll conceed anyhow.

that was the statistics up to 1994.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committee...hba51201_0f.htm

So, did we go to war too early, too late, or for no reason? I think we should have mopped Saddam up in 1991. But, we listened to the folks at the UN. There was an hysterical climate of fear in this country...and for good reason. The 9/11 attacks shocked the whole world. But it has been proven by several independent commissions, that the public was not conned. Incorrect intel, possibly intentionally encouraged by Saddam to make him appear stronger than he was, led the US to attack. You can call it cynicism if you want, it may be in part, but, even though we didn't find WMD, the world is safer without Saddam and his boys. As shown by the Iraqi people's recent reaction to the ongoing conflict with Sadyr(sp), they're learning to stand up and fight for their rights. A free, self-governing nation will be less likely to support militants and extremists, eventually making Iraq an ally to all of the western world.
Well, you suggest that war was the only option, I don't believe that it was. But we should have been pushing harder for other options, and have the option of war sitting on the touchline.

Incorrect intel is bullshit. The US and Britain had already decided before the intel came out that they were going to war, facts weren't gonna stop them.

Put yourself in the jackboots of a mad, paranoid mustachioed Austrian dictator. You've got plans to conquer Europe (note please, France is to the west of Germany), and now sitting across this tiny stretch of water are the British, a group of people who tend to take the whole not-being-oppressed-by-Germans thing quite seriously. The Americans are there as well, across a slightly larger stretch of water, and they have similar sentiments regarding Teutonic oppression. Together with a bunch of other nations, these people whupped your countries ass in a war which you yourself fought in, and forced your country to agree to a treaty which became publicly regarded as the ruin of Germany. Now would you let them off? If you honestly believe that Hitler would have, then you have a lot more faith in the man than I do.
Would have or would not have... the fact is that he wrote books in which he laid out his aims and he very strictly followed his "doctrine". It is speculative to try and "predict" what he may or may not have done. Fact is however that Germany did not have the manpower or resources to dominate the world. Much like the US does not have the manpower and resources to dominate the world. If anything, Germany could have grown to large proportions, rivalling the US as another superpower.

I can't actually prove this but I remember the government using nuclear weapons in Iraq to get at buried bunkers and WMD facitlities. Does anyone else remember this or did I just imagine this?

Bunker busters aren't nukes. They're specially designed missiles for penetrating deep into the ground to get buried targets. The alleged WMD facilities were hit with regular missiles. So, we have not used any nukes to attack since WW II.

Right care to explain why China was dirt poor for so long? Or how about India? Population does not equal wealth.
No, population however is related to the rate of increase of wealth, and China and India are perfect examples of this.


Your missing the point of what I was saying...Steph says Russia won the war, I say sure, but the western allies liberated their fair share as well..and did it much nicer than the RussiansYeah, but while the US couldn't have won without the pressure on the Eastern front from Russia, Russia quite possibly could have won without the US.

The US has never attacked another country without provocation.
Sure.

Sure.

Oh? Who have we attacked without a reason? Let me anser that for you. NO ONE.

Sure.

Technically its true. Granted most provocations are bullshit but there are times in which the US has been provoked into legit wars. This coming from a avid supporter of the US. I'll be first to admit we dont go to war unless we come up with someway to justify it. No matter how see through the reasoning is.

Yet it's not for the USA to decide who can have them and who can't either. It's not their right or place.

The US doesn't make that call, either. The UN does.

Actually Bush and anyone observing the behaviour patterns of particular countries does have that right to discern what countries should and should not have WMD. Our nation JUSTLY used WMD to quickly end a war that would have otherwise gone on for many many years with much more death and destruction than that which was caused by the use of Atomic warfare. We attacked a country that attacked us. The government has the right and the DUTY to retaliate. They were wrong. We were right.
I call bullshit. Japan was trying to surrender unconditionally.

I call bullshit. Japan was trying to surrender unconditionally.

My turn to call bullshit. Gimme one source that says Japan was trying to surrender unconditionally. Because so far all the sources I've seen Japan wanted to surrender on the condition that things returned to Status Quo and the Emperor remained as cheif head of the nation. Truman however is paraphrased as stating "I will not leave the situation the way it is only to fight another war for the same reasonstwenty years from now."

I call bullshit. Japan was trying to surrender unconditionally.


President Stego glanced at Gigatron's reply, and lifted the wine glass to his lips, draining the contents. Wiping the remaining liquid from his lips with the back of his hand he snickered under his breath, "Riiiiiiiiight".

Revisionist history is not only embarrassing, it's dangerous.

Oh? Who have we attacked without a reason? Let me anser that for you. NO ONE.
Is it technically a question if you answer it yourself?

Lets start with Iraq. What precisely was Iraq doing to provoke the US... being mean to them? Calling them nasty names? Pulling faces?

I'll go with this "technically" arguement. Under most international or UN conditions of acceptable responses though, there have been attacks on other countries which were not provoked, or were pretty severe overkill on the part of the US.

Yea if you look at the world solely through the eyes of today. Circumstances and conditions change. What is considered overkill now was perfectly acceptable in the past.

Technically its true. Granted most provocations are bullshit but there are times in which the US has been provoked into legit wars. This coming from a avid supporter of the US. I'll be first to admit we dont go to war unless we come up with someway to justify it. No matter how see through the reasoning is.
I'll go with this "technically" arguement. Under most international or UN conditions of acceptable responses though, there have been attacks on other countries which were not provoked, or were pretty severe overkill on the part of the US.

The US is not trying to unite the world. This is another "9/11=Jewish Conspiracy" BS argument. If we were trying to unite the world through military force we would have tried already, every day China get's stronger, every day the EU gets a little stronger. North Korea get's that much closer to a nuclear weapons program (or are they? anybody else see on the news that a mushroom cloud 2 miles in diameter was spotted over North Korea? South Korea says they have a Nuclear Testing Facility there.),

They've already determined that what ever the explosion was, it wasn't nuclear.

My turn to call bullshit. Gimme one source that says Japan was trying to surrender unconditionally. Because so far all the sources I've seen Japan wanted to surrender on the condition that things returned to Status Quo and the Emperor remained as cheif head of the nation. Truman however is paraphrased as stating "I will not leave the situation the way it is only to fight another war for the same reasonstwenty years from now."
So two nukes were justfied? They couldn't have dropped the bombs in the desert and sent footage to Japan with "this is what you're in for" on the label? Again, maybe you can rationalise it, but you can't find a way that'd make it right, or a way where other options aren't infinitely better.

I'll go with this "technically" arguement. Under most international or UN conditions of acceptable responses though, there have been attacks on other countries which were not provoked, or were pretty severe overkill on the part of the US.

A monstrous tyrant is dethroned, his vile, murderous sons are dead and burning in Hell. The people have the OPTION now to make a government for themselves without a psycho running it to his own glory. Women and girls may now be educated and work publicly. Iraqui athletes competed in the Olympics without the fear of dismemberment and torture if they lost. Just for starters, which of these things do you object?

Is it just me, or does nearly 100% of your posts have something to say about your dislike for America/American government?


It's not just you.

So two nukes were justfied? They couldn't have dropped the bombs in the desert and sent footage to Japan with "this is what you're in for" on the label? Again, maybe you can rationalise it, but you can't find a way that'd make it right, or a way where other options aren't infinitely better.

What would sending footage have done? What if the bombs were duds? Keep in mind the A-bombs werent exactly trusted devices of war. Even after the A-bombs were dropped and Hirohito announced to his military he planned on surrendering a fanatical sect of the military sought to overthrow him.. They fortunately did not succeed at all. No I wont say it was right. But yes it was justified. The other choice was to have Truman order the invasion of Japan.

Now that itself has been described as possibly being Vietnam without helicopters. The likely hood of the Russians invading from the North and splitting Japan in two is also a strong possiblity. Seeing how the Koreas and the Vietnams got along can you guess the magnatitude of the added carnage that would have caused?

Yea if you look at the world solely through the eyes of today. Circumstances and conditions change. What is considered overkill now was perfectly acceptable in the past.Aquinas defined the critera for a Just War in the 13th century. Conditions don't change that much.

The number of places bombed by the US since the end of WW2... staggering large and overwhelmingly agressive are two sets of adjectives which come to mind.

Aquinas defined the critera for a Just War in the 13th century. Conditions don't change that much.

The number of places bombed by the US since the end of WW2... staggering large and overwhelmingly agressive are two sets of adjectives which come to mind.

Right Korea, and Vietnam both come to mind...both were long protracted wars with multiple participants on both sides of the affair. And what Aquinas defined for a Just War in the 13th century managed not to keep up with the politics of the time, or military doctrine of nations.

Its like pleasent envoking the Geneva convention on one country when letting the other side slip by.

A monstrous tyrant is dethroned, his vile, murderous sons are dead and burning in Hell. The people have the OPTION now to make a government for themselves without a psycho running it to his own glory. Women and girls may now be educated and work publicly. Iraqui athletes competed in the Olympics without the fear of dismemberment and torture if they lost. Just for starters, which of these things do you object?
Well, the burning in Hell bit for a start, I'm not a theist. The "without a psycho" bit isn't necessarily true... but that's not the point. In fact, nothing you said was on point, because all you talk about there is the after effects, wereas I was arguing about of provocation. Now, this post might make a perfectly legitimate point, but you'll have to quote someone else to make it, because otherwise you're hijacking this line of arguement.

Bush accuses other countries of having WMDs, and invades those that don't even have them. Yet it is America which has the most Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world! THIS IS A DOUBLE STANDARD THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED.
Actually, we've been hearing for the past 10 to 12 years that countries like Iraq, N. Korea, etc., have (or had) WMD. Let's not blame the current Administration for data collected years ago, shall we?

Right Korea, and Vietnam both come to mind...both were long protracted wars with multiple participants on both sides of the affair. And what Aquinas defined for a Just War in the 13th century managed not to keep up with the politics of the time, or military doctrine of nations.

Its like pleasent envoking the Geneva convention on one country when letting the other side slip by.
Can anyone remember Aquinas' definitions? I don't remember the precise points, but I recall thinking they were very lucid and workable, even today.

I'm not sure what your point on the Geneva convention was, but I think that just because one side disobeys it, it doesn't mean we should sink down to their level. Yes, its bad when anyone breaks the rules of a convention which, to my sensibilities, shouldn't be a case of international law so much as it should be a case of ethical dogma beaten like brass onto the minds of every living person, so yes, it is bad when it is broken by anyone, but I would not ever accept blithely that it be broken in the name of me, my country, or any other ideals that I would stand up for.

Actually the USA is the ONLY country to ever use a nuclear weapon on another country.

What about the rumors of China doing Nuclear weapons "testing" on the neighboring democratic nation of Taiwan?

Well, the burning in Hell bit for a start, I'm not a theist. The "without a psycho" bit isn't necessarily true... but that's not the point. In fact, nothing you said was on point, because all you talk about there is the after effects, wereas I was arguing about of provocation. Now, this post might make a perfectly legitimate point, but you'll have to quote someone else to make it, because otherwise you're hijacking this line of arguement.

Uday and Qusay ARE burning in Hell whether you believe it or not. This is a fact (I'd be happy to inform you how to avoid joining them there but not in this forum). However, I digress ... the point of my post was that you are railing against the attack on Iraq, saying there was no provocation. But there was and IS. Iraq was in cahoots with ever other Islamofacist group that was and is making WMD. If you were a negro coming home to a cross burning in your front yard, do you think to yourself "Oh those nutty pillowcase heads are up to their boyish pranks again"? Saddam proved himself untrustworthy at the WRONG time by blocking the pantywaste UN inspection. He was hiding that which we never found because it was all moved. ALL nations that harbour or aide terrorists are subject to attack and rightly so, by our government. Was the death of 3000 people in NY, DC and PA not enough for you? Iraq does not have to be DIRECTLY responsible for it, only in glad assistance.

It is enough to aid and abet to be considered guilty of the crime committed.

It is enough to aid and abet to be considered guilty of the crime committed.
The US put Hussein in power. The US aided and supported him in his murdering spree which cost many thousand kurds their lives (long ago, but still) - the US are thus, mass murderers and need to be eradicated. Happy? Unless you accept that the US are largely responsible for much of the crap going on in the world, you are a hypocrite.

Remember the winner (I.E. the stronger, faster and smarter) Writes the histories and the standards.

Uday and Qusay ARE burning in Hell whether you believe it or not. This is a fact
No, facts are discovered through logical reasoning and arguements, or inductively discovered from imperical evidence. Your dogmatic slogan is not fact, it is a belief.

However, I digress ... the point of my post was that you are railing against the attack on Iraq, saying there was no provocation. But there was and IS. Iraq was in cahoots with ever other Islamofacist group that was and is making WMD. If you were a negro coming home to a cross burning in your front yard, do you think to yourself "Oh those nutty pillowcase heads are up to their boyish pranks again"? Saddam proved himself untrustworthy at the WRONG time by blocking the pantywaste UN inspection. He was hiding that which we never found because it was all moved. So, the UN (which you deride fairly brutally) and their ban on WMDs (which Saddam doesn't seem to have) matters, despite the fact that the UN didn't believe he had violated the ban? You let someone else make a rule, and then say that their rules don't matter, and then use that rule (which hasn't been broken) to take action? I wonder if there is a spare logic transplant for you.

ALL nations that harbour or aide terrorists are subject to attack and rightly so, by our government. Was the death of 3000 people in NY, DC and PA not enough for you? Iraq does not have to be DIRECTLY responsible for it, only in glad assistance. You know what? Fuck you. To invoke September 11th on this issue, an issue which, to quote from the mouth of horse's arse himself, George Bush II, had "no connection with the events of 9/11", and to do it on the day after the third anniversary of this tragedy is below contempt. Were their deaths enough for me? There wasn't a man, woman or child who wasn't willing to destory anyone and everyone remotely responsible on that day. Of course it was "enough". But then we all had to take a little time, cool our heels, and redirect our anger. How does killing more innocents aid the cause or honour the memory of those who died? How does making more families suffer the pain of losing a loved one help the families of those who lost loved ones in the Twin Towers? How does allowing violence to beget more violence to beget yet more violence help anything? I understand the need for vengance, I understand the bloodlust, I understand the want to blow off the face of the earth with the fury of god's own thunder anyone and everyone who comes close to looking the same or thinking the same things as the people who did this do, but then I remember the pain, the wound and the scar of that day, and I imagine that being inflicted again and again, back and forth and back and forth, and I ask how we can keep doing this to ourselves and to the people with whom we share more than we do not, and I will be the first one to stand up against the continuation of the vicious circle of violence and for the cause and cost of everything that is important in this world I will say that it will be ended, and not by the destruction of everything else.

So, call me a coward. You can tell me that I refuse to stand up for those that 9/11 caused to lie down forever, and you'd be absolutely right. I will not stand up for three thousand dead while it is still so important that I must stay sitting for the millions upon millions who still live.

Apologies to the mods for the flame, but obviously, this is a very emotional issue.

The US put Hussein in power. The US aided and supported him in his murdering spree which cost many thousand kurds their lives (long ago, but still) - the US are thus, mass murderers and need to be eradicated. Happy? Unless you accept that the US are largely responsible for much of the crap going on in the world, you are a hypocrite.

I'll say the US is reponsable for some, but not everything. You cant blame us for everything under the sun seeing as how we've only had the power to make major changes in the world for the past 50 years. Human history stretches farther than that. We arent the only country on the planet so fuck off and stop blaming us for everything.

There are times where I wish it wasnt the US that was the Super Power. Sometimes I wish Great Britain were still the large EMPIRE that controlled 1/4th of the globe. So you nutballs could blame everything on them like people used to do. Or better yet how about we allow China to become the next world super power and we as Americans just go quietly into history and you folks see how its like to deal with them.

I'm sick and tired of this blame the US for everything under the sun. I'm finally happy we're pulling troops out of Germany and South Korea. I've had it with ingrates. Fuck the rest of the world. You want to see what happens when the US goes isolationist again? Then hope one day I become President. I'll make sure every nation on the planet can go fuck themselves and I'll cut aid to every other nation on the planet. Canada can go fuck itself as well. I'll close every NORAD installation north of the US border and put thousands of Canadians out of work. I'll make sure to withdraw every US soldier overseas and we'll see how the rest of the world does without the US being the so called bully. Try picturing that world..but before you do, pull your head out of your ass to realize the US is doing more good now than it did decades ago.

Try picturing that world..but before you do, pull your head out of your ass to realize the US is doing more good now than it did decades ago.
Doing good cannot be a justification for doing evil as well.

I'll say the US is reponsable for some, but not everything. You cant blame us for everything under the sun seeing as how we've only had the power to make major changes in the world for the past 50 years. Human history stretches farther than that. We arent the only country on the planet so fuck off and stop blaming us for everything.

There are times where I wish it wasnt the US that was the Super Power. Sometimes I wish Great Britain were still the large EMPIRE that controlled 1/4th of the globe. So you nutballs could blame everything on them like people used to do. Or better yet how about we allow China to become the next world super power and we as Americans just go quietly into history and you folks see how its like to deal with them.

I'm sick and tired of this blame the US for everything under the sun. I'm finally happy we're pulling troops out of Germany and South Korea. I've had it with ingrates. Fuck the rest of the world. You want to see what happens when the US goes isolationist again? Then hope one day I become President. I'll make sure every nation on the planet can go fuck themselves and I'll cut aid to every other nation on the planet. Canada can go fuck itself as well. I'll close every NORAD installation north of the US border and put thousands of Canadians out of work. I'll make sure to withdraw every US soldier overseas and we'll see how the rest of the world does without the US being the so called bully. Try picturing that world..but before you do, pull your head out of your ass to realize the US is doing more good now than it did decades ago.
Firstly, I didnt say *everything* but a lot. Thats a difference. Secondly, I'd welcome an isolasionist US. Anything but the militarist theocracy whackos you are becoming is acceptable. Please, do the world the favour and solve your own problems in your own borders before you go ballistic on other sovereign nations. You'd have the world's gratitude.

I'd welcome an isolationist US as well. So morons like yourself could see how better off it is that the US takes an active stance in the world...we all remember what happened last time the US decided to go isolationist after a massive war..but hey whatever. The US seems to be the source for most of the worlds evil. Even though you could only prove whats been said on these boards time and time again. And that doesnt even make up most of the world..but whatever.

Actually the USA is the ONLY country to ever use a nuclear weapon on another country.
That country being Imperial Japan and the nuclear weapon being the life-saver of millions of Allied and Japanese soldiers and civilians.

If the US goes Isolationist.

Taiwan falls in a matter of hours.

The Baltic States are invaded within days of the US' announcement of going Isolationist.

North Korea, with Chinese backing, invades and over runs South Korea.

Communism spreads in Laos and Cambodia.

Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Jordan, UAE, Yemen, Oman and Syria reform the Muslim League into a true Political and Military force, all but Pakistan engage in an ivasion of Israel. Israel, knowing that an invasion was immenent, calls up the reserves, even with the reserves Israel is unable to stand up against the human wave attacks of the several million men of the combined armies, uses their small stock pile of Nuclear Weapons, Cairo, Baghdad, Beirut, and Amman are no more, millions of Muslims are killed in a matter of hours, but more keep coming, Israel falls, the massacre that follows dwarfs the Holocaust.

Russia invades eastern europe, the US does nothing, the EU is unable to stop the Russians in conventional battle. Europe is glassed, Russia has little left also, the US, even though they were following isolationist policies, was also hit, in retaliation we launch our missiles, Europe, North America, Asia, and North Africa are no more.

In the chaos of the moment, Pakistan and India Nuke each other.

Africa is a bloodbath, tribal skirmishes start spreading into all out wars, without any US aid or peace keeping forces in the area starvation and Genocide spread throughout the continent.

South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, and Australia emerge as the world's strongest nations and make a resolve to never allow the production of Nuclear Weapons.

Some of you may say this is far fetched, but I really don't think it is, what happened the last two times the US adopted an isolationist policy? Give up?'ll give you a hint, WWI and WWII.

If the US goes Isolationist.

Taiwan falls in a matter of hours.

The Baltic States are invaded within days of the US' announcement of going Isolationist.

North Korea, with Chinese backing, invades and over runs South Korea.

Communism spreads in Laos and Cambodia.

Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Jordan, UAE, Yemen, Oman and Syria reform the Muslim League into a true Political and Military force, all but Pakistan engage in an ivasion of Israel. Israel, knowing that an invasion was immenent, calls up the reserves, even with the reserves Israel is unable to stand up against the human wave attacks of the several million men of the combined armies, uses their small stock pile of Nuclear Weapons, Cairo, Baghdad, Beirut, and Amman are no more, millions of Muslims are killed in a matter of hours, but more keep coming, Israel falls, the massacre that follows dwarfs the Holocaust.

Russia invades eastern europe, the US does nothing, the EU is unable to stop the Russians in conventional battle. Europe is glassed, Russia has little left also, the US, even though they were following isolationist policies, was also hit, in retaliation we launch our missiles, Europe, North America, Asia, and North Africa are no more.

In the chaos of the moment, Pakistan and India Nuke each other.

Africa is a bloodbath, tribal skirmishes start spreading into all out wars, without any US aid or peace keeping forces in the area starvation and Genocide spread throughout the continent.

South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, and Australia emerge as the world's strongest nations and make a resolve to never allow the production of Nuclear Weapons.

Some of you may say this is far fetched, but I really don't think it is, what happened the last two times the US adopted an isolationist policy? Give up?'ll give you a hint, WWI and WWII.
And all that assuming that the US are the centerpiece to the world's wellbeing. My, what a dreamworld you are living in...

West Pacific, I think you forgot how immediatly useless the UN will become and how many nations will lose their favorite nation to export to.

Not really.

Who is holding the Muslims back from invading Israel? The United States of America.

Who is preventing Russia reforming the USSR? The United States of America.

Who is stopping China from invading Taiwan? The United States of America.

Who is sending MILLIONS of bushels of Grain every year to Africa? The United States of America.

Who is stopping North Korea and China from invading South Korea? The United States of America.

America is not the center of the world, but we definetly have more affect on the politics of the world than any other nation.

West Pacific, I think you forgot how immediatly useless the UN will become and how many nations will lose their favorite nation to export to.
And all that assuming that the US could survive without imports.. my, what yet another dreamworld we have here :)

And all that assuming that the US could survive without imports.. my, what yet another dreamworld we have here :)
Forgot to mention the UN as well, didn't you?


Doesn't matter I guess. The UN will continue to be as useless as it ever was.

West Pacific, I think you forgot how immediatly useless the UN will become and how many nations will lose their favorite nation to export to.

You mean to tell me the UN has a use now? :P

Yes, I forgot that, China might go bancrupt so quick that they would not be able to but fuel, fertilizer, and many other things essential to the war effort, they may not be abl to fund an invasion of Taiwan, inflation would certainly skyrocket.

America is not the center of the world, but we definetly have more affect on the politics of the world than any other nation.
Yes... in many cases for the good, but also in many cases for the bad of mankind. You gladly ignore the bad things the US do in the world, but I'm not going to list them all here. I think you get my idea that the US are far from perfect, not the only nation in the world and that the world cannot live without the US and the US cannot live without the world. This will stay that way until the superpower-age of the US has ended.

Forgot to mention the UN as well, didn't you?


Doesn't matter I guess. The UN will continue to be as useless as it ever was.
The UN is only as useless as the most important members of it make it. Surely, violating the signed charter of it was not the most clever move of the US and did not help in giving the UN more credibility.

And all that assuming that the US could survive without imports.. my, what yet another dreamworld we have here :)


Let me explain something to you, the US has the ability to support itself free of importation than any other nation, we have plenty of food, all the oil we would need in Alaska. Canadian steel companies would go under over night, since they would no longer have be getting Iron Ore from Michigan and Minnesota.

Let me explain something to you, the US has the ability to support itself free of importation than any other nation, we have plenty of food, all the oil we would need in Alaska. Canadian steel companies would go under over night, since they would no longer have be getting Iron Ore from Michigan and Minnesota.
Sure sure. You are welcome to try :)

Yes... in many cases for the good, but also in many cases for the bad of mankind. You gladly ignore the bad things the US do in the world, but I'm not going to list them all here. I think you get my idea that the US are far from perfect, not the only nation in the world and that the world cannot live without the US and the US cannot live without the world. This will stay that way until the superpower-age of the US has ended.

Yes, and I will not bother to list the imperfections of Germany.

Yes, and I will not bother to list the imperfections of Germany.
Sure thing. Alas, I dont claim that we could do everything without the rest of the world. Unlike the US, most other nations got some modesty. And ours is not due to losing WW1 and WW2 but rather due to realizing that the world is too interconnected by now so that each nation cannot easily support itself.

Sure sure. You are welcome to try :)

Tell me, who was it that rebuilt Europe and Japan? Ever hear of the Marshal Plan? Yeah, that was when the US spent trillions of dollars to rebuild the shattered economies of the rest of the world.

What good has Germany done? The only remotely decent thing you could say was causing the downfall of the Roman Empire, but then the question is was that a good thing?

France, Russia, Britain, Germany, Israel, Spain, Italy, Iran, Turkey, the list goes on and on, these are the nations that said Iraq had WMD's, yet France, Germany, and Russia sat on their hands doing nothing, the UN had 12 years to try and rid Iraq of WMD's, give the US an equal chance. And don't give me the argument "But we have not found and WMD's." They have been found, small amounts, spread throughout the country, 50 Mortar shells filled with Sarin at a time. And finding 7 Jet Fighters buried in the sand outside a military air base is a hint that saddam probably buried the WMD's under the Iraqi desert, which means they will probably never be found.

Sure thing. Alas, I dont claim that we could do everything without the rest of the world. Unlike the US, most other nations got some modesty. And ours is not due to losing WW1 and WW2 but rather due to realizing that the world is too interconnected by now so that each nation cannot easily support itself.

I don't claim we can do everything either, I just know we can do enough to support ourselves without the use of foreign aid, since we are not getting any now I don't think that will be to hard. And isolationism is a Foreign Policy based on the use of force, not economics, during isolationism we heavily involved in Foreign trade with France, Britian and Germany, even giving Germany money so they could make payments on the $33 Billion they were forced to pay to France and Britain (as you may recall we wanted to go easy on you after WWI, France and Britain wanted a hardline strategy) who then payed that money to the US to pay back loans. Ever hear of Lend-Lease? That was a policy the US used to stop Germany from defeating Britain and most notably the USSR.

Tell me, who was it that rebuilt Europe and Japan? Ever hear of the Marshal Plan? Yeah, that was when the US spent trillions of dollars to rebuild the shattered economies of the rest of the world.

What good has Germany done? The only remotely decent thing you could say was causing the downfall of the Roman Empire, but then the question is was that a good thing?

France, Russia, Britain, Germany, Israel, Spain, Italy, Iran, Turkey, the list goes on and on, these are the nations that said Iraq had WMD's, yet France, Germany, and Russia sat on their hands doing nothing, the UN had 12 years to try and rid Iraq of WMD's, give the US an equal chance. And don't give me the argument "But we have not found and WMD's." They have been found, small amounts, spread throughout the country, 50 Mortar shells filled with Sarin at a time. And finding 7 Jet Fighters buried in the sand outside a military air base is a hint that saddam probably buried the WMD's under the Iraqi desert, which means they will probably never be found.
I'm not even gonna start with these "penis size contests". The US may have a strong military, but other than this, there is not all that much the US can say they contributed to the world. No wonder seeing how young the US as a nation are. You forget that the US are a conglomerate of other nations and have little to no national identity. As such, you may continue bragging about whatever achievements the US may have done during the last 200 years, and make yourself look like a child. I'll not hinder you.

the US used ... Germany ... and most notably the USSR.

Exactly.

I'm not even gonna start with these "penis size contests". The US may have a strong military, but other than this, there is not all that much the US can say they contributed to the world. No wonder seeing how young the US as a nation are. You forget that the US are a conglomerate of other nations and have little to no national identity. As such, you may continue bragging about whatever achievements the US may have done during the last 200 years, and make yourself look like a child. I'll not hinder you.
you could AT LEAST acknowledge the American influence on the French Revolution

you could AT LEAST acknowledge the American influence on the French Revolution
Ummm... no.

Ummm... no.
so now who is living in a dreamworld where you cannot acknowledge simple things the U.S. has influenced/contributed to the world that helped?

People ask this question often enough. I respond with another question that historically applies.

What country would you better trust with WMD? Hitler's Nazi Germany, or the United States?

Think about the countries we condemn having WMD (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Lebanon...or whatever its spelled), and think about the countries we do not (Britain, France, Isreal, etc.)


Can you name the differences between these two groups of nations?

This should have put an end to whatever debate this thread brought up.

Bush accuses other countries of having WMDs, and invades those that don't even have them. Yet it is America which has the most Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world! THIS IS A DOUBLE STANDARD THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED.

OMFG! Dude! You just exposed BUSH!

Ummm... no.

All noted historians admit that fact...are you so dense and obtuse and so deeply disliking of the US, that'd you deny what even respected historians say?

so now who is living in a dreamworld where you cannot acknowledge simple things the U.S. has influenced/contributed to the world that helped?
Meh, while the American experiment probably had some impact, the two revolutions were, philosophically, socially and practically, extremely different; they have about as much in common as the October Revolution and the Chinese revolutions- some striking similarities, but in general very different.

so now who is living in a dreamworld where you cannot acknowledge simple things the U.S. has influenced/contributed to the world that helped?
I am not aware of any involvement of the US in the French Revolution. Actually, the revolution in France was from 1789 to 1799, with the US officially formed in 1776, how could the US have any effect on the French revolution?

Read this if you want to know more about the French Revolution. Nowhere does it mention the US:

http://encarta.msn.com/related_761569964_28.2/French_Revolution.html

While the war on the American continent surely helped to bring France into a huge fiscal deficit, which accelerated the revolution, it was not the cause for the revolution.

Look, it's simple.

Either Iraq had WMD's or it didn't. In either case, there aren't any there now.

There are two possibilities: Either they existed and are now hidden or in other countries, or they never existed.

If they never existed, we were deliberately misled.

If they did exist (but were removed), that's a tremendous intelligence failure and some people need to be fired pronto.



Also, Israel has nukes and is the most willing-to-use-them country in the world.

Expose what? The world has known that the US is a nuclear power for 60 years. Nukes were used once. The aftermath of that has haunted the US ever since. Another sure sign is that the US has not conducted any nuclear testing for years and in full view of the world destroyed most of what they had. What threat is there to expose?


Only one problem with this theory. George W Bush is in favour of a new class of nuclear weapons and wants to start to build them. He would be the first president since Reagan to do so... they're only half kiloton weapons to destroy bunkers but still nuclear. Luckily the entire American government isn't as idiotic as he is.... at least we can all hope.

You forget that the US are a conglomerate of other nations and have little to no national identity.

You're an idiot. Let me explain. The national identity of the US is the greatest in the world, because here you don't have to agree with anyone, you don't have to like anyone, you don't have to like here, you don't have to like there. You can be all you ever wanted to be, or you can fly low under the radar. America is a land of opportunity, and even with a Bush in the white house, we are still more liberal than 90% of you would be free thinkers paradises out there. We don't need a long history of wine making, lederhosen, painting or music. Most Americans don't even know why they love America so much. That's our national identity. If Nationstates is your only link to America, it's easy to think we don't have a national identity with all these whiners and jobless idiots clogging the forums. Keep fooling yourself.

And you're ffrom where? Germany? What's your national identity? You make beer and sausages, both of which suck, and you got your asses handed to you, not once, but twice because America decided to get involved. But all those great German deeds, the national identity, those stupid pants with suspenders you guys wear at Oktoberfest... and where are you now? Second fiddle.

You're an idiot.
Starting an argument with a personal attack leads to selfdebunking of the argument. Thanks :)

you people all piss me off... I'm not even going to read this, because I have proof that Iraq had WMDs with me... there's much more but this is all I have, the f*cking jewish owned media won't report any of it to you though;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=printer
that's one... problem is, I had a few more REALLY good ones but they were all taken down from their servers not long after being posted... the best one was from reuters, oh well... c'est la vie, yes? anyways I'll see about getting some of my declassified documents from USNORTCOM into this, thank God we took out saddam, some of the stuff my company found in Iraq when we were over there were ridiculous... nuclear weapons, radiological, chemical, biological... my company even came across some documents planning to destroy the US Naval Academy at Annapolis and came full with maps, blueprints, plans, etc... whatever, thank God we did what we did... by the way, you all make me sick, shut the hell up.

you people all piss me off... I'm not even going to read this, because I have proof that Iraq had WMDs with me... there's much more but this is all I have, the f*cking jewish owned media won't report any of it to you though;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=printer
that's one... problem is, I had a few more REALLY good ones but they were all taken down from their servers not long after being posted... the best one was from reuters, oh well... c'est la vie, yes? anyways I'll see about getting some of my declassified documents from USNORTCOM into this, thank God we took out saddam, some of the stuff my company found in Iraq when we were over there were ridiculous... nuclear weapons, radiological, chemical, biological... my company even came across some documents planning to destroy the US Naval Academy at Annapolis and came full with maps, blueprints, plans, etc... whatever, thank God we did what we did... by the way, you all make me sick, shut the hell up.
... says a puppet with a name of a long dead empire... man, you are so creative.

A quote from the article:

"Tuwaitha was once the center of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons effort, but its equipment was dismantled at the direction of U.N. inspectors in the early 1990s as part of the agreement following Iraq's surrender in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The U.N. inspectors removed highly enriched uranium that could be used for weapons and shipped it for storage in Russia. The low-enriched uranium was placed under seal in storage at Tuwaitha but under the control of the IAEA."

If you want to bring proof of WMD, at least bring some that actually is proof. Otherwise you make yourself the laughing stock of the forum.

Starting an argument with a personal attack leads to selfdebunking of the argument. Thanks :)

Educate us about the Holocaust, can you?

Starting an argument with a personal attack leads to selfdebunking of the argument. Thanks :)
Shut the fuck up you dumbass. I hate all this melting pot shit in the US, we DO have a national identity but it's almost dead because of fucks like you bringing in your other cultures and destroying us from the inside, go to hell you son of a bitch.

Educate us about the Holocaust, can you?
This guy couldn't, Germany is so jew owned and censored since after WWII, this fuck wouldn't know the grand history of his country, because he's a dumbass.

Shut the fuck up you dumbass. I hate all this melting pot shit in the US, we DO have a national identity but it's almost dead because of fucks like you bringing in your other cultures and destroying us from the inside, go to hell you son of a bitch.
Welcome on my ignore list... puppet.

you people all piss me off... I'm not even going to read this, because I have proof that Iraq had WMDs with me... there's much more but this is all I have, the f*cking jewish owned media won't report any of it to you though;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=printer
that's one... problem is, I had a few more REALLY good ones but they were all taken down from their servers not long after being posted... the best one was from reuters, oh well... c'est la vie, yes? anyways I'll see about getting some of my declassified documents from USNORTCOM into this, thank God we took out saddam, some of the stuff my company found in Iraq when we were over there were ridiculous... nuclear weapons, radiological, chemical, biological... my company even came across some documents planning to destroy the US Naval Academy at Annapolis and came full with maps, blueprints, plans, etc... whatever, thank God we did what we did... by the way, you all make me sick, shut the hell up.

Yes, it is true we have found WMD's, the media will not report becuase of simple economics, and I don't think they could be trusted with the knowledge of the existence of WMD's. Al Qaeda and Saddam still have a large following in Iraq, if we released info about captured WMD's and their locations they would immediately start planning attacks on these locations, if not to capture but to set off some of these weapons.

Welcome on my ignore list... puppet.
Why? I still like to hear your idiocy to debunk it... why wouldn't you want to hear mine? oh I guess it's hard when you suck at life.

Yes, it is true we have found WMD's, the media will not report becuase of simple economics, and I don't think they could be trusted with the knowledge of the existence of WMD's. Al Qaeda and Saddam still have a large following in Iraq, if we released info about captured WMD's and their locations they would immediately start planning attacks on these locations, if not to capture but to set off some of these weapons.
Yeah, and I don't know what the fuck Bush is doing about it... it's political suicide not to report it at least a little, that idiot is probably waiting till a few hours till election time to release it... I'm actually ok with him, Kerry's a moron bc he has no basis, and I love Pat Buchannon... I hate you all.

Yes, it is true we have found WMD's, the media will not report becuase of simple economics, and I don't think they could be trusted with the knowledge of the existence of WMD's. Al Qaeda and Saddam still have a large following in Iraq, if we released info about captured WMD's and their locations they would immediately start planning attacks on these locations, if not to capture but to set off some of these weapons.
WMDs were the prime reason why the Bush administration went to war in Iraq - at least stated so in front of the UN. I strongly doubt that they would delay the release of information regarding the discovery of WMD - since that would greatly benefit Bush and his credibility, which is at an all time low.

Yeah, and I don't know what the fuck Bush is doing about it... it's political suicide not to report it at least a little, that idiot is probably waiting till a few hours till election time to release it... I'm actually ok with him, Kerry's a moron bc he has no basis, and I love Pat Buchannon... I hate you all.

Kerry needs to get over Vietnam, and he needs to stop saying he is a "patriotic veteran" he lead an anti-war group and threw away his medals, the equivalent of disowning a family member. At least he went to Vietnam, unlike another famous democrat.

WMDs were the prime reason why the Bush administration went to war in Iraq - at least stated so in front of the UN. I strongly doubt that they would delay the release of information regarding the discovery of WMD - since that would greatly benefit Bush and his credibility, which is at an all time low.
I swear to God I'm gonna kick your bitch ass

Kerry needs to get over Vietnam, and he needs to stop saying he is a "patriotic veteran" he lead an anti-war group and threw away his medals, the equivalent of disowning a family member. At least he went to Vietnam, unlike another famous democrat.
yeah totally... I hate Kerry, I hate this gigatron douche... I hate everyone

WMDs were the prime reason why the Bush administration went to war in Iraq - at least stated so in front of the UN. I strongly doubt that they would delay the release of information regarding the discovery of WMD - since that would greatly benefit Bush and his credibility, which is at an all time low.

Politics buddy, politics, Bush will announce it weeks, if not days before the election. And Gas prices will drop right before the elections also, pre-planned events to prevent Kerry from winning. Not that they are necessary, Kerry is gonna lose, the writing is on the wall, he needs to make a choice and stick with his decision, instead of riding the tide of public opinion, which is starting to turn against him.

WMDs were the prime reason why the Bush administration went to war in Iraq - at least stated so in front of the UN.

Exactly.

Politics buddy, politics, Bush will announce it weeks, if not days before the election. And Gas prices will drop right before the elections also, pre-planned events to prevent Kerry from winning. Not that they are necessary, Kerry is gonna lose, the writing is on the wall, he needs to make a choice and stick with his decision, instead of riding the tide of public opinion, which is starting to turn against him.
Which does not bode well, if it truly is the case. I hope that "public opinion" is not an indication of the election outcome. I hope that the average population of the US, the majority, those who Bush betrayed, will repay him by giving their votes to Kerry. At least then, the US could begin repairing the damage Bush has done to it's worldwide image.

Which does not bode well, if it truly is the case. I hope that "public opinion" is not an indication of the election outcome. I hope that the average population of the US, the majority, those who Bush betrayed, will repay him by giving their votes to Kerry. At least then, the US could begin repairing the damage Bush has done to it's worldwide image.

Bush lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes.

Kerry needs to get over Vietnam, and he needs to stop saying he is a "patriotic veteran" he lead an anti-war group and threw away his medals, the equivalent of disowning a family member. At least he went to Vietnam, unlike another famous democrat.


You know, I'm about as Republican as they come. I'm not happy with George Bush. I may even have voted for a different democratic challenger, but this November I'm voting for W.

Reason? The thing about Kerry that pisses me off is how we had all those soldiers captured in Vietnam, beaten by the Vietnamese and tortured so they would have to go on camera and say they were criminals. Many of them resisted. Some broke under severe pressure and I don't blame them. Kerry comes back to America, goes on TV, tells the world exactly what the real soldiers wouldn't, and throws away someone else's medals!

And as a New Yorker, I've got to ask... what does he mean about 'being more sensitive towards the war on terror'? I think he means he's a damn idiot. Like gigatron.

Which does not bode well, if it truly is the case. I hope that "public opinion" is not an indication of the election outcome. I hope that the average population of the US, the majority, those who Bush betrayed, will repay him by giving their votes to Kerry. At least then, the US could begin repairing the damage Bush has done to it's worldwide image.
That's the stupidest shit I've ever heard... you realize that Bush is withdrawing troops gradually while Kerry wants to put more in! at least according to his platform, of course that piece of shit says different stuff depending on who he's talking to, but that's his official platform... and I think protecting the safety of the US public from a fucking maniac isn't betraying them, go kill yourself bc you've realized that you suck and you've failed at life.

You know, I'm about as Republican as they come. I'm not happy with George Bush. I may even have voted for a different democratic challenger, but this November I'm voting for W.

Reason? The thing about Kerry that pisses me off is how we had all those soldiers captured in Vietnam, beaten by the Vietnamese and tortured so they would have to go on camera and say they were criminals. Many of them resisted. Some broke under severe pressure and I don't blame them. Kerry comes back to America, goes on TV, tells the world exactly what the real soldiers wouldn't, and throws away someone else's medals!

And as a New Yorker, I've got to ask... what does he mean about 'being more sensitive towards the war on terror'? I think he means he's a damn idiot. Like gigatron.
Welcome on my ignore list aswell.

At least then, the US could begin repairing the damage Bush has done to it's worldwide image.


Eh? What is it with you people? Riiiight. You know... I woke up this morning thinking... 'Man... I really hope people from Germany and Zimbabwe like me today.'

Dude, have a Heineken. You're done.

Welcome on my ignore list aswell.
So you ignore ppl who don't like you? that's weak dude, grow up

I am not aware of any involvement of the US in the French Revolution. Actually, the revolution in France was from 1789 to 1799, with the US officially formed in 1776, how could the US have any effect on the French revolution?

Read this if you want to know more about the French Revolution. Nowhere does it mention the US:

http://encarta.msn.com/related_761569964_28.2/French_Revolution.html

While the war on the American continent surely helped to bring France into a huge fiscal deficit, which accelerated the revolution, it was not the cause for the revolution.
You misunderstood, the American revolution had an INFLUENCE to help start the French revolution.

And NOT by the fiscal deficit

The American Revolution and French Revolution were influenced by each. French Pilosiphs(sp?) wrote about certain rights that all men should have, Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire, Montesquois, Rousseau, Beccaria, Wollstonecrat, and more. What these people wrote is what the US Constitution is based on. But the American Revolution was inspirational for the French people who no longer wanted to serve for a king, America was split over this issue, to support the revolution or the government that had helped us to secure our independence? The war turned very bloody, the President at the time, Thomas Jefferson, withdrew his support for the war when the French Revolution took a bloody turn.

You misunderstood, the American revolution had an INFLUENCE to help start the French revolution.

And NOT by the fiscal deficit
I'll leave it to a French to explain their history. I am not adept at French history, other than that I know when the French revolution was and that it was the end of Louis XVI. who got cut a head shorter by the guillotine ;)

I'll leave it to a French to explain their history. I am not adept at French history, other than that I know when the French revolution was and that it was the end of Louis XVI. who got cut a head shorter by the guillotine ;)
Shutup

I'll leave it to a French to explain their history. I am not adept at French history, other than that I know when the French revolution was and that it was the end of Louis XVI. who got cut a head shorter by the guillotine ;)

How about the Holocaust? Explain that to us, I want to hear your point of view.

How about the Holocaust? Explain that to us, I want to hear your point of view.
I told you, he's a fucking moronic jew brainwashed modern german, he wouldn't know the true story

How about the Holocaust? Explain that to us, I want to hear your point of view.
Already explained much of that in another thread about Polish Insolences. Read it up there.

man fuck this... I'm bored and you guys suck and this has gone way off topic, and gigatrons a fag.

I just want to say this about Germany, I admire their fighting skills of WWI and WWII, they were always outnumbered and had fewer supplies, yet using brilliant tactics and wonderful new technology they were able to almost completely conquer Europe, coming closer than anyone else before them except for Rome.

(I like the fighting skills of Nazi Germany and the tactics they used to take power, not their politics)

Is it technically a question if you answer it yourself?

Lets start with Iraq. What precisely was Iraq doing to provoke the US... being mean to them? Calling them nasty names? Pulling faces?

The US did what the UN SHOULD have. Saddam was disregarding UN resolutions left and right, and killing his own people by the thousands. And the UN's answer was to pass more useless resolutions. Contrary to a previous post (yours, I believe), there was no plan to go to war prior to the intelligence reports. Saddam's military had been shooting at US and other pilots patrolling the no-fly zones over the years, as well. I suppose we should have been nice and offered them training on how to shoot accurately instead of going to war with them? :rolleyes: Saddam was a monster, and he got away with it for decades before the US/Coalition took action, and we did it because the UN wouldn't.

The US put Hussein in power. The US aided and supported him in his murdering spree which cost many thousand kurds their lives (long ago, but still) - the US are thus, mass murderers and need to be eradicated. Happy? Unless you accept that the US are largely responsible for much of the crap going on in the world, you are a hypocrite.

We did not put Hussein in power. He was already there. Unfortunately, we did make the mistake of helping him against Iran, and consequently he ended up with some better weapons. If anything, we're guilty of not choosing our friends too well.
As to the US being responsible for much of the crap going on in the world, I had no idea we were so all-pervasive. (before anyone asks, that's sarcasm)

The US did what the UN SHOULD have. Saddam was disregarding UN resolutions left and right, and killing his own people by the thousands. And the UN's answer was to pass more useless resolutions. Contrary to a previous post (yours, I believe), there was no plan to go to war prior to the intelligence reports. Saddam's military had been shooting at US and other pilots patrolling the no-fly zones over the years, as well. I suppose we should have been nice and offered them training on how to shoot accurately instead of going to war with them? :rolleyes: Saddam was a monster, and he got away with it for decades before the US/Coalition took action, and we did it because the UN wouldn't.
Sorry, but you're wrong about the war plans--war plans existed even before Bush was elected. They were the brainchild of the neo-cons who wound up in power when Bush got into office, and were presented to President Clinton in 1998, who wisely decided to ignore them.

But more importantly, what exactly have we accomplished in Iraq? Saddam's gone, but there's no stability there. Allawi controls basically a small section of Baghdad, and the rest of the country is starting to look like Afghanistan--factions led by local warlords with their local militias. The US forces are unable to impose their will in most of the country, and the forces we're supposed to be training to take over for us are either attacked as collaborators, or they're actual collaborators, turning over US supplied arms and equipment to militia members to be used against our own troops. So I ask you--just how much good have we really done in Iraq?

Sorry, but you're wrong about the war plans--war plans existed even before Bush was elected. They were the brainchild of the neo-cons who wound up in power when Bush got into office, and were presented to President Clinton in 1998, who wisely decided to ignore them.

Then I'll admit I'm wrong on that. I hadn't heard about that before.

But more importantly, what exactly have we accomplished in Iraq? Saddam's gone, but there's no stability there. Allawi controls basically a small section of Baghdad, and the rest of the country is starting to look like Afghanistan--factions led by local warlords with their local militias. The US forces are unable to impose their will in most of the country, and the forces we're supposed to be training to take over for us are either attacked as collaborators, or they're actual collaborators, turning over US supplied arms and equipment to militia members to be used against our own troops. So I ask you--just how much good have we really done in Iraq?

Hopefully, stability will come in time. Iraq is beginning to show signs of taking control of it's own, given their handling of Al Sadr parking his cowardly behind in a holy shrine and shooting at US troops. We didn't fire back because of where they were, though if I recall correctly, we were preparing to do something when the Iraqi forces said they'd handle it, so we backed off. But at least Saddam is gone, and that's a pretty big step in the right direction for Iraq.

Here's an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16309-2004Sep12?language=printer) that might shed some light on the current military situation in Iraq for you, The Far Green Meadow. It's a Washington Post article about the Marine General in command around Fallujah. I'll quote a little of it.
Eventually, the 800 AK-47 assault rifles, 27 pickup trucks and 50 radios the Marines gave the brigade wound up in the hands of the insurgents, according to Marine officers. Marines manning a checkpoint on the city's eastern fringe were shot at by gunmen wearing Fallujah Brigade uniforms....

With no security forces in Fallujah now -- U.S. troops do not patrol inside the city limits -- the area has become a haven for insurgents, Marine officers said. Among the foreign-born fighters believed to be holed up in Fallujah is Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian who is alleged to have organized car bombings, kidnappings and other attacks targeting Americans and Iraqis. This is a city that we laid siege to only a few weeks ago, and we have virtually no control over it. This situation is a snafu in the truest meaning of the word. And it seems like we're in a catch-22 situation here--we don't want to leave without there being some stability there, but stability won't come as long as we're around.

Here's an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16309-2004Sep12?language=printer) that might shed some light on the current military situation in Iraq for you, The Far Green Meadow. It's a Washington Post article about the Marine General in command around Fallujah. I'll quote a little of it.
This is a city that we laid siege to only a few weeks ago, and we have virtually no control over it. This situation is a snafu in the truest meaning of the word. And it seems like we're in a catch-22 situation here--we don't want to leave without there being some stability there, but stability won't come as long as we're around.

That's some serious stuff. I think we went there for the right reasons, but I'm beginning to think we should just pull out and let the Iraqis work it out for themselves. Not a sudden pull-out, though.

I think the US should pull all its troops out of every place in the world,
leave Nato and the UN. Time for all the world to lead itself for a while,
we will see just how well you do without US power to help you order
around the third world nations in the UN.

thread starter - you would've been much better off contrasting iraq and israel. both nations have broken un resolutions and blah blah blah except israel actually has nuclear weapons. of course, it would've eventually led to someone posting sharon's statement that the jews control america.

I think the US should pull all its troops out of every place in the world,
leave Nato and the UN. Time for all the world to lead itself for a while,
we will see just how well you do without US power to help you order
around the third world nations in the UN.
north korea would invade south korea
china would take taiwan
arab nations will attack israel and cause israel to uses its nuclear weapons

sounds like a great plan

We did not put Hussein in power. He was already there. Unfortunately, we did make the mistake of helping him against Iran, and consequently he ended up with some better weapons. If anything, we're guilty of not choosing our friends too well.
As to the US being responsible for much of the crap going on in the world, I had no idea we were so all-pervasive. (before anyone asks, that's sarcasm)
the iran-iraq war was a proxy war between america and the soviet union.

Yeah, because the U.S. might use their WMDs against their ethnic minorities, hold entire regions hostage to fear of their WMDs, or use them in attacking nations for no reason. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't be so sure, with Bush runing things.

The US did what the UN SHOULD have. Saddam was disregarding UN resolutions left and right, and killing his own people by the thousands. And the UN's answer was to pass more useless resolutions. See, my thing is, you only seem to care about the UN when its good for you. Saddam was disregarding UN resolutions... therefore he's evil. When neo-cons rave about the waste and corruption of the UN, they're fighting for national soverigntity. You can't use the UN arguement when you don't give a damn about what the UN says. Yes, I think we should've stopped him, but not by unilateral action, it's not the right way to do things because it creates precedant and leaves the door open to all manner of future abuses and wars committed in the name of human rights.

See, my thing is, you only seem to care about the UN when its good for you. Saddam was disregarding UN resolutions... therefore he's evil. When neo-cons rave about the waste and corruption of the UN, they're fighting for national soverigntity. You can't use the UN arguement when you don't give a damn about what the UN says. Yes, I think we should've stopped him, but not by unilateral action, it's not the right way to do things because it creates precedant and leaves the door open to all manner of future abuses and wars committed in the name of human rights.
do you know why russia and france opposed america going to war with iraq?

here (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22oil+for+food%22+france+russia)'s a hint

We did not put Hussein in power. He was already there. Unfortunately, we did make the mistake of helping him against Iran, and consequently he ended up with some better weapons. If anything, we're guilty of not choosing our friends too well.

Just like the US made the unfortunate mistake if arming the afghani mujihadeen (sp?) against the russians? and the unfortunate mistake of funding an anti-democratic coup in the then newly independent Belgian Congo in 1961? and the unfortunate mistake of illegally selling weapons to the other side in the Iran-Iraq war to raise money to fund right-wing terrorists in Central America? and is this just a lot of unfortunate coincidences?

If you give even a tiny crap about the UN, consider that Israel has been in defiance of the UN resolution that it should return to its pre 1967 borders for over 30 years, and that it regularly uses heavy military hardware against its own citizens (as the inhabitants of the Palestinian Authority still currently are), and that all this has been and still is supported by the UN.


As to the US being responsible for much of the crap going on in the world, I had no idea we were so all-pervasive. (before anyone asks, that's sarcasm)
Where's the sarcasm? do you mean that in fact you do have an idea that the us is all-pervasive? I don't see how you could not know that the us is involved in just about every country in the world, unsurprisingly since it tis the richest, most powerful country by a very long way.

do you know why russia and france opposed america going to war with iraq?

here (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22oil+for+food%22+france+russia)'s a hint

doesn't really explain why the french people opposed the war though, unless maybe the corrupt politicians were running around the streets of Paris putting dollar bills in the pockets of taxi drivers and newspaper sellers and such? And did they then cross over to Britain and share the dough with the great British public? and so on?

Let me explain something to you, the US has the ability to support itself free of importation than any other nation, we have plenty of food, all the oil we would need in Alaska. Canadian steel companies would go under over night, since they would no longer have be getting Iron Ore from Michigan and Minnesota.

Wrong on a few points here. Actually Canada has the most natural resources in the world, not the US. The United States would not be able to live as they do now. They use 25% of the world's oil and yet only have 3% of the world's oil reserves. Canada has the largest oil reserve in the world. As for Canadian steel, maybe, you might get a point for that. Maybe Canada would import from some one else. However to say that the US could sustain it's self better then any other country in the world, simply isn't true. Canada, maybe. The US, nah, not with your consumption of oil.

doesn't really explain why the french people opposed the war though, unless maybe the corrupt politicians were running around the streets of Paris putting dollar bills in the pockets of taxi drivers and newspaper sellers and such? And did they then cross over to Britain and share the dough with the great British public? and so on?
chirac opposed the war. his opinion was broadcast on tv. people took it at face value and decided to oppose the war as well.

I remember being in Europe in the 80's. The anti-nuclear protesters were out in force all over the place ranting about nuclear weapons and how the US and other European countries (Britain and France) that also had them were going to destroy the world. It was humorous to me at the time as I found it convenient for them that they always seem to want to start with the western Democracies.

What would happen to these people if they tried to protest in what was then the USSR or China? How about India and Pakistan? It is always easy to attack the US and other "free" countries because they ALLOW dissent. Yes, the US has WMD's. Yes, we HAVE used them in war and would do so again if it became necessary. For those anti-americans on this board, and you know who you are, you can complain about the US as much as you want to, that is your right. However, I would suggest you take a look at your own history before you hold it up as some devine scale against that of the US.

Wrong on a few points here. Actually Canada has the most natural resources in the world, not the US. The United States would not be able to live as they do now. They use 25% of the world's oil and yet only have 3% of the world's oil reserves. Canada has the largest oil reserve in the world. As for Canadian steel, maybe, you might get a point for that. Maybe Canada would import from some one else. However to say that the US could sustain it's self better then any other country in the world, simply isn't true. Canada, maybe. The US, nah, not with your consumption of oil.
it costs $8-12/barrel to recover a barrel of canadian oil sands. this is quite a bit more than saudi arabia's cost of $2-3/barrel.

chirac opposed the war. his opinion was broadcast on tv. people took it at face value and decided to oppose the war as well.
Nonsense and neo-con anti-french propaganda.

it costs $8-12/barrel to recover a barrel of canadian oil sands. this is quite a bit more than saudi arabia's cost of $2-3/barrel.

I didn't say any thing about cost, simply that Canada had the largest oil reserve it the world. That is all I said and I am correct.

Wrong on a few points here. Actually Canada has the most natural resources in the world, not the US. The United States would not be able to live as they do now. They use 25% of the world's oil and yet only have 3% of the world's oil reserves. Canada has the largest oil reserve in the world. As for Canadian steel, maybe, you might get a point for that. Maybe Canada would import from some one else. However to say that the US could sustain it's self better then any other country in the world, simply isn't true. Canada, maybe. The US, nah, not with your consumption of oil.

Thats funny..... Saudi Arabia has the LARGEST oil reserves, followed by Iraq. Russia has more oil than Canada does as well. Canada also imports a lot of oil. You would be stupid not to.

You see....by importing oil, you are using someone elses natural resources and not your own. The US has enough oil to meet its needs, but it is better to use that of others. For once those of others are gone....the US will still have it's own. Then the Saudi's will have no use unless sand suddenly becomes a fuel source. ;)

I never said you weren't. I'm just stating that it is ecnomically unfeasible to recover most of canada's oil reserves at this time.
Economically unfeasible now--but if oil stays at or above $45 a barrel, then it'll start looking better, and when--not if--the price rises above that, then it will be exploitable. The days of cheap gas in the US are over, though.

I didn't say any thing about cost, simply that Canada had the largest oil reserve it the world. That is all I said and I am correct.
I never said you weren't. I'm just stating that it is ecnomically unfeasible to recover most of canada's oil reserves at this time.

chirac opposed the war. his opinion was broadcast on tv. people took it at face value and decided to oppose the war as well.

so american rednecks, fundamentalist christians etc support the war on Iraq because of their deep personal understanding of the political, social and economic issues involved, and the french are against it because their president told them to be? from a nation that thinks rush limbaugh has political debates, i'm sceptical.

I remember being in Europe in the 80's. The anti-nuclear protesters were out in force all over the place ranting about nuclear weapons and how the US and other European countries (Britain and France) that also had them were going to destroy the world. It was humorous to me at the time as I found it convenient for them that they always seem to want to start with the western Democracies.

Where else would you want them to start? As you point out below, if they'd protested in China or Russia they'd likely have been shot. If there's something really dangerous and not under my control in my house and in my neighbour's house, I start worrying about the one in my house first.


What would happen to these people if they tried to protest in what was then the USSR or China? How about India and Pakistan?
Well, India and Pakistan didn't have nukes in the 80s did they?


It is always easy to attack the US and other "free" countries because they ALLOW dissent.
Yes it is. That's the point of allowing dissent, so that people can dissent. I'm people. I'm dissenting. I don't dissent in countries that don't allow dissent because I'm not in those countries, and anyway they don't allow dissent.


Yes, the US has WMD's. Yes, we HAVE used them in war and would do so again if it became necessary. For those anti-americans on this board, and you know who you are, you can complain about the US as much as you want to, that is your right. However, I would suggest you take a look at your own history before you hold it up as some devine scale against that of the US.

I don't need to examine the history of my nation any further to know that it conquered more foreign people than any other, and treated those people very very badly at times, and that it invented the concentration camp, and the use of aerial attack on civilians, and the phrase "gunboat diplomacy" was invented for its tactic of actually parking gunboats in other countries' rivers to enforce its political opinions, and that it went to war to protect the ability of its big corporations to sell highly addictive drugs in countries where those drugs were illegal, etc, etc, etc.

But the citizens of my nation, have on average over the last 50 to 100 years used the democratic process that we've fought wars to protect to show that the sort of behaviour outlined above is unacceptable, and so my nation doesn't really do that sort of thing anymore.

It isn't enough for you to say "the US is a democracy so stop worrying and concentrate on dictatorships if you want to complain". The US is a democracy that consistently ignores or denies the democratic rights of the people of other nations. Would you really tell the citizens of Iraq or Sudan or Grenada or Ecuador or Congo or Afghanistan or Palestine or Vietnam or any of the other nations where the US has had a war in the last 50 years that it isn't a dangerous power?

Where else would you want them to start? As you point out below, if they'd protested in China or Russia they'd likely have been shot. If there's something really dangerous and not under my control in my house and in my neighbour's house, I start worrying about the one in my house first.

Thats right, take away the weapons of the countries that you KNOW have them for their own defense. Yet leave those in the hands of those countries that you KNOW want to rule more lands. However, "peace" groups in the UK such as the "CND" were funded by the USSR. That information came out after the USSR collapsed and the archives were opened. So these "peace protesters" were anything but.

Well, India and Pakistan didn't have nukes in the 80s did they?

Yes they did. India tested their first nuke in 1974 and Pakistan soon after that.


Yes it is. That's the point of allowing dissent, so that people can dissent. I'm people. I'm dissenting. I don't dissent in countries that don't allow dissent because I'm not in those countries, and anyway they don't allow dissent.

Why do they not allow dissent? Because they do not care what others think. They have their own agendas. Now, IF the western democracies HAD disarmed themselves, what do you think would have happened?

I don't need to examine the history of my nation any further to know that it conquered more foreign people than any other, and treated those people very very badly at times, and that it invented the concentration camp, and the use of aerial attack on civilians, and the phrase "gunboat diplomacy" was invented for its tactic of actually parking gunboats in other countries' rivers to enforce its political opinions, and that it went to war to protect the ability of its big corporations to sell highly addictive drugs in countries where those drugs were illegal, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, so then complaining that the US has WMD's and actually used them once is like calling that pot black. IF you actually believe that the US is going to begin using the nukes at will then you might have a worry, but we all know that is not going to happen.

But the citizens of my nation, have on average over the last 50 to 100 years used the democratic process that we've fought wars to protect to show that the sort of behaviour outlined above is unacceptable, and so my nation doesn't really do that sort of thing anymore.

Yes, and has the US ever done that sort of thing? Remember, we did not even have a real standing army until after WWI

It isn't enough for you to say "the US is a democracy so stop worrying and concentrate on dictatorships if you want to complain". The US is a democracy that consistently ignores or denies the democratic rights of the people of other nations. Would you really tell the citizens of Iraq or Sudan or Grenada or Ecuador or Congo or Afghanistan or Palestine or Vietnam or any of the other nations where the US has had a war in the last 50 years that it isn't a dangerous power?

Yes, and how many of the above nations are occupied by the US or don't have their own governments? Palestine? The US has never had troops there nor has it ever engaged in any kind of actions there. The Israelis REFUSE to allow ANY US troops on it's soil. Even when Saddam was firing SCUD misles at Israel, they refused to allow US military troops to man the patriot missle batteries in their defense. They were manned by civilian contractors.

Thats funny..... Saudi Arabia has the LARGEST oil reserves, followed by Iraq. Russia has more oil than Canada does as well. Canada also imports a lot of oil. You would be stupid not to.

Hmmm oh really..

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20664.htm

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/4/20/201246/566

Hmmm oh really..

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20664.htm

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/4/20/201246/566

LOL Yeah.....IF the technology is developed to get at it. That does not make it available. It is a "possibility."

You might want to look at this list....

http://www.aneki.com/oil.html

Or this....

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

LOL Yeah.....IF the technology is developed to get at it. That does not make it available. It is a "possibility."

This negates the fact that Canada has the largest oil reserve in the world how? Btw, it can be recovered now.. it just happens to cost more then Saudi Arabia's oil. However, we have more then any one in the world. So, I stand by my assertion and you were wrong. Canada also supplies more oil to the United States then any other country, including Saudi Arabia. Just goes to show some times when you think some thing is absolute, you just might be wrong there Biff.

In fact Canada is the biggest supplier of oil for the United States. Approximately 1.8 million barrels of Canadian oil are bought by the States every day. This is more than even the imports from Saudi Arabia which are presently at around 1.5 million barrels. This means that Canadian oil is very significant to the US energy security and will remain so for the forseeable future, regardless of how much George Bush and Jean Chretien may despise one another. The tar sands are likely to play an increasing role in the energy markets as crude reserves are depleted. It's only a matter of economic viability. But don't believe those who tell you that we need to switch to solar power because we're out of oil Any Day Now.

This negates the fact that Canada has the largest oil reserve in the world how? Btw, it can be recovered now.. it just happens to cost more then Saudi Arbia's oil. However, we have more then any one in the world. So, I stand by my assertion and you were wrong. Canada also supplies more oil to the United States then any other country, including Saudi Arbia. Just goes to show some times when you think some thing is absolute, you just might be wrong there Biff.

No...you have more "potentail" oil....not oil itself.

No, we know it's there. It's just at the moment expensive to get at. It's not that we can't get to it, it just at the moment it costs a lot to do. That is where the new technology comes in. The new technology is not to be able to get at it, we can already do that, it's to get at it cheaper. Didn't you read the articles?

It is not oil....it is "tar" that can be extracted as oil. That makes it "potential" oil. However, it would be great if it can be cheaply. It would further the dependence on oil and that will delay the technologies that will rid us of oil.

No...you have more "potentail" oil....not oil itself.

No, we know it's there. It's just at the moment expensive to get at. It's not that we can't get to it, it just at the moment it costs a lot to do. That is where the new technology comes in. The new technology is not to be able to get at it, we can already do that, it's to get at it cheaper. Didn't you read the articles?

Well given that the tar sands could keep us all going in North America for the next 50 to 100 years I believe it's certainly worth it to invest in the new technologies, because lets face it, it will take years to develop new technologies to get us off the dependence of oil. In the mean time wouldn't it be nice if none of us had to depend on the middle east for oil? I believe it would be. We could get it right out of our own backyard.

No, those technologies are here now. We can have hydrogen powered cars, but with more oil, those will be put aside....

It would be nice to tell the Arabs to drink their oil though.....but that won't happen either.

It is not oil....it is "tar" that can be extracted as oil. That makes it "potential" oil. However, it would be great if it can be cheaply. It would further the dependence on oil and that will delay the technologies that will rid us of oil.

Well given that the tar sands could keep us all going in North America for the next 50 to 100 years I believe it's certainly worth it to invest in the new technologies, because lets face it, it will take years to develop new technologies to get us off the dependence of oil. In the mean time wouldn't it be nice if none of us had to depend on the middle east for oil? I believe it would be. We could get it right out of our own backyard.