NationStates Jolt Archive

I say anti but what does everybody else think?

Pro-Mohammadan.
So that would make it anti-Jewish and therefore anti-American.

Radiation is the best way to solve all of your problems and avoid cancer.

They hate America. Annually, they pass over one dozen resolutions condemning America and its allies. I say we should surround the UN building in NYC and arrest everyine in it untill we collect rent from everyone from the past 60 or so years. And every country has to pay the same amount. This way, we improve education, pay off the deficit, or finance this (or future) wars.

Of course, you can tell that I'm a Conserative...

The UN is neither nor. You seem to misunderstand anti-US-abuse for being anti-American. Now that the UN showed that it is not a US tool for US political agenda it is useless and anti-American eh. Oh how fickle people are in their opinion of something they created themselves for a goal they long forgot.

You forget that it was the US who created a dangerous precedent of ignoring international law for pre-emptive war. If anything, the international community needs more safeguards against US unilateralism.

The UN is neither. I never hear about the UN issuing condemnations on America, (although someone in this thread has said that they happen often) and doubting America's influence in the UN is pretty freakin' stupid.

They hate America. Annually, they pass over one dozen resolutions condemning America and its allies. I say we should surround the UN building in NYC and arrest everyine in it untill we collect rent from everyone from the past 60 or so years. And every country has to pay the same amount. This way, we improve education, pay off the deficit, or finance this (or future) wars.

Of course, you can tell that I'm a Conserative...
You seem to be pretty imperialist for a conservative.

The UN is neither nor. You seem to misunderstand anti-US-abuse for being anti-American. Now that the UN showed that it is not a US tool for US political agenda it is useless and anti-American eh. Oh how fickle people are in their opinion of something they created themselves for a goal they long forgot.

You forget that it was the US who created a dangerous precedent of ignoring international law for pre-emptive war. If anything, the international community needs more safeguards against US unilateralism.
If unilateral wars hadn't occured since the UN was created except for Iraq, you might have a point, too bad you're just letting your anti-US hysteria blind you.

You seem to be pretty imperialist for a conservative.

He could be a Neo-Con who are very pro war.

anti-US hysteria blind you

This is probably the worst thing you can say on these NS forums. I certainly hope this thread can continue being flame free.

If unilateral wars hadn't occured since the UN was created except for Iraq, you might have a point, too bad you're just letting your anti-US hysteria blind you.
Anti-US-hysteria is what I see so-called patriotic US citizens spew here. Propaganda and lies, nothing more, just like the US media who long forgot what their purpose is. Parroting neo-con phrases and lies here is ineffective.

Unilateral wars are bad, but especially so if they are done by the country which claims to be the leader of the world in all things moral and free. This image has been tarnished in the last 4 years by George W. Bush and the US lost a great deal of moral highground when the torture of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib was revealed.

It is astounding that so many Americans are blind to the world opinion they depend on. Without the support of the world, the US are just a mediocre country acting like every other rogue state they themselves condemn.

I have no sympathy for this and watch as the US meet their masters in Iraq and at home in a war they cannot win. And you have nobody than yourself and your incompetent "commander-in-chief" George W. Bush to thank for this.

It is astounding that so many Americans are blind to the world opinion they depend on. Without the support of the world, the US are just a mediocre country acting like every other rogue state they themselves condemn.

Exactly what world opinion does America rely on? America has been hated for decades, maybe even centuries, and that hasn't stopped America from gaining the massive power it has.

Anti-US-hysteria is what I see so-called patriotic US citizens spew here. Propaganda and lies, nothing more, just like the US media who long forgot what their purpose is. Parroting neo-con phrases and lies here is ineffective.

Unilateral wars are bad, but especially so if they are done by the country which claims to be the leader of the world in all things moral and free. This image has been tarnished in the last 4 years by George W. Bush and the US lost a great deal of moral highground when the torture of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib was revealed.

It is astounding that so many Americans are blind to the world opinion they depend on. Without the support of the world, the US are just a mediocre country acting like every other rogue state they themselves condemn.

I have no sympathy for this and watch as the US meet their masters in Iraq and at home in a war they cannot win. And you have nobody than yourself and your incompetent "commander-in-chief" George W. Bush to thank for this.
All things moral and free?! Bush is a vile, evil communist and servant of Ariel Sharon. America has been turned into a wasteland.

Anti-US-hysteria is what I see so-called patriotic US citizens spew here. Propaganda and lies, nothing more, just like the US media who long forgot what their purpose is. Parroting neo-con phrases and lies here is ineffective.
Explain to me, how has America's unilateral war in 2004 set a more dangerous precedent than the multitudes of other wars that have gone on without the UN in the past 60 years?

Can we please not turn this thread into a flame fest? If you have an opinion state it politely and back it up with facts.

Exactly what world opinion does America rely on? America has been hated for decades, maybe even centuries, and that hasn't stopped America from gaining the massive power it has.
Massive power eh. Military and Economy perhaps. But your presidents repeatedly fail to use it responsibly and thinking for the future, not just of the US but of mankind. Great power bears great responsibility, something which the relatively young US need to learn and hold sacrosanct. After 9/11 the basic principles of democracy were being betrayed by laws such as the Patriot Act. In a rash move, the US congress agreed to a law that now costs many US citizens dearly, losing freedoms left and right. You may ignore these incidents, but human rights violations such as in Guantanamo Bay give the US the image of countries like China in regards to human rights and civil rights, which is not a worthy goal.

The world opinion the US rely on to stay the leader of the world, is what I mean. Otherwise, the US will bring it's own downfall upon itself by constantly ignoring the deepening hatred towards it, especially in the muslim world. 9/11 could have been a lesson that something is not going the right way. A lesson that less interference in the world can be a good thing if those who are being forced to be like the US, reject this questionable gift.

Think about this or 9/11 may have just been a mild example of what desperate humans are capable of.

The UN is neither. I never hear about the UN issuing condemnations on America, (although someone in this thread has said that they happen often) and doubting America's influence in the UN is pretty freakin' stupid.
I actually heard that the UN wanted to set up embassys around the US, and someone mentioned that those embassies could be used to attack the US if it ever came to war. I know its awfully paranoid, but they do have a point even with our influence in the UN

UN is anti-american and more involved in self-interest. Cant entirely blame them, they are all out to become the next superpower. Most governments envy america since its the most powerful nation in the world, economically and militarily.

If we wanted to, we can pull off a Hitler and dominate half of Europe in a week, but we dont want to. We want peace and justice and because we oust a genocidal dictator from power, the UN throws a hissy fit. Later on of course we find that the prominent members of the UN (France, Germany, Russia) were involved in the oil for food scandal, they accepted bribes of blood money from Saddam Hussien. Money that should of been going to starving Iraqi's. Also found they were involved in selling weapons to Saddam, some material even involving enriched plutonium. No wonder they didnt want us to invade Iraq, those dealings are breaking UN resolutions and sanctions against Iraq.

I find it ironic, UN wanted us to lead the aid in Somolia, Kosovo, Bosnia, the reasons being genocide in those countries. Worst was in Somolia, 300,000 dead and counting. We now have confirmed, 1,000,000 dead by Saddam Hussein and genocide. Over 3 times worse then Somolia, we found closing in 1,000,000 mass graves in iraq, and the UN wont call it a justified war. They had no problem with us trying to assassinate Muhammed Aidid in Somolia, but they got a problem with bringing down Saddam Hussein which statistically speaking is three times worse then Aidid. I dont care if the UN endorsed it or not, i know its a justified war, i also know that the UN is biased, anti-american and obviously corrupt. It may not be going perfectly in iraq, but at least we can say we are trying and have the heart to continue unlike Europeans who didnt even have the heart to start.

Massive power eh. Military and Economy perhaps. But your presidents repeatedly fail to use it responsibly and thinking for the future, not just of the US but of mankind. Great power bears great responsibility, something which the relatively young US need to learn and hold sacrosanct. After 9/11 the basic principles of democracy were being betrayed by laws such as the Patriot Act. In a rash move, the US congress agreed to a law that now costs many US citizens dearly, losing freedoms left and right. You may ignore these incidents, but human rights violations such as in Guantanamo Bay give the US the image of countries like China in regards to human rights and civil rights, which is not a worthy goal.

The world opinion the US rely on to stay the leader of the world, is what I mean. Otherwise, the US will bring it's own downfall upon itself by constantly ignoring the deepening hatred towards it, especially in the muslim world. 9/11 could have been a lesson that something is not going the right way. A lesson that less interference in the world can be a good thing if those who are being forced to be like the US, reject this questionable gift.

Think about this or 9/11 may have just been a mild example of what desperate humans are capable of.


I think I see what you're trying to get at now. Not sure if I agree though.

You seem to be pretty imperialist for a conservative.
I am imperialistic, yes, but nothing I said was imperialistic




Gigatron---Location: Dresden, Germany

Now I wonder how a German would know how us Americans feel and what's best for us? I seem to remember Germany getting into a few wars and losing because of US. Are you still sore from getting your arse kicked? Well I'm sorry we've won a few wars and saved you/the world a couple times over.

Anything else you need ripped off you?

Oh, and before you say I don't know what it's like in Germany, I do. Part of my family still lives in Germany, and many of my friends do/have lived over there.

The UN is pro-UN. It could (I don't know if it already has) unofficially, or even officially, condemn what the United States has done, and not be anti-US.

The UN isn't about being pro- or anti-anyone, generally, they're just trying to make the world a better place. That's on the whole though, and individual nations within it still try to push their own agendas.


(Just so y'all know, I am a US citizen, I was even born in Texas, I was just lucky enough to be somewhat reasonable :P)

I am imperialistic, yes, but nothing I said was imperialistic




Gigatron---Location: Dresden, Germany

Now I wonder how a German would know how us Americans feel and what's best for us? I seem to remember Germany getting into a few wars and losing because of US. Are you still sore from getting your arse kicked? Well I'm sorry we've won a few wars and saved you/the world a couple times over.

Anything else you need ripped off you?

Oh, and before you say I don't know what it's like in Germany, I do. Part of my family still lives in Germany, and many of my friends do/have lived over there.


I have picked up the scent of a serious neocon.

It should be noted that the U.S. has HEAVY influence in several parts of the U.N., including Security Council, World Bank and International Monitary Fund. Just because the U.N. doesn't do everything the U.S. tells it to doesn't make it "anti-American." It's incredibly asinine to think that you are either completely with us or against us. The U.N. doesn't pass "dozens" of resolutions yearly condeming America, they rarely do. The United States has been very unilateral for the past few years; refusing to sign or withdrawing from many treaties (including the Anti Balistic Missile Treaty and several other non-proliferation treaties) and performing many agressive actions (subtly and overtly). Heck, the pattern of U.S. manipulation of the world for its own benefit goes back a long time. Learn about U.S. foreign policy and the U.N. in general from other sources than American televised media (espically FOX) if you want to comment with any degree of accuracy. I find books to be a good sourse of information.

I am imperialistic, yes, but nothing I said was imperialistic




Gigatron---Location: Dresden, Germany

Now I wonder how a German would know how us Americans feel and what's best for us? I seem to remember Germany getting into a few wars and losing because of US. Are you still sore from getting your arse kicked? Well I'm sorry we've won a few wars and saved you/the world a couple times over.

Anything else you need ripped off you?

Oh, and before you say I don't know what it's like in Germany, I do. Part of my family still lives in Germany, and many of my friends do/have lived over there.
This attitude is meant to achieve what exactly? Do you think just because the US happened to participate in WW1 and 2, it has some sort of holy right to question the words of people all over the world? Dresden was in the Soviet zone if you remember and I was not affected by these "US gifts" to the Germans you are so proud of. 12 years of German history do not make our country a US lapdog. If you think we owe the US anything then you are mistaken.

Additionally, such texan cowboy-like words just make you look dumb. Stay rational please without resorting to this low level of debate pulling out historical events that have no meaning today or on me.

It should be noted that the U.S. has HEAVY influence in several parts of the U.N., including Security Council, World Bank and International Monitary Fund. Just because the U.N. doesn't do everything the U.S. tells it to doesn't make it "anti-American." It's incredibly asinine to think that you are either completely with us or against us. The U.N. doesn't pass "dozens" of resolutions yearly condeming America, they rarely do.

Very nicely said. I agree totally. I just wish everyone else would, too.

I understand your logic Malre, i admire your reasonable attitude and i do agree with you to an extent. Britain supported us, Poland supported us, Spain supported us, Columbia, a terrorist torn country in constant war with the druglords support and they know first hand how to deal with terrorism.

The oil for food program made by the UN to give humanitarian aid to Iraqi's by selling oil to the UN and the UN giving money to pay for supplies, food rations, medicine, for dying Iraqi's. Instead the money was going to Saddam Hussein and he used it for bribe money, little if any funded humanitarian aid. Many nations accepted these bribes, big bucks from these bribes, some bribes ranging in the billions, not surprised, a lot of European countries still suffer from poverty. The UN is corrupt and bought off, not worth trusting because they no longer have credibility ESPECIALLY France. I boycott France and everything they make.

Of course it is Anti-American.
The War in Iraq = Bad, Naughty U.S. Imperialism.
The Continued Unilateral French Occupation of the Congo and the Ivory Coast = Good?

At minimum the U.N. should be heaved out of the U.S., it should be located in Europe, which has more member nations in it.

I understand your logic Malre, i admire your reasonable attitude and i do agree with you to an extent. Britain supported us, Poland supported us, Spain supported us, Columbia, a terrorist torn country in constant war with the druglords support and they know first hand how to deal with terrorism.

The oil for food program made by the UN to give humanitarian aid to Iraqi's by selling oil to the UN and the UN giving money to pay for supplies, food rations, medicine, for dying Iraqi's. Instead the money was going to Saddam Hussein and he used it for bribe money, little if any funded humanitarian aid. Many nations accepted these bribes, big bucks from these bribes, some bribes ranging in the billions, not surprised, a lot of European countries still suffer from poverty. The UN is corrupt and bought off, not worth trusting because they no longer have credibility ESPECIALLY France. I boycott France and everything they make.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm

The US has named 30 countries which are prepared to be publicly associated with the US action against Iraq.

The state department says more countries have now announced concrete support for a possible US invasion of Iraq than during the first Gulf War.

And it says that there are an additional 15 countries which are providing assistance, such as over-flight rights, but which do not want to declare support.

"I hope that they will all be able to do everything that is possible within their means to support the coalition militarily, diplomatically, politically and economically," US Secretary of State Colin Powell said.

The list includes countries which are providing troops, over-flight or basing rights, logistical support or assistance with reconstruction efforts.

But the state department admits that only a few of these countries are providing any major military presence in the Gulf, notably Britain and Australia.

Arab absence

And the list is most extraordinary for the countries that are left off - which include all of the Arab states, including those countries where US troops are massing for an invasion, like Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.

With feelings running high in the Arab world against the possible invasion, presumably these countries felt it wise not to be publicly identified with the US action.

Nor is the main US ally in the Middle East, Israel, mentioned, although it is expected to provide at least air rights for US aircraft to strike Iraq.

And traditional US Arab allies, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, clearly did not want to associate themselves with military action against Saddam Hussein.

Range of support

State department spokesman Richard Boucher explained that the list included some countries, like Japan, which are only prepared to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq.

And it includes Turkey, which is still negotiating the extent of its involvement in any war.

Many of the countries on the list are from Eastern Europe, where countries like Romania are providing basing rights, while Poland has offered 200 troops and the Czech Republic is sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit.

It was not clear what support countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria were providing to the US coalition, but many are seeking US financial or military support through Nato.

And the US had promises of support from some of the countries which are already involved in the war on terrorism, including Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, and the Philippines.

US image plummets

Meanwhile, a new poll by the Washington-based Pew Research Center indicates that the number of Europeans with a favourable image of the US has plummeted, even among the coalition of the willing.

In Italy, only 34% view the US positively, compared to 70% in 2002.

In Spain, only 14% have a favourable image.

That may explain why Italy and Spain, although strong supporters of diplomacy, are not sending troops to the Gulf.

And even in Eastern Europe, support for the US has dropped from 80% to 50% in Poland.

No-show neighbours

Notable for their absence from the state department list were a number of members of the Nato alliance, including Canada, Belgium, and Norway, as well as France and Germany.

And the US was surprisingly unsuccessful in gaining any allies in its traditional backyard of Latin America.

Only El Salvador, Nicaragua and Colombia - where the US is funding a huge anti-drugs war - were prepared to be identified with the US coalition.

The larger South American nations, like Argentina and Brazil, have followed the example of Mexico and Chile, who failed to back the US attempt to gain a second UN resolution.

And the only two African countries which are on the list, Ethiopia and Eritrea, are bitter rivals who are both seeking US support in a boundary dispute.

Full list of coalition countries:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Source: US State Department

Congratulate your president for having 30 countries in the coalition, coerced into cooperation if you will while alienating traditional US allies. If this is the trade-off to win this "war on terror" then it is questionable how you ever plan to win it with such "unimportant" countries with little to no influence in the world, being your support. Note that a number of them have since withdrawn their support. The most prominent country being Spain, which was "blown out" of the coalition. Expect this support to falter even more, seeing the humanitarian, political and military quagmire Iraq has become and will stay for the next few decades.

We must remember that the UN was originally supposed to be a middle man in US and anti-communist countries relations. It seems that was a lost cause as it is now a socialist tool.

The UN is very anti-American not just in some actions but also in what it owes to us. Sudan's diplomats alone owe NYC like 20 million in overdue parking tickets. If NYC collected all of the parking violatons from the UN, it could pay for like 10 police for every building. But no, NYC can't have that money because diplomats only answer to "international law". BS! We should go Grand Theft Auto on them and have a guerilla war effort against any diplomat who owes more than 200,000 in backlogged parking tickets. But make sure to include people of every ethnicity and nationality possible in it to make it "international".

UN :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Thus bringing me to my point, im glad the world is pissed at us, because that finally allows us to say something most americans want to say, "kiss our ass". Funny how many European immigrants are so eager to come to the United States when they dislike us so much. Im not surprised this is coming from a German, like France its been a socialist fruitbasket country since WWII (and thats not me talking, thats what a German friend of mine told me). So i dont care what you all think because we didnt become the superpower of the world by listening to you. You know if Europe broke into WWIII all of a sudden im sure you guys would have a more optimistic attitude in the United States willingness to fight Tyranny and Oppression. We liberated Europe from Tyranny and Oppression TWICE, you guys werent objecting, you all were waving our flag. Whats wrong with liberating Iraq from Tyranny and Oppression? If anyone says that Saddam was not a oppressive tyrant im calling you a dumbass on the spot and you wouldnt even be worth talking to.

whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa

The United States funds half of the united nations, the UN building is in New York! It is the United States that makes the UN the least bit credible.

In fact, the predecessor to the UN, the League of Nations, folded due to the fact theat the US did not participate. It therefore had no leverage.

You'd think that the UN would be pro-US because of this, but that is not entirely the case. Let me explain.

In foreign policy, the United States is a hegemonic power. Nobody else has the leverage we do. Except of course, every other nation in the world put together. It's a roughly 199-1 matchup, but fair nonetheless. The UN is a fine counterbalance to US unilateralist policies. It is in the interest of World Politics, that the rest of the world have the kind of voice that the UN provides.

Still, the UN don't dare go entirely against the big USofA. Too much funding, too much backing, too much power. So the correct answer is of course, NEITHER.

its just anti-bush...which in many ways makes it pro-american

Thus bringing me to my point, im glad the world is pissed at us, because that finally allows us to say something most americans want to say, "kiss our ass".

Thanks. And ditto when you need international help in Iraq, which you do.

Funny how many European immigrants are so eager to come to the United States when they dislike us so much. Im not surprised this is coming from a German, like France its been a socialist fruitbasket country since WWII (and thats not me talking, thats what a German friend of mine told me).
You talk as if the US is the only country having immigration. How blind and egocentric, but typical of an American. People should immigrate to Norway, it's a better country than the US and this is official.

So i dont care what you all think because we didnt become the superpower of the world by listening to you.

That is correct. The US became the superpower it is by nuclear proliferation, by building the strongest military force on Earth to make sure things go the way they want. The US is builton land that they stole from the indians. The US is a country based on dissent and revolution, by fighting against those who created it. The US history is at least as bloody as any other large country's history. No moral highground. No right to say you are any better. US "democracy" includes laws like the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, cities with living conditions partly like in "Third World" countries, a great gap between the ultra rich and the ultra poor (and exploited). A plutocracy based on outdated biblical rules. Senators who rarely speak what they mean but who speak what they think will keep them in power longest. Presidents who wage wars which result in incredible humanitarian catastrophes. The US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilian population. And your country is so great and the world's leader because of WHAT? Military and economical power, the ability to force your will on other nations. Imperialism. That is all.

You know if Europe broke into WWIII all of a sudden im sure you guys would have a more optimistic attitude in the United States willingness to fight Tyranny and Oppression. We liberated Europe from Tyranny and Oppression TWICE, you guys werent objecting, you all were waving our flag. Whats wrong with liberating Iraq from Tyranny and Oppression? If anyone says that Saddam was not a oppressive tyrant im calling you a dumbass on the spot and you wouldnt even be worth talking to.
Saddam was an oppressive tyrant. However Iraq was safe from terrorism with him in power. The death toll the illegal Iraq war will take will rise over the next 30-40 years it will take to make Iraq a safe country again. From being weak and barely able to sustain itself, to a flourishing democracy. This is Bush's vision for Iraq, which will never see the light as long as the US are there occupying the country, installing puppet rulers, giving out no-bid contracts to US corporations, torturing Iraqis, killing Iraqi women and children in their quest to kill rebels and terrorists. You've made yourself a nice bed there, now sleep in it.

Whoa again

Sorry if I'm ruining the fun here with all my "moderation" and "facts"

America has an extremely bloody history, and we are held accountable for all the things we have done. Slavery, Native Americans, the whole shebang.

But America is not a tyrant, and we do stand for good in the world. We are a democratic nation. As people we are EXTREMELY compassionate for the downtrodden. If a tradgedy stuck any nation in the world, we are the first in and last out. And by this, I mean humanitarian aid.

You may disagree with our government, but it is the best in the world. All free people have adopted and learned from the "democratic experiment" that we were/are. And democratic countries RARELY ever come to war with one another. We loves us some war, but ultimately our goal is peace. This is not readily apparent to some, but we americans are a people of many voices.

Whoa again

Sorry if I'm ruining the fun here with all my "moderation" and "facts"

America has an extremely bloody history, and we are held accountable for all the things we have done. Slavery, Native Americans, the whole shebang.

But America is not a tyrant, and we do stand for good in the world. We are a democratic nation. As people we are EXTREMELY compassionate for the downtrodden. If a tradgedy stuck any nation in the world, we are the first in and last out. And by this, I mean humanitarian aid.

You may disagree with our government, but it is the best in the world. All free people have adopted and learned from the "democratic experiment" that we were/are. And democratic countries RARELY ever come to war with one another. We loves us some war, but ultimately our goal is peace. This is not readily apparent to some, but we americans are a people of many voices.
Well I am sorry if I have to disagree, but currently the US are on course for eternal war against "terror". A ghost like the "war on drugs". There is no condition that defines victory and terrorism will always exist as long as people have no other choice to make themselves heard.

Not to forget that the first actual democracy was born in Greece and lives until today. The Roman empire was obviously the model the US shaped itself after. And just like the Romans, the US will fall eventually by it's own wrongdoings. History has shown that no empire lasts forever and terrorism as we see it today, coupled with the melting freedoms and civil rights in the US may very well be the end of the US "supremacy". The good you claim the US stands for is being negated by the glaring bad and evil the US also stands for. That at least the traditional democratic countries in Europe (the people, not necessarily the politicians) oppose this war in Iraq is due to our understanding that war causes a lot of suffering and should be the absolutely last resort. Bush failed to use all options of diplomacy, his texan cowboy mentality prevailed and in his black&white crusade of the "good" vs the "axis of evil", he completely threw out the basics of demoracy and the UN. I have no sympathy for this.

Ah, you see we are in agreement on some things. But America is not a war-loving empire building state.

Half of it is.

America does not like War. We are big on militarism (the glorifying of war) but eventually the left wing will regain power, and we'll be right back where we started. The checks in balances in America prevents the collapse you speak of.

Ah, you see we are in agreement on some things. But America is not a war-loving empire building state.

Half of it is.

America does not like War. We are big on militarism (the glorifying of war) but eventually the left wing will regain power, and we'll be right back where we started. The checks in balances in America prevents the collapse you speak of.
Which checks and balances? You mean the separation of state and religion? The separation of legislation, executive and judicative? Well I am sorry but what I currently see happening in the US (much like in Germany aswell) is a growing mix of religious doctrine, corporate interests, lobbying and disdain for the people who elect these representatives to do what is best for the country. These representative democracies bear the risk that the leader, like it was the case with Bush, follows a wrong way and sticks with it until the bitter end. Good leadership for me means that one can also acknowledge making a mistake and being wrong. Bush constantly disappoints this expectation of me by sticking to his already proven failures and his rosey evaluation of the situation in Iraq, ignoring reality.

Combined, all these factors result in increasing disinterest in democracy and people refuse to vote or vote radically. Democracy in the US aswell as in Germany, is ill.

Oh! The war on terror can be won... technically.

You see Democratic nations are terrible harbors for terrorists. Sure, Americans have american terrorists... right now! But no worldwide terror network can survive in people-led hostile government. Terrorists will always exist, but the war on terror at the state level can be won.

And our President right now is well aware of it, and came awfully close to admitting your point.

Oh! The war on terror can be won... technically.

You see Democratic nations are terrible harbors for terrorists. Sure, Americans have american terrorists... right now! But no worldwide terror network can survive in people-led hostile government. Terrorists will always exist, but the war on terror at the state level can be won.

And our President right now is well aware of it, and came awfully close to admitting your point.
You are wrong. Democracies, due to their open-mindedness and ability of people to travel wherever they like, are excellent harbours. As seen here in Germany. Some of the 9/11 terrorists lived in Hamburg. It is the freedoms we have which these terrorists enjoy too, which make it possible for them to stay undetected until it is too late. The middle east is another bastion of terrorism if you will. Although the islamic terrorism (Jihad) has a reason, which is US interference in Muslim/Islamic countries. More interference or even military aggression means more terrorism and hatred among the people. It is a self-fuelling problem, which cannot be solved with force.

Oh, I'm not saying I even believe that, but it is Political Theory, and the basis of our president's logic.

I agree with you entirely.

But we aren't going to be invading every country, just trying to get them to change their policy regarding terrorism.

But anyways, you're other point. You can have a democracy, and still have a border patrol. Try sneaking into the US, it's kinda tough.

Oh right! the check and balances thing.

We have 2 political parties. And a juducial system to judge that their actions are constitutional. What you are witnessing is a hiccup of our nation's system.

The republicans control the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the majority of our State Governorships, the Supreme Court Appointees, and the popular vote.

This is due mainly because 9/11 forced us to solidify under a republican president before the November 2002 elections. Don't worry, in a month the balance shall be restored far better... I hope.

Actually its a lot eaiser than ppl think. On the Mexican border three out of four illegal immigrants make it into the US

Oh, I'm not saying I even believe that, but it is Political Theory, and the basis of our president's logic.

I agree with you entirely.

But we aren't going to be invading every country, just trying to get them to change their policy regarding terrorism.

But anyways, you're other point. You can have a democracy, and still have a border patrol. Try sneaking into the US, it's kinda tough.
Sneaking into the US may be tough. Potential terrorists however do not sneak into the US. They use legal means ;)

Even that is a lot tougher now. It may not stop all of them, but few numbers is what we're looking for. Makes suicide bombings a lot less productive (joke)

Oh, and I hope you saw my double post there, just answering your checks and balances question.

Nations are made through war, America was formed by the British, that's where the true american originates from. I have native american blood in me, i do not hold grudges, atrocities happen, that results in war. Iraq was safe from terrorism when Saddam Hussain was in power.....but they werent safe from Saddam Hussain. Many Iraqi's have died in the guerilla war against terrorism, mostly at the fault of the terrorists, thats in our favor, because now, muslims are starting to see these "muslim freedom fighters" are killing other muslims and willingly. Pakistan for example has condemned Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Many Iraqi's have died in the crossfire, 1,000,000 died under Saddam Hussain.....safe from terrorism under Saddam Hussain, lived in absolute fear under Saddam Hussain. The difference? This time they can fight back, because they have the most powerful military in the world backing them. They are now given the choice to fight for their freedom when before the choice wasnt there for them. Everyday, more recruits are taken in to join the Iraqi armed forces, just today Iraqi forces lead the way and invaded the city of Samarra and won, they dominated the city. They are starting to fight for that freedom, every country has the right to be free of tyranny and oppression, we have the power to give it and we arent going to let pacifists get in our way of bringing peace. Sometimes the only way to bring peace is through war. Iraq is an example of the spawning pool of terrorism that lurked subtetly in the middle east, we have revealed the monster in the closet, the world is shaking in their boots, the americans wont give in.

Oh no, now I have to fend off a left leaning (at least in terms of this conflict) German and a right wing American. DAMN MY MODERATION!

People are oppressed all over the world. Does that mean America has to come in and shoot up the place citing the reasononing of "well tons more died first"

Saddam hadn't been killing people massively, or even possessing any WMDs since 1991. Colin Powell even apologized to the world community for this. Iraq was a weakened country that was made the center of a war on terror, when in reality it prolly was definately not. I'm as glad as anyone that he's gone. But when you invade a country that's obviously no threat, for no impending reason, against the will of every country's population but 1 (US), with no exit strategy, with not enough troops to occupy and maintain the peace there, abandoning the search for Al Quieda in the process...

I'm sorry but that's a mistake that needs to be adressed.

I was for the war when it started, but now oppose it. Does that make me a flip flopper when WMDs, ties to AlQuieda that now were proven false, and various other Bush propaganda originally influenced me?

Pakistan for example has condemned Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Many Iraqi's have died in the crossfire, 1,000,000 died under Saddam Hussain.....safe from terrorism under Saddam Hussain, lived in absolute fear under Saddam Hussain.

...

We arent going to let pacifists get in our way of bringing peace. Sometimes the only way to bring peace is through war. Iraq is an example of the spawning pool of terrorism that lurked subtetly in the middle east, we have revealed the monster in the closet, the world is shaking in their boots, the americans wont give in.
Pakistan is, to be blunt, a US puppet. "President" Musharraf a dictator who grabbed power in a military rebellion, backed by the US - something the world has seen before. Saddam Hussein being the most prominent example of such hypocrisy. Pakistan harbours terrorists and has domestic terrorism problems aswell as religious fundamentalism. Pakistan is proliferating it's nuclear abilities making it just as much a danger as Israel, North Korea or other nations with nuclear weapons (including and especially the US). Pakistan is considered by the US a non-NATO ally, something Hussein used to be aswell as long as he served national interests of the US in the war against Iran. Coupled with over $70 million in monthly "logistics reimbursement" by the US to Pakistan, the relationship is eerily familiar.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB94041.pdf

In October 1999, Army Chief Gen. Pervez Musharraf overthrew the (democratically elected) government, dismissed the National Assembly, installed a National Security Council and appointed himself "Chief Executive". He declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, and, by special decree, ensured that his actions could not be challenged by any court, thus essentially imposing martial law. In April 2002, Musharraf assumed the title of President. National elections were held in October of that year, as ordered by the Supreme Court.

There had been hopes that national elections in October 2002 would reverse Pakistan’s historic trend toward unstable governance and military interference in democratic institutions. Such hopes were eroded by the passage of some highly restrictive election laws, including those that prevented the country’s two leading civilian politicians from participating, as well as President Musharraf’s unilateral imposition of major constitutional amendments in August 2002. In 2003, and for the eleventh straight year, the nonpartisan Freedom House rated Pakistan as “not free” in the areas of political rights and civil liberties. An October 2003 report from Human Rights Watch claimed that four years of military rule has “led to serious human rights abuses.”
While praising Pakistan’s electoral exercises as moves in the right direction, the United States has expressed concern that seemingly nondemocratic developments may make the realization of true democracy in Pakistan more elusive. Gen. Musharraf’s April 2002 assumption of the title of President ostensibly was legitimized by a controversial referendum that many observers claimed was marked by “excessive fraud and coercion.” In August 2002, the Musharraf government announced sweeping changes in the Pakistani constitution under a “Legal Framework Order” (LFO).
These changes provide the office of President and the armed forces powers not previously available in the country’s constitutional history, including provisions for Presidential dissolution of the National Assembly and appointment of the Army Chief and provincial governors, among others. The United States expressed concerns that the changes “could make it more difficult to build strong, democratic institutions in Pakistan.” In October 2002, the country held its first national elections since 1997, fulfilling in a limited fashion Musharraf’s promise to restore the National Assembly that was dissolved in the wake of his extra-constitutional seizure of power in October 1999. Numerous observers complained that the exercise was flawed. No party won a majority of parliamentary seats, though the pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid-e-Azam (PML-Q) won a plurality. In November 2002, the new National Assembly chose Musharraf supporter and former Baluchistan Chief Minister Mir Zafarullah Jamali to serve as Pakistan’s Prime Minister.

Learn about those who your country considers allies. Pakistan is an incredibly bad example to use as beacon in the "war against terrorism".

In regards to the original question, I feel that the U.N. is, by its very nature, anti-American at this point. That isn't because of American policy, but because the U.N. is still struggling to establish itself as the supreme government on the planet...a task which it hasn't even come close to. The current world leader is the United States of America because we are the strongest and one of the richest. And because we are one of the most outspoken for our ideals. And because we are one of the most generous to those people that are in need (provided that they aren't actively seeking to harm us and that there is a respectable government in place).

Because the U.N. believes that it is the supreme authority, it is trying to govern all major (and most minor) international decisions because, unless it does that, it isn't the world summit it was designed to be. The United States of America, because it is stronger than the U.N., refuses to let the opinions of other countries completely dictate how we act. Do we listen? Yes, very much so, or at least those people that are in charge do (the detrimental "anti-foreigner" abuse that Americans give out on this type of board are just one example of how a lot of Americans aren't aware of what happens at all). You may disagree with me and say that because President Bush didn't agree with international opinion he wasn't listening. I, on the other hand, will still hold that President Bush felt that some things matter enough that they shouldn't be left up to the opinion of foreign nations, but at the same time he took the time to hear what those dissenting governments were saying.

The only way that the U.N. will truly become the major power in the world is if the U.S.A. no longers contributes the vast majority of resources to it. But at the current rate this could take centuries because most countries are more concerned with getting their opinions heard than they are with pledging money to finance the actions required of those opinions.

Because the U.N. is trying very hard to push America under its control, there is a ever-growing movement among the American grassroots for the USA to get out of the U.N. Doing this would either destroy it or give it actual credibility because for the first time the international community would be forced to fully support the existence of the U.N. My bet is that it would destroy it, because I don't feel that the international community cares enough to keep the U.N. in existence. IMO, most likely there would be a new type of international summit, probably composed of representatives of the EU, the AU, and other yet-to-form conglomerations of nations (maybe a united arab group, a united oceania group, etc.), not representatives of single nations.

If there is ever going to be an actual world governing body with any actual authority, it will require that the world be much more globalized than it is even close to now. At this point, I feel that the world is becoming either increasingly nationalistic or increasingly regionalistic. This may be the steps towards unified government, but it is only one small rung at the bottom of the ladder. Most likely the top of that ladder will only be reached once the world is either reeling from a massive global war or is coming out of a multiple-decade-long period of peace. I desparately hope that it is the second option.

Unfortunately, the realities of the present day suggest that a lasting world peace may never happen. America is filled with arrogant and ignorant people who feel that no one else in the world matters, what was East Germany is now seeing a huge political surge on the part of the Neo-Nazi party, terrorists claiming to follow Islam are killing children, and human rights violations are being committed at an alarming rate...incredibly by a large number of nations who currently serve on the International Human Rights Commission (Sudan, etc., etc.). There is no simple answer to the future, but I strongly hope that we'll one day make it there.

~No One Special

In regards to the original question, I feel that the U.N. is, by its very nature, anti-American at this point. That isn't because of American policy, but because the U.N. is still struggling to establish itself as the supreme government on the planet...a task which it hasn't even come close to. The current world leader is the United States of America because we are the strongest and one of the richest. And because we are one of the most outspoken for our ideals. And because we are one of the most generous to those people that are in need (provided that they aren't actively seeking to harm us and that there is a respectable government in place).

Because the U.N. believes that it is the supreme authority, it is trying to govern all major (and most minor) international decisions because, unless it does that, it isn't the world summit it was designed to be. The United States of America, because it is stronger than the U.N., refuses to let the opinions of other countries completely dictate how we act. Do we listen? Yes, very much so, or at least those people that are in charge do (the detrimental "anti-foreigner" abuse that Americans give out on this type of board are just one example of how a lot of Americans aren't aware of what happens at all). You may disagree with me and say that because President Bush didn't agree with international opinion he wasn't listening. I, on the other hand, will still hold that President Bush felt that some things matter enough that they shouldn't be left up to the opinion of foreign nations, but at the same time he took the time to hear what those dissenting governments were saying.

The only way that the U.N. will truly become the major power in the world is if the U.S.A. no longers contributes the vast majority of resources to it. But at the current rate this could take centuries because most countries are more concerned with getting their opinions heard than they are with pledging money to finance the actions required of those opinions.

Because the U.N. is trying very hard to push America under its control, there is a ever-growing movement among the American grassroots for the USA to get out of the U.N. Doing this would either destroy it or give it actual credibility because for the first time the international community would be forced to fully support the existence of the U.N. My bet is that it would destroy it, because I don't feel that the international community cares enough to keep the U.N. in existence. IMO, most likely there would be a new type of international summit, probably composed of representatives of the EU, the AU, and other yet-to-form conglomerations of nations (maybe a united arab group, a united oceania group, etc.), not representatives of single nations.

If there is ever going to be an actual world governing body with any actual authority, it will require that the world be much more globalized than it is even close to now. At this point, I feel that the world is becoming either increasingly nationalistic or increasingly regionalistic. This may be the steps towards unified government, but it is only one small rung at the bottom of the ladder. Most likely the top of that ladder will only be reached once the world is either reeling from a massive global war or is coming out of a multiple-decade-long period of peace. I desparately hope that it is the second option.

Unfortunately, the realities of the present day suggest that a lasting world peace may never happen. America is filled with arrogant and ignorant people who feel that no one else in the world matters, what was East Germany is now seeing a huge political surge on the part of the Neo-Nazi party, terrorists claiming to follow Islam are killing children, and human rights violations are being committed at an alarming rate...incredibly by a large number of nations who currently serve on the International Human Rights Commission (Sudan, etc., etc.). There is no simple answer to the future, but I strongly hope that we'll one day make it there.

~No One Special
The US agreed to hold the UN and international law higher than it's own government when it signed the charter at the founding of the UN. That this international body, which functions a lot according to democratic values, except for being somewhat outdated in its representation in the UNSC, is now considered anti-American, because it does not serve as a tool in American politics, is not really surprising. Especially neo-con/republican folks who ignore that their own country has colossal shortcomings and still want to dictate the world how to run, should first remove the literal tree from their own eye before accusing their neighbor of having a speck in their eye. I am deeply opposed to hypocrisy when dealing with the UN and would not excuse it if my own government did it. However the effect US unilateralism has on the world especially in its open form which we have seen in the last 4 years, is detrimental to the values the US stands for - or stood for. No longer is liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the basic human rights each human being has, held above all else. The new world agenda of the US is complete domination, through intimidation, fear, terror, economic pressure, propaganda, coercion, deceit, hatred, arrogance. I could probably name more "sins" or bad qualities which the US lately show openly and people like Bush who openly push this agenda forward, are undeserving of the respect of other democratic nations of the world. What the US once defeated in Europe in alliance with France, Britain and Russia, is now being done by them instead. Hypocrisy at it's best.

For those who still think the UN is the source of all evil in the world, here's the PREAMBLE of the UN Charter:


WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Especially Section 7 of the charter is important for the US:

CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47

1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.

3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Article 50
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter.

They hate America. Annually, they pass over one dozen resolutions condemning America and its allies. I say we should surround the UN building in NYC and arrest everyine in it untill we collect rent from everyone from the past 60 or so years. And every country has to pay the same amount. This way, we improve education, pay off the deficit, or finance this (or future) wars.

Of course, you can tell that I'm a Conserative...

Yes you can tell that you are a conservative for various reasons.

Firstly, you make a ridiculous claim unsupported by any facts, and do not apparently see the need for them. "They hate America. Annually, they pass over one dozen resolutions condemning America and its allies" - is obviously stupid once one takes the time to recognise that the US has the right of veto, and constantly uses it.

The next evidence for rabid conservatism is the ludicrous suggestion to arrest everyone in the UN - presumably without the requirement for any form of due process, right to trial or anything else remotely based on the rule of law or rights of individuals or organisations. Almost seems like taking hostages really, doesn't it?

Seek treatment.

UN is anti-american and more involved in self-interest. Cant entirely blame them, they are all out to become the next superpower. Most governments envy america since its the most powerful nation in the world, economically and militarily.

If we wanted to, we can pull off a Hitler and dominate half of Europe in a week, but we dont want to. We want peace and justice and because we oust a genocidal dictator from power, the UN throws a hissy fit. Later on of course we find that the prominent members of the UN (France, Germany, Russia) were involved in the oil for food scandal, they accepted bribes of blood money from Saddam Hussien. Money that should of been going to starving Iraqi's. Also found they were involved in selling weapons to Saddam, some material even involving enriched plutonium. No wonder they didnt want us to invade Iraq, those dealings are breaking UN resolutions and sanctions against Iraq.

I find it ironic, UN wanted us to lead the aid in Somolia, Kosovo, Bosnia, the reasons being genocide in those countries. Worst was in Somolia, 300,000 dead and counting. We now have confirmed, 1,000,000 dead by Saddam Hussein and genocide. Over 3 times worse then Somolia, we found closing in 1,000,000 mass graves in iraq, and the UN wont call it a justified war. They had no problem with us trying to assassinate Muhammed Aidid in Somolia, but they got a problem with bringing down Saddam Hussein which statistically speaking is three times worse then Aidid. I dont care if the UN endorsed it or not, i know its a justified war, i also know that the UN is biased, anti-american and obviously corrupt. It may not be going perfectly in iraq, but at least we can say we are trying and have the heart to continue unlike Europeans who didnt even have the heart to start.


How is the UN anti-american when the USA can veto anything?

Proof for this "scandal"? Any proof? Where are those nuclear weapons sold to Saddam?

Why does the UN call it an unjust war? Because you guys made a conscious decision to invade Iraq without putting it to a vote...

Look, the UN doesn't have more power than the US, which as a democratic union of a lot of different countries it techincally should. So naturally they're kinda pissed off at America.

What does it really affect if the UN is anti-american, which I don't really think it is, but if it was? America went ahead with the Iraq war, didnt they? So why are they suddenly complaining that they're getting dirty looks from International people?

It isn't surprising that the US is un-popular because it (im talking about the nation as a whole here, not the individual people in it) is the personification of arrogant selfishness.

It doesn't mean anything cos America will continue to do whatever the hell they want until they collapse into anarchy or blow themselves up.

That was an IMHO, by the way - please don't waste your time flaming me in the name of patriotism.

Throughout this entire discussion- which has almost been completely derailed from the original question- I've noted that there's a whole bunch o' people saying things that, to me, seem to say things to the effect of, "All Americans are (insert political view here), they suck, blah blah blah."

That ain't true at all.

The US of A is full o' people of practically every single view. Not all Americans are pro-war conservatives who feel like they can do whatever they want; otherwise, it stands to reason that the US- and the world- would be a very different place today. It's painful to hear people associate "anti-Bush, -Congress", etc., with "anti-American." Not all of us are like that. For example, Bush's war in Iraq faces protests fairly often. US citizens are a diverse lot.

And, before I get flamed for sounding overly patriotic, I also find it odd that the US, since it fought in both World Wars, should automatically become the ultimate nation on this planet. Times are different; many generations have gone by, and the every nation on the planet has been shaped differently as a result. I'm not saying that we should completely ignore the past; it's just unfair that people should make conclusions about stuff that hadn't occured in their life all the time.

But hey, that's just my opinion. I ain't tryin' to attack nobody here.

PS: If you haven't gotten the message from a myriad of political threads, here it is: Don't EVER watch Fox. It's god-awful :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Thus bringing me to my point, im glad the world is pissed at us, because that finally allows us to say something most americans want to say, "kiss our ass". Funny how many European immigrants are so eager to come to the United States when they dislike us so much. Im not surprised this is coming from a German, like France its been a socialist fruitbasket country since WWII (and thats not me talking, thats what a German friend of mine told me). So i dont care what you all think because we didnt become the superpower of the world by listening to you. You know if Europe broke into WWIII all of a sudden im sure you guys would have a more optimistic attitude in the United States willingness to fight Tyranny and Oppression. We liberated Europe from Tyranny and Oppression TWICE, you guys werent objecting, you all were waving our flag. Whats wrong with liberating Iraq from Tyranny and Oppression? If anyone says that Saddam was not a oppressive tyrant im calling you a dumbass on the spot and you wouldnt even be worth talking to.


I do not think that most americans would tell the whole of Europe to kiss our asses.

Throughout this entire discussion- which has almost been completely derailed from the original question- I've noted that there's a whole bunch o' people saying things that, to me, seem to say things to the effect of, "All Americans are (insert political view here), they suck, blah blah blah."

That ain't true at all.

The US of A is full o' people of practically every single view. Not all Americans are pro-war conservatives who feel like they can do whatever they want; otherwise, it stands to reason that the US- and the world- would be a very different place today. It's painful to hear people associate "anti-Bush, -Congress", etc., with "anti-American." Not all of us are like that. For example, Bush's war in Iraq faces protests fairly often. US citizens are a diverse lot.

And, before I get flamed for sounding overly patriotic, I also find it odd that the US, since it fought in both World Wars, should automatically become the ultimate nation on this planet. Times are different; many generations have gone by, and the every nation on the planet has been shaped differently as a result. I'm not saying that we should completely ignore the past; it's just unfair that people should make conclusions about stuff that hadn't occured in their life all the time.

But hey, that's just my opinion. I ain't tryin' to attack nobody here.

PS: If you haven't gotten the message from a myriad of political threads, here it is: Don't EVER watch Fox. It's god-awful :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Very true.

On another point I like fox news. I also like CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC news along with the news that the local colleges but out around here. I also read alot of different newspapers. One needs to look at how everyone is reporting the same story and sort of form their own opinion of what is really going on.

Please understand that the President of a country is it's sign to the world, the representative. Bush does an aweful job at representing the US, not just with his incompetent appearance and lack of skill in speaking, but also his texan cowboy attitude towards everyone and everything. This may be a stereotype but Bush fits it very well - simple mind, simple pleasures, simple speeches. He is a bad person for the position of President of the USA and it is sad that he even got elected and his constant breaches of what he promised before he became President did not mean anything yet while Clinton had to defend from a barrage of attacks because he had a blowjob from Monica... weird priorities is all I can say.

There are of course moderate US citizens and even liberals (who would have thought) but the neo-con agenda and republican domination of all US politics has been so prevalent and offensive the last 4 years that it is high time to end it. It's in the hands of the US voting population and I truly hope that some core values of democracy, freedom and peace will return to the US despite the endless war it has set as it's course at the moment. If my criticizm does not apply to you because you are neither republican, nor neo-con nor US-jingoistic, then disregard my posts. They are aimed at the type of US American who is dominant on these forums - the stereotype arrogant, egoistic, misdirected patriotic (jingoistic if you will), ignorant.

Explain to me, how has America's unilateral war in 2004 set a more dangerous precedent than the multitudes of other wars that have gone on without the UN in the past 60 years?

Because America's unilateral war on Iraq is causing a global conflict that was minor in scale compared to now. It has put us all in danger more so then any other unilateral action in the last 60 years. The invasion of Iraq has made the world less safe, not more. In fact I'm sure some where OBL is laughing his ass off at the Americans for invading Iraq, what use to amount to a few groups around the world such as Al Qaeda and some other fridge groups have now because of America's illegal war on Iraq turned it into a global movement. Iraq has turned into the poster child for jihad recruitment. There was no terrorism in Iraq pre-invasion. The USA is in the process of destabilizing the entire middle east. Wars of the past even when unilateral action has been taken, were never at the cost of world conflict and unrest as we see it today.

such texan cowboy-like words

Do you really consider that an insult? Let me tell you something, a cowboy is a good thing. He was always the good guy, he always got his man, he never backed down from a fight, he always won said fight, such said fight was justified, he caught outlaws, and he put in hard work every day. I don't see anything there that is insulting.

Stay rational please without resorting to this low level of debate pulling out historical events that have no meaning today or on me.
Bull! History is what you are. If D-Day hadn't succeded, then we would have nuked Berlin, and you probably wouldn't be living today. History is important. If you do not remember the mistakes of yesterday, then you will be doomed tro repeat them. Japan has never forgotten our power or History's influence. They have rebuilt and become better than before because we helped them there.

Do you really consider that an insult? Let me tell you something, a cowboy is a good thing. He was always the good guy, he always got his man, he never backed down from a fight, he always won said fight, such said fight was justified, he caught outlaws, and he put in hard work every day. I don't see anything there that is insulting.


Bull! History is what you are. If D-Day hadn't succeded, then we would have nuked Berlin, and you probably wouldn't be living today. History is important. If you do not remember the mistakes of yesterday, then you will be doomed tro repeat them. Japan has never forgotten our power or History's influence. They have rebuilt and become better than before because we helped them there.

And europe is somehow worse than before?

I say anti but what does everybody else think?The UN is focussing on problems, not on political agendas. And someone like Annan has a thousand times more integrity than the weird person currently sitting in the White House.

Pro-Mohammadan.
So that would make it anti-Jewish and therefore anti-American.

Nono... the logic is not that simple.
UN is pro-peace, which makes it anti-aggression, which makes it pro-defense, which makes it anti-retaliation, which makes it pro-negotiation, which makes it pro-rhetorical, which makes it anti-GeorgeWBush, which makes it anti-Industrial, which makes it anti-capitalist, which makes it pro-communist, who all, in their communist misery, are secretly all pro-American.

Ergo, UN is pro-American.

which makes it anti-Industrial, which makes it anti-capitalist, which makes it pro-communist, who all, in their communist misery, are secretly all pro-American.

Ergo, UN is pro-American.
That is a logical fallacy. Being anti-GWB does not mean being anti-Industrial or anti-Capitalism or pro-Communism ;) If anything, it is pro-intelligence, pro-democracy and pro-peace negotiations plus more good things such as pro-good-American-image-in-the-world and anti-nuclear-proliferation which are words GWB probably does not even know.

That is a logical fallacy. Being anti-GWB does not mean being anti-Industrial or anti-Capitalism or pro-Communism ;) If anything, it is pro-intelligence, pro-democracy and pro-peace negotiations plus more good things such as pro-good-American-image-in-the-world and anti-nuclear-proliferation which are words GWB probably does not even know.

Being anti-GWB makes you a dangerous traitor...

I don't really fit into either the conservative or liberal mold. So if my comments seem inconsistent take that into consideration.
I think the U.N. has very little to offer the interests of the U.S. and we should resign from this organization. There's no point in belonging to an oranization where the majority of members dislike or hate you.
While the U.S. is powerful, it's not strong enough to police the world and should realize that not everyone shares it's fundamental philosophies.
So we should strengthen realtionships with our friends , get out of areas of the world where the the value systems are completely at odds with ours, even if it means losing access to natural resources we need. The U.S. should have nothing to do with toltalitarian governments of any kind where groups of people are subjugated (such as women in fundamentalist Islamic countries, etc)
We should leave countries with religious and political ideals that are incompatible with ours alone and give them no reason to bother us. If they attack us we should obliderate them.

The UN should be anti-American. Who likes them anyway ;)

It's neither the US is aniti-UN

Combined, all these factors result in increasing disinterest in democracy and people refuse to vote or vote radically. Democracy in the US aswell as in Germany, is ill.

I agree with Gig on this.
I don't know how bad thing have gotten in Germany, not having been there for years, but the situation in the US has gotten pretty bad.
We currently have legislative politicians who serve nothing more than their own power, above and beyond anything seen in the past. Compromise is at a minimum and the Us vs.Them mentality has taken root. The people can no longer vote for what they want, only against what they do not want. The "centralization" of the political parties is beginning to make them indistiguishable, especially as elections near. The candidates say one thing to get elected and reverse course once in office. Our legislature is no longer even marginally representative. The judiciary spends more time legislating from the bench and usurping the powers of the congress than they do providing the "checks and balances" they are intended for. This is what happens when you devolve great power into the federal government. It's essentially become a dogfight between the branches of government to gain that power unto themselves. The people are no longer being served by their government, rather the reverse.

EDIT:
"To secure these rights governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to
institute new government, laying its foundation on such
principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
--Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

"I may err in my measures, but never shall deflect from the
intention to fortify the public liberty by every possible means,
and to put it out of the power of the few to riot on the labors
of the many." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804

Because America's unilateral war on Iraq is causing a global conflict that was minor in scale compared to now. It has put us all in danger more so then any other unilateral action in the last 60 years. The invasion of Iraq has made the world less safe, not more. In fact I'm sure some where OBL is laughing his ass off at the Americans for invading Iraq, what use to amount to a few groups around the world such as Al Qaeda and some other fridge groups have now because of America's illegal war on Iraq turned it into a global movement. Iraq has turned into the poster child for jihad recruitment. There was no terrorism in Iraq pre-invasion. The USA is in the process of destabilizing the entire middle east. Wars of the past even when unilateral action has been taken, were never at the cost of world conflict and unrest as we see it today.
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

The UN is obviously neither pro nor anti. They disagreed with the Iraq war. This is interpreted as being due to seething hatred of America.

For the past 60 years the UN has largely been an American tool. When Americans complain about the UN being Anti-American, they are really just complaining that it is not sufficiently pro-American. They are angry that it's not an arm of the White House.

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

Yeah...That one turned out well :rolleyes:

How is the UN anti-american when the USA can veto anything?

Proof for this "scandal"? Any proof? Where are those nuclear weapons sold to Saddam?

Why does the UN call it an unjust war? Because you guys made a conscious decision to invade Iraq without putting it to a vote...

What proof do i have of the scandal? THE INVESTIGATION THAT IS TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW. I never said nuclear arms were sold to Saddam, i said "enriched plutonium" was sold to Saddam through the France. Enriched plutonium is used to make chemical weapons because when plutonium is turned into a gas it becomes extremely toxic and acidic.

We have confirmed that Saddam had the material, the research labs, the blue prints and schematics to begin construction of WMD's. There were only two things he needed:

A) Time

B) For the world to look away

We captured the head of his WMD program after the man turned over all the research he had over to US forces, the man said himself that Saddam was just waiting for the world to ignore him again before he running the program again. I cant remember the scientists name, but he wrote a book, you can find it in most book stores "Plans hidden in my Garden" or something like that.

I keep hearing about this exit strategy.....uhhh....i was under the impression that we arent leaving until the job is done and once the job is done what do we need a strategy to leave for? We arent leaving until we bring peace and we wont need a strategy to withdraw when there is peace.

Yeah...That one turned out well :rolleyes:
It just shows that the War in Iraq isn't the first war in the Middle East, without UN Sanction, that has caused such effects. It really dosen't answer the question as to why the War in Iraq set such a dangerous precedent though. Worse results and effects than other unilateral wars, but even if there was no other wars ever in the Middle East without UN sanction and this current one was the first one to have such consequences, that does not mean that it set a "precedent of ignoring international law for pre-emptive war."

What proof do i have of the scandal? THE INVESTIGATION THAT IS TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW. I never said nuclear arms were sold to Saddam, i said "enriched plutonium" was sold to Saddam through the France. Enriched plutonium is used to make chemical weapons because when plutonium is turned into a gas it becomes extremely toxic and acidic.

We have confirmed that Saddam had the material, the research labs, the blue prints and schematics to begin construction of WMD's. There were only two things he needed:

A) Time

B) For the world to look away

We captured the head of his WMD program after the man turned over all the research he had over to US forces, the man said himself that Saddam was just waiting for the world to ignore him again before he running the program again. I cant remember the scientists name, but he wrote a book, you can find it in most book stores "Plans hidden in my Garden" or something like that.

I keep hearing about this exit strategy.....uhhh....i was under the impression that we arent leaving until the job is done and once the job is done what do we need a strategy to leave for? We arent leaving until we bring peace and we wont need a strategy to withdraw when there is peace.

Still no WMD's...Still no plutonium...No chemical weapons... Nothing. "mission accomplished"? Pffff...

I didn't talk about an exit strategy...And I don't think it matters much right now, does it...
If you're not leaving untill "the job is done", then you should probably get used to the idea that a couple of generations of soldiers will have to stay there. Even though former yugoslavia has "peace", there are still NATO troops in there that can't leave.
Besides, I thought "the job" was to find those terribly dangerous weapons...

It just shows that the War in Iraq isn't the first war in the Middle East, without UN Sanction, that has caused such effects. It really dosen't answer the question as to why the War in Iraq set such a dangerous precedent though. Worse results and effects than other unilateral wars, but even if there was no other wars ever in the Middle East without UN sanction and this current one was the first one to have such consequences, that does not mean that it set a "precedent of ignoring international law for pre-emptive war."

You're right, the yanks haven't learned anything from history...

However, I see the ultimatum "you're either with us or against us" as a dangerous precedent though.

I don't really fit into either the conservative or liberal mold. So if my comments seem inconsistent take that into consideration.
I think the U.N. has very little to offer the interests of the U.S. and we should resign from this organization. There's no point in belonging to an oranization where the majority of members dislike or hate you.
While the U.S. is powerful, it's not strong enough to police the world and should realize that not everyone shares it's fundamental philosophies.
So we should strengthen realtionships with our friends , get out of areas of the world where the the value systems are completely at odds with ours, even if it means losing access to natural resources we need. The U.S. should have nothing to do with toltalitarian governments of any kind where groups of people are subjugated (such as women in fundamentalist Islamic countries, etc)
We should leave countries with religious and political ideals that are incompatible with ours alone and give them no reason to bother us. If they attack us we should obliderate them.
You sound like a traditional conservative (i.e. not a Republican).

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
Where did Steph say that that was a good war?

Where did Steph say that that was a good war?
She didn't. It was a war that had many of the same effects that she described... my point to Gigatron was that the War in Iraq wasn't setting a precedent...

Still no WMD's...Still no plutonium...No chemical weapons... Nothing. "mission accomplished"? Pffff...

I didn't talk about an exit strategy...And I don't think it matters much right now, does it...
If you're not leaving untill "the job is done", then you should probably get used to the idea that a couple of generations of soldiers will have to stay there. Even though former yugoslavia has "peace", there are still NATO troops in there that can't leave.
Besides, I thought "the job" was to find those terribly dangerous weapons...

Actually we found the plutonium, thats how we found out it was France who sold it to Saddam. We found many materials to make WMD's including several types of poisonous gases, stockpiled in barrels. Anthrax, Rissen, and other chemical materials. We also found enriched uranium that was sold to Saddam through the black market (terrorist run). He had everything needed to make chemical and biological weapons, he had maybe enough uranium to make one "nuclear" weapon, but he had huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapon material, we just havent found fully constructed WMD's, but take into account, it doesnt take that long to make them, if he fully funded the operation to construct biological and chemical weapons, with all the materials he had, from mobile research labs, schematics, and all the material components, he could of had a chemical and biological weapon arsenal in six months. Thats the purpose of a preemptive strike, to stop that operation before it starts.

We were told by intelligence agencies around the world, not just ours that he had WMD's, well in truth he had everything "needed" to make WMD's, close enough, i dont want one WMD in that hands of that psycho. Thats like sitting across from him at a table, handing him a gun without the clip and putting the clip on the table in arms reach of him. All he has to do is grab the clip and you got 12 bullets in your ass. I'd rather put a bullet in his ass and get it over with. Terrorism is a underground war, the Middle East is the spawning pool, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan are cleaning house and fighting to keep terrorism out, they arent spawning pools anymore, terrorism isnt glorified, its frowned upon. This is a improvement because it eliminates places for terrorist groups to recruit or makes it harder for them to recruit from these places. It doesnt look that way but thats because the recruits are visible now as targets whereas before it was a underground operation. 57 terrorists captured and over 100 terrorists killed in Samarra alone. Iraqi's lead that attack and only one american died. This is a devastating blow to terrorists, they cant handle these kind of casualties, numbers isnt there game. Losing that many hurts them drastically because they cant just replace those numbers like nothing, if they could they would face us head on all the time and wouldnt have to use guerilla warfare.

Originally Posted by Stephistan:
Because America's unilateral war on Iraq is causing a global conflict that was minor in scale compared to now. It has put us all in danger more so then any other unilateral action in the last 60 years. The invasion of Iraq has made the world less safe, not more. In fact I'm sure some where OBL is laughing his ass off at the Americans for invading Iraq, what use to amount to a few groups around the world such as Al Qaeda and some other fridge groups have now because of America's illegal war on Iraq turned it into a global movement. Iraq has turned into the poster child for jihad recruitment. There was no terrorism in Iraq pre-invasion. The USA is in the process of destabilizing the entire middle east. Wars of the past even when unilateral action has been taken, were never at the cost of world conflict and unrest as we see it today.

I completely disagree with this. Maybe you can just forget about the Cold War, but I can't. Every single unilateral action of the Cold War, be it Russian or American, put us by far into more danger than the War in Iraq has or will. Why? Because both sides were completely prepared to destroy the world with nuclear weapons. There was no ifs, ands, or buts. Granted, some actions of the Cold War were done with proxies (i.e. Cubans overthrowing African governments to install Communistic regimes, etc., etc.), but on the whole it was a battle between two completely clashing ideaologies that were each equipped with the most powerful weapons ever created.

Back to Iraq, I fail to see how anyone can seriously say that we had no reason to go back to war in Iraq. Because during all the years between the end of the Gulf War and the point where Saddam was overthrown, Iraq continually broke the treaty that established "peace" following the oust of the Iraqis from Kuwait. How often were American planes fired at as they policed the no-fly zones? At least once a week. That doesn't seem peaceful to me. And why were the only planes ever fired at the American ones? Because when the world demanded that action take place for the protection of a weak country, we are always the ones that bear almost the entire brunt of the operations. And just because there were no ties between Saddam and bin Laden does not mean that there were no ties between Saddam and terrorism. Saddam continually gave very large sums of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Yes, I call Palestinian suicide bombers terrorists because they aren't militants anymore when they strap a bomb to their bodies and blow up a bus of Israeli civilians.

The focus on WMDs was never, ever the main reason to invade Iraq. It only even became a focus point when the U.S. tried to get the U.N. to help us. So the U.S. consented and let another set of inspections fail. And the resolution that was passed said that Iraq had to comply or face the consequence. Saddam laughed and the U.N. failed to make them face the consequences. The U.S.A. didn't. And Saddam stopped laughing. Now he sits in a prison cell.

I'm also amazed at how the treatment of Iraqi and other Middle Eastern prisoners by the Americans is being called torture, when it is definitely not. Torture ends with huge scars or death, neither of which has even come close to happening to any "tortured" prisoner. On the other hand, terrorists are capturing international and Iraqi people in Iraq and parading them on TV in conditions that don't even come close to meeting Human Rights standards. And how do most of those situations end? Beheading on international TV. Sounds real civilized to me.

~No One Special

I find it funny that they bash the US for going to war for the wrong reasons and unjustified war, i want these people to tell me "why" we shouldnt have gone to war and state "why" we shouldnt do anything about Saddam Hussein. Then i want them to name a strategy to improve the strategy in iraq that also follows Kerry's ideals. Meaning your not allowed to send more troops because it costs more money.

I'm also amazed at how the treatment of Iraqi and other Middle Eastern prisoners by the Americans is being called torture, when it is definitely not. Torture ends with huge scars or death, neither of which has even come close to happening to any "tortured" prisoner.
Sorry, but your definition of torture is strange. Torture doesn´t end with murder- than it is murderer.
The fact that others treat people worse is no justification. I expect the US to do better than others. Therefore it is very important that the people who are guilty for that are punished.

I agree with many things you said.
But it also needs to be said that the removal of Saddam caused a situation where the US becomes alone responsible for the future of Iraq. As a result of it Iraq has become the battle-field for terrorists and is used as another point for the islamists propaganda.
As a result Iraq is more and more turning into a mess.
And that was a development critics predicted. Also the reason why President Bush senior chosed not to go to Baghdad.

I saw many reasons for the war, but I´ve to say that many developments in the post-war development have proven the opponents and critics of the Iraq-war right.

But now it would be even worse to run away. There needs to be an "Iraqisation" of the situation as soon as possible, though that will need several years. Hopefully it works better than the "Vietnamisation" of the effort back then.

Actually we found the plutonium, thats how we found out it was France who sold it to Saddam. We found many materials to make WMD's including several types of poisonous gases, stockpiled in barrels. Anthrax, Rissen, and other chemical materials. We also found enriched uranium that was sold to Saddam through the black market (terrorist run). He had everything needed to make chemical and biological weapons, he had maybe enough uranium to make one "nuclear" weapon, but he had huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapon material, we just havent found fully constructed WMD's, but take into account, it doesnt take that long to make them, if he fully funded the operation to construct biological and chemical weapons, with all the materials he had, from mobile research labs, schematics, and all the material components, he could of had a chemical and biological weapon arsenal in six months. Thats the purpose of a preemptive strike, to stop that operation before it starts.

We were told by intelligence agencies around the world, not just ours that he had WMD's, well in truth he had everything "needed" to make WMD's, close enough, i dont want one WMD in that hands of that psycho. Thats like sitting across from him at a table, handing him a gun without the clip and putting the clip on the table in arms reach of him. All he has to do is grab the clip and you got 12 bullets in your ass. I'd rather put a bullet in his ass and get it over with. Terrorism is a underground war, the Middle East is the spawning pool, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan are cleaning house and fighting to keep terrorism out, they arent spawning pools anymore, terrorism isnt glorified, its frowned upon. This is a improvement because it eliminates places for terrorist groups to recruit or makes it harder for them to recruit from these places. It doesnt look that way but thats because the recruits are visible now as targets whereas before it was a underground operation. 57 terrorists captured and over 100 terrorists killed in Samarra alone. Iraqi's lead that attack and only one american died. This is a devastating blow to terrorists, they cant handle these kind of casualties, numbers isnt there game. Losing that many hurts them drastically because they cant just replace those numbers like nothing, if they could they would face us head on all the time and wouldnt have to use guerilla warfare.

Wow... First let me point out that there were no weapons and tiny amounts of stuff have been found. And then you rant about people and terrorism and freedom and such... The reason doesn't seem to be clear to you either.

Now...
Let's have a look at what you said about "spawning pools" for terrorism.
Terrorism is a last resort for someone when the odds aren't in their favor.
Waging a "war on terror®" by invading countries like Ghengis Khan is absolutely ridiculous. It's just a silly slogan.
The taliban, although not exactly good examples of humanity, were not terrorists, neither was Saddam...
If there had been terrorism before the invasion, it would have been directed at Saddam's regime... Terrorism isn't a political philosophy, nor is it a club. It's something that is created from situation. Where people feel they are threatened by another group of people or feel that they are opressed.
Al-Queda is just the same as Hamas, Jihad, IRA, ETA...etc, formed from scared people who believe they are on the side of justice and have no way of fighting back.
This is something you cannot really solve by creating warzones...Warzones are the real "spawning pools" for terrorism.
There was no Al-Queda presence in Iraq before the war...And now there is.

sound like a traditional conservative (i.e. not a Republican).

Probably correct on that point. Most conservatives today would gag if they heard me calling myself a conservative though.
I'm certainly not a conservative economically. I'm libertarian socially: Pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-union, pro-military, freedom "from" as well as "of" religion, flat tax or national sales tax, tightly controlled borders, nose out of other's business to name a few points.

I find it funny that they bash the US for going to war for the wrong reasons and unjustified war, i want these people to tell me "why" we shouldnt have gone to war and state "why" we shouldnt do anything about Saddam Hussein. Then i want them to name a strategy to improve the strategy in iraq that also follows Kerry's ideals. Meaning your not allowed to send more troops because it costs more money.
I think you make it yourself to easy. I was not against the war in principal. Though I think that the misinformation - or wrong information - before the war was really damaging as well as the lack of post-war planing.
Furthernmore it might have been better to push forward Afghanistan first. For example: the Afghan election were postponed three times, the operation was still under way over there, the missions there weren´t finished.
It would have probably been better to push this issue forward first and to have more troops over there.
And after that was done to go for the Iraq issue. There was obviously not an imminent threat which made it necessary to go for it in 2003 and not in 2005 or 2007 - or to continue with containing Iraq.
Given the situation now I only see the prospect to try to go for an Iraqisation. I don´t see a fundamental difference between the candidates over there since President Bush himself named the training of Iraqi security forces a top priority.
That would make the reduction of US forces possible. The difference I see is that Kerry names a time-line while Bush doesn´t.
At the end it is the situation on the ground which is going to decide it and not an abstract schedule. After all: if nothing substantial happends it is hard to see how the elections can be held in an appropiate fashion in January 2005.

While the U.S. is powerful, it's not strong enough to police the world and should realize that not everyone shares it's fundamental philosophies.
So we should strengthen realtionships with our friends , get out of areas of the world where the the value systems are completely at odds with ours, even if it means losing access to natural resources we need. The U.S. should have nothing to do with toltalitarian governments of any kind where groups of people are subjugated (such as women in fundamentalist Islamic countries, etc)
We should leave countries with religious and political ideals that are incompatible with ours alone and give them no reason to bother us. If they attack us we should obliderate them.
I don´t think that this is possible. The world not only depends on the US but the US on the rest of the world. Without the Middle East the World economy doesn´t work. So, leaving it sinking in chaos is not an option.
I think that the US is powerful enough to police the world. But it is not ruthless enough - or saying it in a positive manner: in order to do so it would need to betrayl the values it was founded on. Societies who are still in the Middle Age can´t be pushed into Jeffersonian democracies within a few years. That doesn´t mean that they can´t improve - Iraq certainly can - but that it is just not that easy than many people thought and it would need much more time as well - there are after all things between a totalitarian dictatorship and a Jeffersonian democracy. South Korea and Taiwan weren´t real democries up until 1989 either.

I don´t think that this is possible. The world not only depends on the US but the US on the rest of the world. Without the Middle East the World economy doesn´t work. So, leaving it sinking in chaos is not an option.
I think that the US is powerful enough to police the world. But it is not ruthless enough - or saying it in a positive manner: in order to do so it would need to betrayl the values it was founded on. Societies who are still in the Middle Age can´t be pushed into Jeffersonian democracies within a few years. That doesn´t mean that they can´t improve - Iraq certainly can - but that it is just not that easy than many people thought and it would need much more time as well - there are after all things between a totalitarian dictatorship and a Jeffersonian democracy. South Korea and Taiwan weren´t real democries up until 1989 either.

We have enough resourcefulness to make our economy work without the Middle East.
You're right . We're not ruthless enough. Don't want to be that way unless we have to. I realize ruthlessness is sometimes neccessary but some people love being that way.
The people in the Middle East must make changes for themselves. We can't do it for them. If they decide to fight for a type of government we can support then we can help them much in the same way that France helped us in our revolution against British rule. The methods we're using now in Iraq aren't working and probably won't for this very reason.

We have enough resourcefulness to make our economy work without the Middle East.
You're right . We're not ruthless enough. Don't want to be that way unless we have to. I realize ruthlessness is sometimes neccessary but some people love being that way.
Yes, and that can be dangerous. Because there are limits one should maintain and who weren´t in Abu Ghraib. Though I think those methods were rather "efficent". There is hardly a way to humilitate muslims more than dogs(which are seen as unclean animals) or to force them to engage in homosexual activity and being naked in front of woman.
Hard to believe that the more or less low educated Mrs. Lynch came up with all of that by herself. Fortunately that was ended - but it shows what could happen if a government looks away from it or even encourage such behaviour.
The evilness and viciousness exists in every human after all.

The people in the Middle East must make changes for themselves. We can't do it for them. If they decide to fight for a type of government we can support then we can help them much in the same way that France helped us in our revolution against British rule. The methods we're using now in Iraq aren't working and probably won't for this very reason.
One of the problems is certainly the anti-western and especialy anti-Israel and anti-US sentiments in the region. The US is just highly unpopular. Many of those countries have been either British or French colonies for a while (Iraq: British). So, the US is somehow seen as a follower of the British in that respect.
That makes the attempt "to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people" much harder than it was in Japan and Germany.
Aside of the problems of the Iraqi communities itself. It is after all a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state. And the groups are pretty much ad odds with each other. That rather remains of Bosnia or Lebanon.
But that in the context of the alleged "clash of civilisations". That is really a hard if not an impossible task under which this strategy was started. Very risky - and so far not very successful to say the least.

Wow... First let me point out that there were no weapons and tiny amounts of stuff have been found. And then you rant about people and terrorism and freedom and such... The reason doesn't seem to be clear to you either.

Now...
Let's have a look at what you said about "spawning pools" for terrorism.
Terrorism is a last resort for someone when the odds aren't in their favor.
Waging a "war on terror®" by invading countries like Ghengis Khan is absolutely ridiculous. It's just a silly slogan.
The taliban, although not exactly good examples of humanity, were not terrorists, neither was Saddam...
If there had been terrorism before the invasion, it would have been directed at Saddam's regime... Terrorism isn't a political philosophy, nor is it a club. It's something that is created from situation. Where people feel they are threatened by another group of people or feel that they are opressed.
Al-Queda is just the same as Hamas, Jihad, IRA, ETA...etc, formed from scared people who believe they are on the side of justice and have no way of fighting back.
This is something you cannot really solve by creating warzones...Warzones are the real "spawning pools" for terrorism.
There was no Al-Queda presence in Iraq before the war...And now there is.

That is the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Revolutionaries are made out of fear against a government or oppressor. Terrorists are like cultists, insane, suicidal, hateful maniacs and the way you paint terrorists to look like the good guys and make the US look like the oppressors makes you look like a jihadist. I mean that was the dumbest explanation ive ever heard. Saddam was not a terrorist, he was a genocidal dictator, the Taliban was the same thing. They both committed crimes against humanity, supported terrorists like the three Abu's, Al-Qaeda, Hamas and other organizations to spread terror throughout the world. These are extreme violations against UN law, also Saddam broke the treaty as well as all 17 UN resolutions against him, HOW MANY CHANCES DO WE HAVE TO GIVE THAT PSYCHO!? The UN wouldnt stand up for the very principle it was formed to protect, so we had to take matters into our own hands. Bush isnt the worlds greatest strategist, i understand, but he's not the worst either. 1000 American lives lost in iraq is nothing compared to the other major wars of the past. Dont get me wrong, i feel absolute sorrow for the 1000 dead, but it is not devastating to the cause.

We found much more then little tidbits of WMD material ALOT MORE, double-check your resources if you think otherwise. We found massive stockpiles in underground bunkers along with bio-chemical suits, gas masks, and other chemical warfare protection. Dont diminish these facts because all of this is very true and very real, even the head of Saddam's WMD research operations says so and you cannot beat that testimony, he knew the research operation from head to toe.

That is the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Revolutionaries are made out of fear against a government or oppressor. Terrorists are like cultists, insane, suicidal, hateful maniacs and the way you paint terrorists to look like the good guys and make the US look like the oppressors makes you look like a jihadist. I mean that was the dumbest explanation ive ever heard. Saddam was not a terrorist, he was a genocidal dictator, the Taliban was the same thing. They both committed crimes against humanity, supported terrorists like the three Abu's, Al-Qaeda, Hamas and other organizations to spread terror throughout the world. These are extreme violations against UN law, also Saddam broke the treaty as well as all 17 UN resolutions against him, HOW MANY CHANCES DO WE HAVE TO GIVE THAT PSYCHO!? The UN wouldnt stand up for the very principle it was formed to protect, so we had to take matters into our own hands. Bush isnt the worlds greatest strategist, i understand, but he's not the worst either. 1000 American lives lost in iraq is nothing compared to the other major wars of the past. Dont get me wrong, i feel absolute sorrow for the 1000 dead, but it is not devastating to the cause.

We found much more then little tidbits of WMD material ALOT MORE, double-check your resources if you think otherwise. We found massive stockpiles in underground bunkers along with bio-chemical suits, gas masks, and other chemical warfare protection. Dont diminish these facts because all of this is very true and very real, even the head of Saddam's WMD research operations says so and you cannot beat that testimony, he knew the research operation from head to toe.

Just because I try to explain to you that war simply doesn't make terrorism go away I'm a terrorist sympathiser ? A "jihadist" ? Wow...How American of you. :rolleyes: I'm sure glad I don't live over there, you'd report my unpatriatic ramblings to the Homeland Security people and I'd be off to camp x-ray...

I'm not saying that terrorists are on the side of justice...I said they believe they are. And it's a well known fact that warzones create terrorism...
Sure, it's easy to explain it all by saying they all happen to by maniac, hateful cultists... But the fact remains: War and violence create terrorism, it's that simple.
The UN didn't do anything? It was never even put to vote...
Sure...The USA "only" lost 1000 soldiers... But allready the civilian casualties are higher than the casualties of the 9/11 attacks many times over.
And nobody buys into that "freedom" crap of yours... Not after we've seen what happens to those unfortunate enough to become the prisoners of American soldiers.
And no, there didn't turn out to be any WMD's there...
So what are we left with? No freedom, no WMD's and all of a sudden: Terrorist precense in Iraq that wasn't there before. Mission Accomplished?
Oh, and then there is Afghanistan: Osama is still free as a bird, the Taliban are still going around executing people, the country was allready in ruins when the USA got there, now it's bombed a little more. Mission Accomplished?

This whole thing is a mess, just yesterday 139 were injured and 41 people died, 34 of them children, in a suicide bombing in Baghdad... Whole towns are under martial law and curfew and prisoners of America get raped and tortured.
You're absolutely right, Bush is far from being the worlds greatest strategist.

Yeah, I suppose that they're sort of not fully on our side. But I wouldn't say they're completely anti-American. But, eh, I don't know for sure.

But they're definitely not pro-American.

But they're definitely not pro-American.

I'd say giving USA the power to veto anything they want is "pro-american"

I'd say giving USA the power to veto anything they want is "pro-american"

That's because we helped found it, back in 1945. I'm thinking more along the lines of today's UN.

I'd say giving USA the power to veto anything they want is "pro-american"

And we aren't the only ones with that power. UK, France, Russia, and China have it too. And that power is only in the security council.

Anti, of course. All one needs to do is look at its founders: Alger Hiss, Victor Perlo, Harry Dexter White, Andrei Gromyko, etc. The vast majority of its founders were communists, communist sympathizers, Council on Foreign Relations members (the CFR was founded by a man whose "political and ethical faith" was "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx"), etc. Every secretary-general since the UN's founding has been either a communist or a socialist (or, in Kurt Waldhem's [sp?] case, an ex-Nazi). Throughout history, the UN has always sided with the communists. It ousted Taiwan and replaced it with China. It destroyed Rhodesia and South Africa- two militantly anticommunist, staunchly pro-US nations- with economic sanctions, while ignoring the terroristic activities of the communists in those nations. I could go on all day, but I think I've made my point.

And in the early 1960s, the UN waged a terrorist war on the peaceful, pro-US, anticommunist colony of Katanga, in the Congo. Hospitals and ambulances were bombed, women were raped, children were bayoneted, etc. Read all about it in the following sources:

1.Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends: The Katanga Story
2.46 Angry Men
3.Who Killed the Congo?
4.The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations

I'd like to add that number 1 was written by a foreign correspondent who not only witnessed the massacre first-hand, but was pro-UN. Likewise, number 2 was written by 46 civilian doctors in Stanleyville who also witnessed the carnage, and they also were pro-UN.

And in the early 1960s, the UN waged a terrorist war on the peaceful, pro-US, anticommunist colony of Katanga, in the Congo. Hospitals and ambulances were bombed, women were raped, children were bayoneted, etc. Read all about it in the following sources:

1.Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends: The Katanga Story
2.46 Angry Men
3.Who Killed the Congo?
4.The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations

I'd like to add that number 1 was written by a foreign correspondent who not only witnessed the massacre first-hand, but was pro-UN. Likewise, number 2 was written by 46 civilian doctors in Stanleyville who also witnessed the carnage, and they also were pro-UN.
*yawn*
Ze Propaganda Hawks are at it again. Please, for all that is holy, at least back up your libelous claims with FACTS from CREDIBLE sources.

Thanks!!

i think a more important question is is the US pro or anti UN?

Just because I try to explain to you that war simply doesn't make terrorism go away I'm a terrorist sympathiser ? A "jihadist" ? Wow...How American of you. :rolleyes: I'm sure glad I don't live over there, you'd report my unpatriatic ramblings to the Homeland Security people and I'd be off to camp x-ray...

I'm not saying that terrorists are on the side of justice...I said they believe they are. And it's a well known fact that warzones create terrorism...
Sure, it's easy to explain it all by saying they all happen to by maniac, hateful cultists... But the fact remains: War and violence create terrorism, it's that simple.
The UN didn't do anything? It was never even put to vote...
Sure...The USA "only" lost 1000 soldiers... But allready the civilian casualties are higher than the casualties of the 9/11 attacks many times over.
And nobody buys into that "freedom" crap of yours... Not after we've seen what happens to those unfortunate enough to become the prisoners of American soldiers.
And no, there didn't turn out to be any WMD's there...
So what are we left with? No freedom, no WMD's and all of a sudden: Terrorist precense in Iraq that wasn't there before. Mission Accomplished?
Oh, and then there is Afghanistan: Osama is still free as a bird, the Taliban are still going around executing people, the country was allready in ruins when the USA got there, now it's bombed a little more. Mission Accomplished?

This whole thing is a mess, just yesterday 139 were injured and 41 people died, 34 of them children, in a suicide bombing in Baghdad... Whole towns are under martial law and curfew and prisoners of America get raped and tortured.
You're absolutely right, Bush is far from being the worlds greatest strategist.

Terrorism was there long before the US went to war. Al Qaeda alone has been around since the 1970's. Terrorist groups are made to cause chaos and extend there own agenda. Revolutionaries challenge a government. Al Sadr's people (which are now frowned upon by the majority of Iraqi's) are revolutionaries. Terrorists relish chaos upon all they hate. They are world wide criminals. 10,000 iraqi's have died since we removed Saddam Hussein as opposed to 1,000,000 that died under Saddam Hussein. in 1991, Saddam Hussein killed 20,000 Kurds in one day, by launching a Anthrax WMD's on multiple villages in iraq. The war may be costing lives, but its nothing compared to Saddam Hussein's tyranny.

People say there is no direct link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda....then why is Al Qaeda fighting so hard to chase the US out of iraq? What could be so important about iraq if Al Qaeda has no stake in it? Its not their territory so why should they care if we invaded iraq? They arent fighting for the iraqi's the suicide bombing of 35 iraqi children proves that much so what are they fighting for? Only thing i can think of is fighting for lost ground, but that would imply a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. All these hostage taking and telling Coalition and US forces to leave iraq, why? What other reason could it be other they want to regain lost territory? They want Iraq back desperately and they want it back for a reason.

A) Why would they want territory "back" that wasnt there's in the first place?

B) What stake does Al Qaeda have in the fall of Iraq? What do they lose? (supposedly there is no connection so what do they lose)

Al Qaeda is not a iraqi revolutionary group, these suicide bombings "against" iraqi's proves they arent fighting for the iraqi people. I think they are fighting for lost ground because i believe Saddam housed terrorsts and supported them. Saddam had everything needed to make WMD's but time and thats because we did a preemptive strike. raping and torturing Iraqi prisoners? What? The iraqi prisoners were humiliated, its still wrong and all US soldiers involved are going to a military prison of there own and it isnt for guard duty. They werent raped or tortured.

Our invasion has shown the true face of terrorism, its no longer a hidden enemy that strikes every once in a great while. We've flooded the rabbit out of its hole and its in the open, we're fighting them on our terms now. Instaed of them killing a 100 of us, they do their suicide attacks and we launch strategic air strikes on their safe houses and invade terrorist held territory like Samarra, which now confirms 56 terrorists captured, 127 terrorists dead, only one american soldier dead and a handful of iraqi armed forces dead. The kill ratio is incredible for us, Terrorists cant sustain such casualties, thats why they use guerilla tactics and not frontal warfare. Guerilla warfare are the results of war, do not confuse guerilla warfare with terrorism. Vietcong militants used guerilla warfare, they werent terrorists, they were guerilla militants.

*yawn*
Ze Propaganda Hawks are at it again. Please, for all that is holy, at least back up your libelous claims with FACTS from CREDIBLE sources.

Thanks!!

Uh, hello? I just did! Two of the sources were written by people who witnessed the massacre firsthand. Both 1 & 2 were written by people who respected the UN. If those sources aren't credible, I don't know what the hell is.

He could be a Neo-Con who are very pro war.

Neoconservatives originally began as liberal jews who believed in imperialist foreign policies (Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, richard Perle, etc.

They were former "Scoop Jackson" Democrats who jumped on the Republican bandwagon after Reagan's victory. They are not conservatives, just opportunists.

Uh, hello? I just did! Two of the sources were written by people who witnessed the massacre firsthand. Both 1 & 2 were written by people who respected the UN. If those sources aren't credible, I don't know what the hell is.
I mean online sources. News websites ala CNN.com, MSNBC.com, BBC.com etc.

I mean online sources. News websites ala CNN.com, MSNBC.com, BBC.com etc.

A) Sorry for my very rude reply earlier :(
B) Dude, that's not gonna be easy. The Katanga thing happened over 40 years ago.

You sound like a traditional conservative (i.e. not a Republican).

I really really hope McCain takes the reigns of the Repubs some time (soon) in the future and starts beating the shit out of the neocons.

The democrats were too naive to counter the repubs properly and so were the traditional conservatives. Now everything is nuts. Time to take back control. If these two groups would stop acting like pussies and start shouting down the neocons maybe we could get some progress done.

And maybe, just maybe, the road to more political parties would be in the cards so power can be divided up further and keep a disaster like this from happening again. Or at least make it more difficult :D

the u.n. isn't anti anything
but AMERICA is "antiamerican"!

especialy the right wing loonies

there is nothing more unamerican then for there to be
such a thing as a THE 'american' way of anything

=^^=
.../\...

Terrorism was there long before the US went to war. Al Qaeda alone has been around since the 1970's. Terrorist groups are made to cause chaos and extend there own agenda. Revolutionaries challenge a government. Al Sadr's people (which are now frowned upon by the majority of Iraqi's) are revolutionaries. Terrorists relish chaos upon all they hate. They are world wide criminals. 10,000 iraqi's have died since we removed Saddam Hussein as opposed to 1,000,000 that died under Saddam Hussein. in 1991, Saddam Hussein killed 20,000 Kurds in one day, by launching a Anthrax WMD's on multiple villages in iraq. The war may be costing lives, but its nothing compared to Saddam Hussein's tyranny.

People say there is no direct link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda....then why is Al Qaeda fighting so hard to chase the US out of iraq? What could be so important about iraq if Al Qaeda has no stake in it? Its not their territory so why should they care if we invaded iraq? They arent fighting for the iraqi's the suicide bombing of 35 iraqi children proves that much so what are they fighting for? Only thing i can think of is fighting for lost ground, but that would imply a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. All these hostage taking and telling Coalition and US forces to leave iraq, why? What other reason could it be other they want to regain lost territory? They want Iraq back desperately and they want it back for a reason.

A) Why would they want territory "back" that wasnt there's in the first place?

B) What stake does Al Qaeda have in the fall of Iraq? What do they lose? (supposedly there is no connection so what do they lose)

Al Qaeda is not a iraqi revolutionary group, these suicide bombings "against" iraqi's proves they arent fighting for the iraqi people. I think they are fighting for lost ground because i believe Saddam housed terrorsts and supported them. Saddam had everything needed to make WMD's but time and thats because we did a preemptive strike. raping and torturing Iraqi prisoners? What? The iraqi prisoners were humiliated, its still wrong and all US soldiers involved are going to a military prison of there own and it isnt for guard duty. They werent raped or tortured.

Our invasion has shown the true face of terrorism, its no longer a hidden enemy that strikes every once in a great while. We've flooded the rabbit out of its hole and its in the open, we're fighting them on our terms now. Instaed of them killing a 100 of us, they do their suicide attacks and we launch strategic air strikes on their safe houses and invade terrorist held territory like Samarra, which now confirms 56 terrorists captured, 127 terrorists dead, only one american soldier dead and a handful of iraqi armed forces dead. The kill ratio is incredible for us, Terrorists cant sustain such casualties, thats why they use guerilla tactics and not frontal warfare. Guerilla warfare are the results of war, do not confuse guerilla warfare with terrorism. Vietcong militants used guerilla warfare, they werent terrorists, they were guerilla militants.

I didn't say Al-Queda all of a sudden popped into existence. What I did say was that since the USA invaded Iraq, Al-Queda has appeared there.

And the reason for Al-Queda being in Iraq: Simple, they know, just as well as the Americans that the whole world is watching Iraq, and that the more trouble they can stir up in Iraq, the worse the Americans look: They are there because you are there.
They are terrorists and right now you guys attract terrorists like flies... In Iraq they have an opportunity to attack Americans and tarnish Americas image. That's why they do such horrible things as murdering children and beheading foreigners.

And the sexual abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners has taken place. That is a FACT, which is more than can be said about Saddam housing terrorists or having WMD's. No point in denying it.

Also, Saddam didn't use anthrax on the Kurds. It was gas.

I didn't say Al-Queda all of a sudden popped into existence. What I did say was that since the USA invaded Iraq, Al-Queda has appeared there. And the reason for Al-Queda being in Iraq: Simple, they know, just as well as the Americans that the whole world is watching Iraq, and that the more trouble they can stir up in Iraq, the worse the Americans look: They are there because you are there.

"They" were there before we were there. If we leave, they will still be there. Personally, I hope every damned terrorist in the world goes to Iraq so the US military can eliminate them completely.

They are terrorists and right now you guys attract terrorists like flies... In Iraq they have an opportunity to attack Americans and tarnish Americas image. That's why they do such horrible things as murdering children and beheading foreigners.

No. They do terrible things because they're terrorists. It's part of the definition of "terrorist."

And the sexual abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners has taken place. That is a FACT, which is more than can be said about Saddam housing terrorists or having WMD's. No point in denying it.

Prove to me that the US has been involved in "sexual abuse and torture" of ANYone, much less prisoners. And spare me the Abu Garaib nonsense. That wasn't "sexual abuse" or "torture." The only "sexual abuse" and "torture" in Iraq of which I'm aware was that performed by Saddam and company, and now by the terrorists. I don't know where you get your information on this, but please don't quote leftist propaganda to me; I'll just ignore it.

I didn't say Al-Queda all of a sudden popped into existence. What I did say was that since the USA invaded Iraq, Al-Queda has appeared there.

And the reason for Al-Queda being in Iraq: Simple, they know, just as well as the Americans that the whole world is watching Iraq, and that the more trouble they can stir up in Iraq, the worse the Americans look: They are there because you are there.
They are terrorists and right now you guys attract terrorists like flies... In Iraq they have an opportunity to attack Americans and tarnish Americas image. That's why they do such horrible things as murdering children and beheading foreigners.

And the sexual abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners has taken place. That is a FACT, which is more than can be said about Saddam housing terrorists or having WMD's. No point in denying it.


Also, Saddam didn't use anthrax on the Kurds. It was gas.

There not making us look bad, their making themselves look bad. They are murdering iraqi's and the children. Our US soldiers died with those children while passing out candy to them. How does that look bad for us? We're passing out candy to poor iraqi children and some psychopath comes up and blows them all up, killing our soldiers and the children. Thats like a suicide bomber going to the YMCA and blowing the place up, its not going to make the YMCA look bad.

They are beheading people to make us leave! They say that when holding them hostage. If they want to destroy our image, they want us to stay there so they can destroy our image as much as possible, they wouldnt want us to leave. They would want us to stick around so they can destroy our image as much as possible, but they want us out of iraq, so you better come up with another explanation because that one is wrong.

You said rape and torture, sexual is a better term, because they sexually humiliated the prisoners, but all involved have been dishonorably discharged and are going to military prison. Cant judge a whole nation for the actions of a few and they received severe punishment. Trust me, military prison is no candyland.

They used Anthrax gas! What do you think Anthrax is in a missile? Powder doesnt spray all over the place when a anthrax missile hits, the heat turns it into a poisonous and acidic gas.

"They" were there before we were there. If we leave, they will still be there. Personally, I hope every damned terrorist in the world goes to Iraq so the US military can eliminate them completely.



No. They do terrible things because they're terrorists. It's part of the definition of "terrorist."



Prove to me that the US has been involved in "sexual abuse and torture" of ANYone, much less prisoners. And spare me the Abu Garaib nonsense. That wasn't "sexual abuse" or "torture." The only "sexual abuse" and "torture" in Iraq of which I'm aware was that performed by Saddam and company, and now by the terrorists. I don't know where you get your information on this, but please don't quote leftist propaganda to me; I'll just ignore it.

Any proof that there were terrorists in Iraq before you guys got there? Without quoting Uber-rightwing propaganda sources :p
Even your military knows that Al-Queda wasn't there before and has confirmed it's presence there now.

Terrorists do terrible things because they are terrorists? Wow... I only wish the world were THAT simple.

Why should I "spare you the Abu Gahraib nonsense" ? Because that's where you guys were cought in action?
I'd say what we've seen on those pictures is sexual abuse... The prison guards have even confessed that they tortured people.
And what have you guys done to make sure this will never happen again? Banned cameras in the army :rolleyes: And yes, Rumsfeld himself has stated that much worse pictures exist, ones that will probably never be released to the public.
Then again your moral standards may be very different from mine, since you seem to think torture and rape is just fine.

I'm not quoting any "leftist propaganda"... I get my news from a number of scandinavian networks, the RUV and the BBC.
I'm assuming that you're an American, so chances are I'm much better informed than you'll ever be (Well, I've got the statistics on my side).

This is probably the worst thing you can say on these NS forums. I certainly hope this thread can continue being flame free.

This is a "flame?" Hmm. Looks like your definition of "flame" and mine are WAY different!

There not making us look bad, their making themselves look bad. They are murdering iraqi's and the children. Our US soldiers died with those children while passing out candy to them. How does that look bad for us? We're passing out candy to poor iraqi children and some psychopath comes up and blows them all up, killing our soldiers and the children. Thats like a suicide bomber going to the YMCA and blowing the place up, its not going to make the YMCA look bad.

They are beheading people to make us leave! They say that when holding them hostage. If they want to destroy our image, they want us to stay there so they can destroy our image as much as possible, they wouldnt want us to leave. They would want us to stick around so they can destroy our image as much as possible, but they want us out of iraq, so you better come up with another explanation because that one is wrong.

You said rape and torture, sexual is a better term, because they sexually humiliated the prisoners, but all involved have been dishonorably discharged and are going to military prison. Cant judge a whole nation for the actions of a few and they received severe punishment. Trust me, military prison is no candyland.

They used Anthrax gas! What do you think Anthrax is in a missile? Powder doesnt spray all over the place when a anthrax missile hits, the heat turns it into a poisonous and acidic gas.

Of course they want you to leave... America leaving Iraq in defeat is their ultimate goal. But while the casualties pile up, America just continues to look worse. They don't care about their own image at all... They can be blamed, but they also know that the USA will share the blame of the public.

I'd say wanking someone against their will was rape, wouldn't you?

And no, it was not anthrax... It was most likely Sarin-gas or cyanide. Get your facts straight.

Whoa again

Sorry if I'm ruining the fun here with all my "moderation" and "facts"

America has an extremely bloody history, and we are held accountable for all the things we have done. Slavery, Native Americans, the whole shebang.

But America is not a tyrant, and we do stand for good in the world. We are a democratic nation. As people we are EXTREMELY compassionate for the downtrodden. If a tradgedy stuck any nation in the world, we are the first in and last out. And by this, I mean humanitarian aid.

You may disagree with our government, but it is the best in the world. All free people have adopted and learned from the "democratic experiment" that we were/are. And democratic countries RARELY ever come to war with one another. We loves us some war, but ultimately our goal is peace. This is not readily apparent to some, but we americans are a people of many voices.

WELL SAID! :)

*yawn*
Ze Propaganda Hawks are at it again. Please, for all that is holy, at least back up your libelous claims with FACTS from CREDIBLE sources.

Thanks!!

You're a fine one to talk. ALL we ever hear out of you is leftist propaganda about how awful the US is. Perhaps you would be wise to follow your own advice.

Of course they want you to leave... America leaving Iraq in defeat is their ultimate goal. But while the casualties pile up, America just continues to look worse. They don't care about their own image at all... They can be blamed, but they also know that the USA will share the blame of the public.

I'd say wanking someone against their will was rape, wouldn't you?

And no, it was not anthrax... It was most likely Sarin-gas or cyanide. Get your facts straight.

They want us to leave, because if we leave the territory becomes theres. If we're gone who's gonna take it over? The terrorists. Terrorists image is vital, they say they represent all muslims and fight for allah and all that crap, thats what they preach, thats how they recruit. They become increasingly unpopular with the more muslims they kill. Iraqi's really hate them now since the murder of 35 muslim children, they want terrorists heads. Iraqi forces recruitment has gone up 15% since that day.

That wanking crap is pure propoganda and a flat out lie.

The Sarin-gas incident was not the one i was talking about, but thanks for pointing out that mass genocide to. Sarin-gas was used on one Kurd village that kill i think 7,000, then he launched multiple anthrax missiles at another time. A Cyanide incident was also involved. Al Qaeda was present in iraq before we were there. Abu Nidal, Abu Abass and our good Al Qaeda friend Abu Musab Al Zarqawi were in iraq before we were there. Musab went from iraqi to Afghanistan to train Al Qaeda troops, got wounded and traveled to iraq to receive treatment at a hospital run by Uddae Hussein, there he stayed training Al Qaeda troops in iraq while we diddle daddled and danced the "UN's a bitch" dance at the UN meetings.

It is not pro or anti US. But it certainly is pro Israel since the UN does not take action when that rogue nation does not respact her resolutions.

Hey, you cant bag Israel, they have as much right to have a country as anyone else, now i confess there choice of territory is very bad since they are completely surrounded by Jew hating muslim countries. But that strip of territory was Jewish land since before half of our countries were created, if anybody has rights to that little strip of land, its the jew's. They have the right to protect themselves and they have to all the time since they are completely surrounded by enemies. I dont agree with everything they do, but the strain on them is more then i could possibly imagine. They face total annihalation, they let up for once second the entire middle east will kill every israel occupant.

They want us to leave, because if we leave the territory becomes theres. If we're gone who's gonna take it over? The terrorists. Terrorists image is vital, they say they represent all muslims and fight for allah and all that crap, thats what they preach, thats how they recruit. They become increasingly unpopular with the more muslims they kill. Iraqi's really hate them now since the murder of 35 muslim children, they want terrorists heads. Iraqi forces recruitment has gone up 15% since that day.

That wanking crap is pure propoganda and a flat out lie.

The Sarin-gas incident was not the one i was talking about, but thanks for pointing out that mass genocide to. Sarin-gas was used on one Kurd village that kill i think 7,000, then he launched multiple anthrax missiles at another time. A Cyanide incident was also involved. Al Qaeda was present in iraq before we were there. Abu Nidal, Abu Abass and our good Al Qaeda friend Abu Musab Al Zarqawi were in iraq before we were there. Musab went from iraqi to Afghanistan to train Al Qaeda troops, got wounded and traveled to iraq to receive treatment at a hospital run by Uddae Hussein, there he stayed training Al Qaeda troops in iraq while we diddle daddled and danced the "UN's a bitch" dance at the UN meetings.

Al-Queda would take Iraq over if the USA retreats? Not likely... They would get much more support though.
There is still no proof of what you say.
Even your government says there are no ties between Saddam and terrorist networks.

This anthrax gas you speak of...I can't find any mention on it on any media sites. So, without sources...Whatever.

And the "wanking crap"... Well, are the 5 confirmed deaths at the hands of american torturers also "pure propaganda" ? :rolleyes:
Whose propaganda? CNN's ?

CNN's full of shit, just as liberal as CBS. They withdrew that story as well btw after the military confirmed that was false. Only one prisoner died and that was because of illness.

The anthrax issue happened in 1990 i believe. Anthrax was Saddam Husseins favorite WMD toxin, he also sold it to terrorists, thats why we had the anthrax mail incidents, where terrorists were putting anthrax in envelopes and mailing it to people in america.

I didnt say Al Qaeda would take over, i said "Terrorists" there's more then one terrorist group and one of them is bound to take over. Our government also said that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda that they can find, but there was links with other terrorists. I myself can easily see men like Saddam and Usama more then willing to help each other. Saddam himself praised Al Qaeda's attacks on us, he was Usama's cheerleader of the world, he was there leverage and im sure the connection goes much deeper. Saddam was good at hiding information after all. Just because we havent found it doesnt mean it isnt there. He kept the oil for food program scandal secret for four years, a scandal that big isnt exactly easy to hide but he pulled it off until US forces dug up the information in baghdad itself.

this is so funny... im in a Model UN class at school right... hahah man this is funny.. ok the US puts in about 40% of all the cash in the UN... They say no its 25% and its this and its that.. Well no, we are in 95% of peacekeeping missions and we dont use UN funding for that plus the training we give to foreigners in the US, the military support we provide free of charge. The liberation of the Iraqi people which is now illegal after 32 resolutions were put in place against saddam.. and its illegal HAHAHA thats just funny...

oh and kofi annan is lying theif. He put his son on the commitee to make sure the food for oil program was without corruption. and still millions went missing.. and there was a documented connection between his son and a swiss bank involved with handling the billions of dollars going through the oil for food program. So he sends his son? HAHAHAHA

I love the UN, i think its great was humans can show on an global scale what we are capable of, lye here, lye there, corrupt here corrupt there. oh and did i mention the french on the security council? ill spare u.

the topic is UN being anti america not al queda and people blowing themselves up. make a topic about that and see what people come up with that would be even funnier... the US is to blame to the thousands of iraqis dying.. hahahahahahhaha ever heard of stingers? how much they cost? the buildings, schools, we are building... and lets never forget the bombing of the UN in iraq. think about it... the UN???

this is so funny... im in a Model UN class at school right... hahah man this is funny.. ok the US puts in about 40% of all the cash in the UN... They say no its 25% and its this and its that.. Well no, we are in 95% of peacekeeping missions and we dont use UN funding for that plus the training we give to foreigners in the US, the military support we provide free of charge. The liberation of the Iraqi people which is now illegal after 32 resolutions were put in place against saddam.. and its illegal HAHAHA thats just funny...

oh and kofi annan is lying theif. He put his son on the commitee to make sure the food for oil program was without corruption. and still millions went missing.. and there was a documented connection between his son and a swiss bank involved with handling the billions of dollars going through the oil for food program. So he sends his son? HAHAHAHA

I love the UN, i think its great was humans can show on an global scale what we are capable of, lye here, lye there, corrupt here corrupt there. oh and did i mention the french on the security council? ill spare u.

hahaha, thats funny, its true and funny hahaha. I say the US pulls all funding out of the UN and see how long those "peacekeeping" hypocrits last. Should be funny to watch them have heart attacks when their bankrupted asses try and figure out where they are going to get their funding from.

Here's an analogy about Israel, us, and terrorist. The USA is a house, with Bush being the owner (just an analogy, don't get POed), we have a kid who threw a rock at our window and broke it (9/11). The kid now wants to throw a Molitov cocktail thru the broken window. Israel is our Guard dog. We must let the dog run loose because the punk kid can throw farther than the dog's chain is long. If we let Israel conquer the whole region, they can keep track of the punk kids better.

Here's an analogy about Israel, us, and terrorist. The USA is a house, with Bush being the owner (just an analogy, don't get POed), we have a kid who threw a rock at our window and broke it (9/11). The kid now wants to throw a Molitov cocktail thru the broken window. Israel is our Guard dog. We must let the dog run loose because the punk kid can throw farther than the dog's chain is long. If we let Israel conquer the whole region, they can keep track of the punk kids better.
Israel our guard dog?!
My Lord have mercy, your "analogy" is dangerous.
I suppose the idea of a communist police state is very appealing to you, no?
Israel is the reason why a "rock was thrown in our window" in the first place.

Im a Catholic, im not particularly fond of jews, but they've been through hell, they have a right to at least one nation, a small slither of land, they deserve that much at least. I admire their determination, i guess you can say, i admire how much they stand up for themselves, tired of taking the worlds crap. For all the persecutions and mass genocides and slaveries they've been through, they deserve a land they can finally call their own.

Israel our guard dog?!
My Lord have mercy, your "analogy" is dangerous.
I suppose the idea of a communist police state is very appealing to you, no?
Israel is the reason why a "rock was thrown in our window" in the first place.

I don't see how you can say that. We let them kill the terrorists there. They invade all the Muslim Holy Lands, drawing the terrorists there, and then they kill them all.
And no, a commie police state is exactly what I will fight against when I join the Military.

I don't see how you can say that. We let them kill the terrorists there. They invade all the Muslim Holy Lands, drawing the terrorists there, and then they kill them all.
And no, a commie police state is exactly what I will fight against when I join the Military.
Whose military, the army of the Supreme Chairman Jorge Bush and his left-wing new world order? Do you believe Americans should pledge allegiance to Israel?!
http://www.cuttingedge.org/bushflag.jpg


I do agree that conditions are ripe for an eleventh Crusade, against both the Mahometans and the Jews, in true Crusader tradition.

The Marine Corps you dumbass! LOOK AT MY FRIGGIN NAME! And I would proudly serve under GW Bush instead of some traitor like Kerry or coward like Clinton. I also think that its time for another crusade, but do it COVERTLY!

Or you could say they're neither, considering I have a 200 page report sitting a debate file saying that they're for the U.S. and against the U.S.
It's all in how you interpret statements.

The Marine Corps you dumbass! LOOK AT MY FRIGGIN NAME! And I would proudly serve under GW Bush instead of some traitor like Kerry or coward like Clinton. I also think that its time for another crusade, but do it COVERTLY!
The liberal thought process is truly amazing...

Just keep fighting wars for Zion. :rolleyes:

1) I am not liberal
2) You are making me angry, don't piss off a guy like me...it's REALLY bad...
3) I support Israel. Jesus was a Jew after all. They are Jesus' brothers and sisters.

CNN's full of shit, just as liberal as CBS. They withdrew that story as well btw after the military confirmed that was false. Only one prisoner died and that was because of illness.

The anthrax issue happened in 1990 i believe. Anthrax was Saddam Husseins favorite WMD toxin, he also sold it to terrorists, thats why we had the anthrax mail incidents, where terrorists were putting anthrax in envelopes and mailing it to people in america.

I didnt say Al Qaeda would take over, i said "Terrorists" there's more then one terrorist group and one of them is bound to take over. Our government also said that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda that they can find, but there was links with other terrorists. I myself can easily see men like Saddam and Usama more then willing to help each other. Saddam himself praised Al Qaeda's attacks on us, he was Usama's cheerleader of the world, he was there leverage and im sure the connection goes much deeper. Saddam was good at hiding information after all. Just because we havent found it doesnt mean it isnt there. He kept the oil for food program scandal secret for four years, a scandal that big isnt exactly easy to hide but he pulled it off until US forces dug up the information in baghdad itself.


Withdrew the story? So Lynndie England and her rapist friends are is free now? :rolleyes: I don't think so. And the five deaths was something comfirmed by your government, so probably the death toll at the hands of American sadists is much higher.
The Anthrax in the mail was traced to Russia, I believe.

Still no sources...Just "what you see" and "your opinion", which frankly isn't worth much so I don't see any point in discussing this with you.

Withdrew the story? So Lynndie England and her rapist friends are is free now? :rolleyes: I don't think so. And the five deaths was something comfirmed by your government, so probably the death toll at the hands of American sadists is much higher.
The Anthrax in the mail was traced to Russia, I believe.

Still no sources...Just "what you see" and "your opinion", which frankly isn't worth much so I don't see any point in discussing this with you.

Then why you talking? Furthermore i said that the death toll in Abu Ghraib story was withdrawn. Im not denying the sexual harrassment charges. They were sent to military prison for that. Rape and torture werent used, humiliation and threats were used. They made them do things that was humiliating to them. It was wrong but YOU are blowing it out of context and "Lynndie England" is paying a long sentence in military prison for it. There are sick people everywhere, you cant blame a entire country for the actions of a few, especially low ranking prison guards in some backwater prison. You can point out Abu Ghraib all you want, i'll point out the schools, the new government, the proud Iraqi soldiers "volunteering" to fight for their country, no longer forced to. I'll point out the charity, soldiers like my brother playing with iraqi children, feeding them, giving them candy like the soldiers were doing before the "real sadists" blew them up. I'll point out the iraqi women giving hugs to US soldiers and thanking them for fighting for them. There are some sick people in the world, but there are some out there, that are just worth dying for. Anyone who doesnt agree with that is a heartless bastard. 1,000,000 iraqi's dead under Saddam Hussein, ive mentioned that a lot of these forums but the socialists europeans and the liberals always neglect that number and instead name off the 1000 american casualties and the 10,000 that died in the crossfire. 1,000,000 is a much larger number, a million children, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, some dying the most hideous you can possibly imagine, ranging from WMD's fired on them, to women being personally raped by Saddam Hussein and his sons and then murdered afterwards only to later be found among the thousands of mass graves. We found Uddae Husseins personal "raping chamber" where he restrained women to a table and used bondage instruments on them against there will, many times he had their husbands watch him violate their wives. You think about this before you start naming off a couple idiotic american soldiers that are going to jail anyway.

1) I am not liberal
2) You are making me angry, don't piss off a guy like me...it's REALLY bad...
3) I support Israel. Jesus was a Jew after all. They are Jesus' brothers and sisters.
1) Your beliefs indicate otherwise.
2) Or you'll smear me using the Jewish media or what?
3) Israel is a terrorist state. Jesus was not a Jew and it is the Christian's duty to repudiate the Talmudists.

1) Your beliefs indicate otherwise.
2) Or you'll smear me using the Jewish media or what?
3) Israel is a terrorist state. Jesus was not a Jew and it is the Christian's duty to repudiate the Talmudists.

Im a Catholic, Jesus was a jew and it shows how much you know to say otherwise. Jesus taught in Jewish monastaries, he was a jewish preacher who was the son of god. The Jewish high priests didnt want to believe him because of pride. God told the Jew's that when the messiah came to them, depending on how far they came along will depend if he comes into their lives on a chariot as a king, or a commoner on a donkey. He came as a commoner on a donkey, they didnt want to believe that they did so poorly so they denied him, thus the catholics were born.

Saying Jesus wasnt a Jew is dumbest thing ive ever heard. There's a reason he and others called him "King of the Jew's" thats why the romans mockingly put a crown of thorns on his head.

1) Your beliefs indicate otherwise.
2) Or you'll smear me using the Jewish media or what?
3) Israel is a terrorist state. Jesus was not a Jew and it is the Christian's duty to repudiate the Talmudists.

What was Jesus, if not a Jew?

What was Jesus, if not a Jew?
Mary was most believed to be a Levi and Jesus was conceived immaculately.
He was a Gentile, no doubt, in any case.

Read the above statement...and laugh at its ludicrous patheticness.

Have you ever heard that the Jews are made up of tribes?

Yeah, amazing? And the Levites were one of those tribes. :eek:

Jesus was anything but a Gentile. By most standards, you are only Jewish if you're mother is Jewish. (Used by some, not used by others.) Your argument of falsehood just keeps falling apart.

1) Your beliefs indicate otherwise.
2) Or you'll smear me using the Jewish media or what?
3) Israel is a terrorist state. Jesus was not a Jew and it is the Christian's duty to repudiate the Talmudists.

1) HOW? I support Bush, I believe in a strong National Defense, I own guns, and I am strongly pro-life
2) You don't want to know. I have many plans for Bin Laden.
3) WTF? No they aren't. They're a soverign nation trying to deal with terrorists.

Back to the topic on hand.

Unfortunately, the actions of a few individuals have always determined how each government is viewed by the world. Hence the reason Americans are being characterized as being exactly like Bush (or the drawings of Bush that appear in the cartoons in the opinions section of newspapers more accurately).

Also, people complain that the Americans are in a quandary they can't get out of because we've lost a little over 1000 troops. Seriously. How many of those were due to "accidents"? A good number. Also, in case you didn't catch it when the news put out the story about the capture of Samarra, 109 terrorists/Iraqi militants were killed and 88 were captured...while 1 American soldier was killed. Does the word EFFICIENCY strike anyone else? Every military leader of all time has wished that they could command such numbers, especially using guerrilla warfare in a foreign region. The numbers that came out of Vietnam aren't even close in an astronomical sense when compared to Iraq.

I think the U.N. is yet another example of a failed beaucracy that tried to be the governing world power. And like the League of Nations, without American support it will disappear like a drunk teenager's virginity.

The League of Nations was an American idea, just like the U.N. But election time came around in the U.S. right before we could join it. A new President came to power and we became isolationist, spurning the very thing we created that might have possibly stopped WWII. Thus, the League of Nations failed because no one else in the world actually cared about placing themselves under the authority of an international body.

After WWII, the Americans were lucky enough to have rational Presidents that did create the U.N. and did join it. They created a thing of respect, a thing of beauty. But, in just a few decades, that body has become a wallowing hole of the corrupt. Have you looked to see just how much money Kofi Annan makes a year? It's pretty staggering. (And that's just the above-table salary, but I'm gonna leave the Oil for Food program to a different argument.)

I have come to the point where I would like to see the U.S.A. pull out of the U.N. This is because I feel that the "United Nothing" has been another miserable failure. I don't think that any nation in the world is actually capable of surrendering sovereignty to a foreign body. Sovereignty is the only thing holy and sacred to a nation, so the loss of that would be the loss of national identity, something no one will give up rationally at this point in time.

Do I think that the idea of an international body is a bad idea? Not at all. I would like to see a new form of the U.N. come into being, but one that doesn't try to police the world, doesn't try to tell countries what to do with their funds and people, doesn't try to promote one ideaology over another. I want to see a body where people can come together and talk about issues, talk about problems, talk about science, talk about trade agreements. In essence, I want just one large forum for the international community where there is no self-serving motive to consolidate power, but an honest drive to promote peace between countries by bringing them together. If the forum of my ideas should ever come to being, the only employees it would need would be the maintenance people who keep the forum room looking nice. You don't need a moderator, because a moderator will always reflect a power struggle. If there was just a room that contained the idea of peace and harmony, then the nations of the world will always have a means of approaching each other, a means of writing treaties, a means of rational conversation.

This is my dream, but I know that many of you have no desire to see what I want.

Then why you talking? Furthermore i said that the death toll in Abu Ghraib story was withdrawn. Im not denying the sexual harrassment charges. They were sent to military prison for that. Rape and torture werent used, humiliation and threats were used. They made them do things that was humiliating to them. It was wrong but YOU are blowing it out of context and "Lynndie England" is paying a long sentence in military prison for it. There are sick people everywhere, you cant blame a entire country for the actions of a few, especially low ranking prison guards in some backwater prison. You can point out Abu Ghraib all you want, i'll point out the schools, the new government, the proud Iraqi soldiers "volunteering" to fight for their country, no longer forced to. I'll point out the charity, soldiers like my brother playing with iraqi children, feeding them, giving them candy like the soldiers were doing before the "real sadists" blew them up. I'll point out the iraqi women giving hugs to US soldiers and thanking them for fighting for them. There are some sick people in the world, but there are some out there, that are just worth dying for. Anyone who doesnt agree with that is a heartless bastard. 1,000,000 iraqi's dead under Saddam Hussein, ive mentioned that a lot of these forums but the socialists europeans and the liberals always neglect that number and instead name off the 1000 american casualties and the 10,000 that died in the crossfire. 1,000,000 is a much larger number, a million children, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, some dying the most hideous you can possibly imagine, ranging from WMD's fired on them, to women being personally raped by Saddam Hussein and his sons and then murdered afterwards only to later be found among the thousands of mass graves. We found Uddae Husseins personal "raping chamber" where he restrained women to a table and used bondage instruments on them against there will, many times he had their husbands watch him violate their wives. You think about this before you start naming off a couple idiotic american soldiers that are going to jail anyway.

Charity my ass...

Like I said, I don't see any point in discussing this anymore since most major news agencies seem to disagree with your facts and numbers (where do any of these come from? Militant-Redneck news?)
So, save your gott-mit-uns patriotism and McFreedom crap for someone else... My discussion with you is over.

The UN is pro-whomever-buys-more-votes-or-vetoes-with-economic-aid-packages-and/or-oil-contracts.

Bump

I don't think that any nation in the world is actually capable of surrendering sovereignty to a foreign body. Sovereignty is the only thing holy and sacred to a nation, so the loss of that would be the loss of national identity, something no one will give up rationally at this point in time.

So what have the Europeans done with the EU exactly?
------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have to point out that the whole topic is based on a question which is a bit stupid. An international body of such complexity can not be singularly pro- or anti-american.

When the Americans do something 95% of the world agree on (such as the first Gulf war), then the UN is proAmerican.
When the Americans decide to go on an adventure fighting a war against a country that has not provoked them in any direct way, well then the UN, representing world opinion, is against America. And especially so if the Americans dont try at all to explain their point and convince others.

Because as someone noted, it is the US who first provoked the UN by acting unilaterally, not the other way round.