NationStates Jolt Archive

Tom Friedman's latest column in the times brings up something I wasnt aware of.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/opinion/24friedman.html?hp)

Much as americans used slurs like "kraut" and "charlie" and any number of other things to refer to their enemies in various wars, the Iraqi People have a term for american troops: jews.


His example was the overhearing of some iraqis saying "dont go down that road, the jews set up a roadblock."


Food for thought i suppose. Maybe its a side-effect of our "catastrophic success"

Or maybe with the fact that a zealot told them Isreal owns and rules all!

America = Israel.

AlQueda = Iraq.


ha ha ha.

Mostly we're called Amerikia, Arabic for American. One should not take a single instance that a reporter ran into as the norm.

Did- AlQueda=Iraq?????????????????????????
:confused:

Did- AlQueda=Iraq?????????????????????????
:confused:


Whether it DID or not doesn't really matter does it? It sure as shit does now.

CNN this afternoon showed a story about insurgents, they said they number around seven thousand at the begining, now aproxametly fifthteen to twenty thousand!
somehow CNN's numbers seem high!

guaranted alot are AlQueda or led and fiananced by AlQueda

CNN this afternoon showed a story about insurgents, they said they number around seven thousand at the begining, now aproxametly fifthteen to twenty thousand!
somehow there numbers seem high!

guaranted alot are AlQueda or led and fiananced by AlQueda


Did they survey the insurgents to get those numbers?

The story was by a indy cameraman. They had a special name for him,(not sure) Anyways there was surveying done but mostly about there daily life. Go to work, come home try to kill someone,go to bed and repeat in morning!
Alot of camera shots of them poking there heads out,taking a few shots and running away down the ally.
-seriously-

The story was by a indy cameraman. They had a special name for him,(not sure) Anyways there was surveying done but mostly about there daily life. Go to work, come home try to kill someone,go to bed and repeat in morning!
Alot of camera shots of them poking there heads out,taking a few shots and running away down the ally.
-seriously-


So basically put no idea about the total number of insurgents and really shitty journalism. Gotcha, standard CNN fare.

pretty much! :headbang:

Whether it DID or not doesn't really matter does it? It sure as shit does now.
Uh huh...justify the war in retrospect. Typical.

Ah and Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are the modern concentration camps? Just operated by the jews this time? I'm just waiting for news of genocide committed by americans in the middle east or elsewhere...

Ah and Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are the modern concentration camps? Just operated by the jews this time? I'm just waiting for news of genocide committed by americans in the middle east or elsewhere...
You won´t get this news. Because the Americans are not like the Nazis or Imperial Japan. They don´t commit genocide. They want to help Iraq becoming a better country - just as they helped West Germany and Japan to becoming better countries.

You won´t get this news. Because the Americans are not like the Nazis or Imperial Japan. They don´t commit genocide. They want to help Iraq becoming a better country - just as they helped West Germany and Japan to becoming better countries.

I thought they wanted to protect America from the OMGWTFWMDs?

Oh silly me, no one talks about that anymore...

Uh huh...justify the war in retrospect. Typical.


Is it necessary to justify the war as it happening? Or do we continue to debate the war as it occurs? Thats great for morale...

You won´t get this news. Because the Americans are not like the Nazis or Imperial Japan. They don´t commit genocide. They want to help Iraq becoming a better country - just as they helped West Germany and Japan to becoming better countries.


Not to be nitpicky..but....American Indians ring a bell?

We just got our genocide out of the system early in our country.

Is it necessary to justify the war as it happening? Or do we continue to debate the war as it occurs? Thats great for morale...

Maybe we should make sure we go to war for an actual solid reason, so we don't need to make up bollocks later on?

Or have we progressed beyond that stage of civilisation?

I thought they wanted to protect America from the OMGWTFWMDs?

Oh silly me, no one talks about that anymore...
Well, that was one reason. For Britain it was the main argument for it but not for the US. The aim of the US was "regime change" as it was pointed out by Vice President Cheney in a public speech in August 2002 - inspections are not enough, regime change is needed -.
The United States has defined its main national security threats. And that is the "axis of evil" - Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The United States reserves the right to take action against those countries according to its own chosing.
And that is what the rest of the world has to understand and has to accept.
That are domestic issues for the US.

Not to be nitpicky..but....American Indians ring a bell?

We just got our genocide out of the system early in our country.
Any great nations has dark periods in its history. Some more, some less.
But great nations simply used to ignore them - like France or the US. Both countries have in that sense more in common than they think.
Both are stubborn and think they are the greatest.

The difference however is: The US is the greatest - France isn´t.

Well, that was one reason. For Britain it was the main argument for it but not for the US. The aim of the US was "regime change" as it was pointed out by Vice President Cheney in a public speech in August 2002 - inspections are not enough, regime change is needed -.
The United States has defined its main national security threats. And that is the "axis of evil" - Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The United States reserves the right to take action against those countries according to its own chosing.
And that is what the rest of the world has to understand and has to accept.
That are domestic issues for the US.

So then it would be a domestic issue for Iran to reserve the right to act against the USA according to its own chosing to secure there independence and security?

Well, that was one reason. For Britain it was the main argument for it but not for the US. The aim of the US was "regime change" as it was pointed out by Vice President Cheney in a public speech in August 2002 - inspections are not enough, regime change is needed -.
The United States has defined its main national security threats. And that is the "axis of evil" - Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The United States reserves the right to take action against those countries according to its own chosing.
And that is what the rest of the world has to understand and has to accept.
That are domestic issues for the US.

Uh... the US 'reserves the right'? They don't HAVE the right to invade other nations to bring about regime change.

You can't reserve a right you don't have, anymore than I can 'reserve the right' to murder my neighbour in his sleep and steal his house and possesions (even if I suspect he's beating his kids, no less).

Uh... the US 'reserves the right'? They don't HAVE the right to invade other nations to bring about regime change.

You can't reserve a right you don't have, anymore than I can 'reserve the right' to murder my neighbour in his sleep and steal his house and possesions (even if I suspect he's beating his kids, no less).
Well, that is indeed a problem other countries see within the new national security policy of the United States. It is not in accordance with the principals of international law.
But on the other hand. This law states that national sovereignity is almost sacred. But what if countries are murdering and killing their own population, are totalitarian dictatorships (like Iraq, Iran or North Korea) and are threatening regional stability and security through their weapon programs (nuclear program of Iran and North Korea). It is true that Iraq did not posses developed programs in that respect. There was obviously false intelligence and errors. But Iraq presents a base for the US in the region. A base which is geostrategically very useful. Also for the future and a potential conflict with Iran.

Maybe we should make sure we go to war for an actual solid reason, so we don't need to make up bollocks later on?

Or have we progressed beyond that stage of civilisation?


Once again: Why do you people insist on reliving a two year old debate? Whether or not we went to war for the right reasons or not, WE'RE AT WAR. Period. End of debate. One side won, the other lost. Stop trying to relive the pre-war days and live in the fucking present.

The question is not whether or not we should have gone to war, that question has already answered itself. The fact is, we are at war, so how do we either get out of it safely or bring it to completion, not "Was it good that we did that?" two years after the fact.

Get over it. The Peace activists lost. There was, and is, a war. Stop trying to win a debate from two years ago.

So then it would be a domestic issue for Iran to reserve the right to act against the USA according to its own chosing to secure there independence and security?
North Korea has claimed that "right" as a matter of fact. But this is just big talk. The US is the most powerful country in the world. And we should be happy that it is the US and not China or Russia. Because the US is a democracy. And that keeps cheques and balances in the way it is using its power - in contrast to dicatorships.

Ah Kybernetia the US-sucking puppet again. The US thinks it is the greatest. It is not though. Just like in Japan or Germany, it's a capitalist-consumerist society which more and more loses the human part of itself and everyone is anonymous and nobody cares what happens around them. There are other countries where this is not the case and at least in this regard, the US is weak. It may be economically and militarily dominant, but it is not much better than other countries. In fact, Norway is officially the best :P

North Korea has claimed that "right" as a matter of fact. But this is just big talk. The US is the most powerful country in the world. And we should be happy that it is the US and not China or Russia. Because the US is a democracy. And that keeps cheques and balances in the way it is using its power - in contrast to dicatorships.
The US is not a democracy. It's a propaganda machine - representative republic.

Ah Kybernetia the US-sucking puppet again. The US thinks it is the greatest. It is not though. Just like in Japan or Germany, it's a capitalist-consumerist society which more and more loses the human part of itself and everyone is anonymous and nobody cares what happens around them. There are other countries where this is not the case and at least in this regard, the US is weak. It may be economically and militarily dominant, but it is not much better than other countries. In fact, Norway is officially the best :P


Watch out, make sure you don't step in the bullshit.

What do you just get all you info from psycho-leftist conspiracy websites?

Watch out, make sure you don't step in the bullshit.
I won't. But Kybernetia already has, a while ago, fallen for the "America is the greatest" bullshit.

I won't. But Kybernetia already has, a while ago, fallen for the "America is the greatest" bullshit.


name another nation in the history of the world that's culture is as influential or that can project economic or military power as effectively as the US, and you might have the beginning of an effective argument rather than a string of nonsensical illogical ideas.

name another nation in the history of the world that's culture is as influential or that can project economic or military power as effectively as the US, and you might have the beginning of an effective argument rather than a string of nonsensical illogical ideas.
The Roman Empire, England, the Ottoman Empire- to name a few.

Where the hell do Americans get their History texts from?

We would all do well to remember that time waits for no man; or state; and that all the greatest countries and civilizations have seen their influence wane or be extinguished. In no way do I expect the US to be the first and only exception to this.

Heck- if this upcoming election is thrown into the courts or heavily disputed because of their antiquated electoral laws the US could be thrown into some sort of civil war.

The Roman Empire, England, the Ottoman Empire- to name a few.
Where the hell do Americans get their History texts from?
We would all do well to remember that time waits for no man; or state; and that all the greatest countries and civilizations have seen their influence wane or be extinguished. In no way do I expect the US to be the first and only exception to this.
You forgot France which was the dominant power on the European continent in the 17 th, 18 th and early 19 th century. Or in east Asia China.
However the US is indeed in another position than the great powers before. We life in the time of globalisation. America really dominates the whole world - in that sense following in the footsteps of the British Empire, however even more powerful.
Whether that lasts forever is an open question. Nothing lasts forever - that is an historic experience. I however think that the American Empire is rather at is beginning and not at its end. The peak lays before it and not behind it. Since the end of the Cold War the United States is in an unique position. It is the only remaining super power unrivaled by any of the other great powers at least for any foreseable time.

Let's get this topic back on track, shall we?


Arabs refer to all foreign invaders as "Banee Sehyone". English-speakers should realize that Banee is the common word for bin, (or be) as in son. It can also mean "lord" if one says "Bin el karam", or lord of generousity. (Also, Be-el-ze-bub, the Bible's Devil, means "Lord of the Flies", literally, in Arabic).

"Sehyone" means "Zion".. Pronounce it once again: Sehyone.. the connection is clear, is it not? The Arab press refers to the Israeli Army personnel as "Banee Sehyone", and the Iraqis, facing a similar occupation at the hands of the US, conveniently label U.S. Soldiers as "Banee Sehyone" as well.

Hope that clears things up..

Commonly-used synonyms of "Banee Sehyone" include "Infidels", "Sons of Monkeys and Pigs", and "The Enemy".

Does the US have the right to poke its nose into all the world's affairs? Sigh. :confused:

Let's get this topic back on track, shall we?
Arabs refer to all foreign invaders as "Banee Sehyone". English-speakers should realize that Banee is the common word for bin, (or be) as in son. It can also mean "lord" if one says "Bin el karam", or lord of generousity. (Also, Be-el-ze-bub, the Bible's Devil, means "Lord of the Flies", literally, in Arabic).
"Sehyone" means "Zion".. Pronounce it once again: Sehyone.. the connection is clear, is it not? The Arab press refers to the Israeli Army personnel as "Banee Sehyone", and the Iraqis, facing a similar occupation at the hands of the US, conveniently label U.S. Soldiers as "Banee Sehyone" as well.
Hope that clears things up..
Commonly-used synonyms of "Banee Sehyone" include "Infidels", "Sons of Monkeys and Pigs", and "The Enemy".
Interesting. Well, it is historically common and an often practise in conflict to demonize the enemy. Given the historic and cultural context of the Arab and muslim world it is clear that the anti-semitic (in the sense of anti-jewish) sentiment is incredible high. Therefore any "enemy" or perceived enemy is labelled that way. Not a complete strange thing.
That was a common labelling in the pasts in parts of Europe as well. From "jewish bolshewism" to "jewish capitalism" or to the anti-zionists campaigns in Eastern Europe during the Communists rule. Not to speak about the 1930s and 1940s.
The Islamists ideology is very dangerous. It has things in common with national socialism. It wants to erradicate the state of Isreal and the jews.
And this radical and dangerous ideology has growing support.
The clash of civilisations becomes more and more a reality -like the clash between "the west" (UK/US) and Japan and Germany.
We are may heading in a simular development in the Middle East.
Therefore it is important to make shure that the potential enemy doesn´t get too strong - which means to prevent a nuclear Iran for example.

cant you see
the iraqis can, and people like me have been saying it for years
isszy controls the us's mideast politiks, with out our support and aid they would either
a. have fallen and the palistians(sp) would have thier land back
b. would already be exposed for genocide

so the iraqis are right us service members in the mid east basicly are run by isszy

LOL.

Does that mean the US Army is secretly controlled by the ZOG?

Since the majority of the troops are Christian I hope they find it amusing to be call "jews." I suppose it's reasonable to assume the whole country is secretly run by Israel isn't it? Ignorance in that part of the world needs to be dealt with to get peace in Iraq. Which is why I haven't heard about the US bringing in Israeli soldiers. THAT could have complications.

Since the majority of the troops are Christian I hope they find it amusing to be call "jews." I suppose it's reasonable to assume the whole country is secretly run by Israel isn't it? Ignorance in that part of the world needs to be dealt with to get peace in Iraq. Which is why I haven't heard about the US bringing in Israeli soldiers. THAT could have complications.
It could also bring "complications" to bring in Turkish soldiers. Especially in the Kurdish arreas.
Therefore it isn´t done thus far.

What can I say? I'm not surprised.

I however think that the American Empire is rather at is beginning and not at its end. The peak lays before it and not behind it.
was ist bei dir nur falsch gelaufen :rolleyes:
wirklich tragisch ...

was ist bei dir nur falsch gelaufen :rolleyes:
wirklich tragisch ...
Er wurde nach der Geburt fallengelassen und ist auf dem Kopf aufgeschlagen. Daher die fast 100%-ige Behinderung bis zum Grade der freiwilligen Unterwürfigkeit gegenüber einem offensichtlich schlechten Vorbild.

was ist bei dir nur falsch gelaufen :rolleyes:
wirklich tragisch ...
Und was ist bei Dir und den meisten Europäern nur falsch gelaufen das sie nicht die schlichte Realität sehen. Und die ist das die USA die stärkste Macht sind und auf unabsehbare Zeit bleiben.
Wenn die USA von 1990-2001 im Schnit um 3,4% wachsen und Deutschland im selben Zeitraum nur um 1,5% und Frankreich auch nur um 1,9% so muß man kein Genie sein um zu sehen, dass diese beiden Länder ökonomisch und politisch and Macht und Einfluß relativ verlieren, während die USA mehr und mehr gewinnen. Das sind die Realitäten, die man mindestens einmal zur Kenntnis nehmen muß und nicht vor lauter Anti-Amerikanismus ignorieren kann.

Big surprise. Americans call people jews as an insult as well. An example is "He won't let you borrow that pillow? He's such a fucking Jew." And yes, I heard someone say that on my floor last night.

Zur Kenntnis nehmen ist nicht das Problem. Die Anbetung und perverse Unterwürfigkeit vor den Amis ist das Problem.

Er wurde nach der Geburt fallengelassen und ist auf dem Kopf aufgeschlagen. Daher die fast 100%-ige Behinderung bis zum Grade der freiwilligen Unterwürfigkeit gegenüber einem offensichtlich schlechten Vorbild.
Die USA ist ein weit besseres Vorbild als China oder Russland zum Beispiel.

Zur Kenntnis nehmen ist nicht das Problem. Die Anbetung und perverse Unterwürfigkeit vor den Amis ist das Problem.
Ich bete niemanden an. Aber ich bin für eine rationale Politik. Und die beinhaltet anzuerkennen, dass man Weltpolitik ohne die USA nicht machen kann. Und sie beinhaltet anzuerkennen, dass die USA unser zweitgrößter Handelspartner ist und das wir ein großes eigenes Interesse (ein wirtschaftliches Interesse, wir wollen ja beide nicht noch größere Arbeitslosigkeit, oder?) an einem guten Verhältnis zur USA haben.

Ein Problem ist daher der Anti-Amerikanismus und der Amerika-Haß der von Leuten wir dir ausgespien wird. Er droht unser Verhältnis zu den USA zu zerstören. Und das wäre zu unser aller Schaden. Ein bischen mehr Respekt vor den Vereinigten Staaten wäre von daher durchaus angemessen, auch für einen Ossi, der offensichtlich die Bedeutung der USA für Deutschland nicht versteht.

Die USA ist ein weit besseres Vorbild als China oder Russland zum Beispiel.
lol wozu brauchen wir ein vorbild?!?
ist deutschland ein kleines entwicklungsland das sich bei der industrialisierung an einem größeren land orientieren muss?
ist fehlendes selbstbewußtsein das problem?

Because the Americans are not like the Nazis or Imperial Japan. They don´t commit genocide. They want to help Iraq becoming a better country - just as they helped West Germany and Japan to becoming better countries.

Well, in their own warped way of thinking, the Nazis were trying to make the world a better place, by eliminating anything that wasn't "Aryan"

lol wozu brauchen wir ein vorbild?!?
ist deutschland ein kleines entwicklungsland das sich bei der industrialisierung an einem größeren land orientieren muss?
ist fehlendes selbstbewußtsein das problem?
Wenn Deutschland von 1990-2001 um 1,5% wächst und die USA um 3,4% im Schnitt pro Jahr ist das ja wohl etwas worüber man nachdenken muß.
Und daraus folgt sicherlich nicht das die USA sich Deutschland als Vorbild nehmen sollte, sondern wohl eher Deutschland die USA.
Wir waren ja schon mal besser - so gut das sich andere uns Vorbild nahmen (z.B. Japan). Aber wenn man selbst abkackt, so sollte man wenigstens mal bei anderen nachschauen warum und wie sie es schaffen besser zu sein. Und man muß daraus lernen. Das hat nichts mit fehlenden Selbstbewußtsein zu tun. Im Gegenteil. Wenn man mit eigenen Rezepten nicht weiterkommt und stagniert so muß man sich verändern anstelle sich immer im eigenen Saft und Selbstmitleid herumzudrehen wie das ja leider meist in Deutschland üblich ist. Und das zeugt von fehlenden Selbstbewußtsein, nicht die Idee von anderen Ländern zu lernen.

Well, in their own warped way of thinking, the Nazis were trying to make the world a better place, by eliminating anything that wasn't "Aryan"
Well, the Nazis were certainly thinking that.
But there is a difference whether you fight for a totalitarian dictatorship (being it fascist or communists or islamists) or whether you fight for freedom and democracy. And that is the thing the US is fighting for.

Well, in their own warped way of thinking, the Nazis were trying to make the world a better place, by eliminating anything that wasn't "Aryan"
There is a tremendous difference between attempts to spread a non-existent race, and attempts to spread basic human rights and ideals.

LOTHAR! Such an evil sounding name...gotta love it man, gotta love your reference to the HRE, and Karl der Grosses grandkids.

CNN this afternoon showed a story about insurgents, they said they number around seven thousand at the begining, now aproxametly fifthteen to twenty thousand!
somehow CNN's numbers seem high!

guaranted alot are AlQueda or led and fiananced by AlQueda


Al qaeda is the boogeyman.

You won´t get this news. Because the Americans are not like the Nazis or Imperial Japan. They don´t commit genocide. They want to help Iraq becoming a better country - just as they helped West Germany and Japan to becoming better countries.


Japan wanted to help the nations of asia become better countries and find their proper place in the greater east asia co prosperity sphere.

The difference however is: The US is the greatest - France isn´t.


The US just has the most money.
Very much like the mafia.

You forgot France which was the dominant power on the European continent in the 17 th, 18 th and early 19 th century. Or in east Asia China.
However the US is indeed in another position than the great powers before. We life in the time of globalisation. America really dominates the whole world - in that sense following in the footsteps of the British Empire, however even more powerful.
Whether that lasts forever is an open question. Nothing lasts forever - that is an historic experience. I however think that the American Empire is rather at is beginning and not at its end. The peak lays before it and not behind it. Since the end of the Cold War the United States is in an unique position. It is the only remaining super power unrivaled by any of the other great powers at least for any foreseable time.

You cant 'foresee' ahead 10, 20 years to china?

It could also bring "complications" to bring in Turkish soldiers. Especially in the Kurdish arreas.
Therefore it isn´t done thus far.


Turkey refused to cooperate in the invasion and conquest of riaq. We offered them billions of dollarsand they turned down our bribe.

Turkey refused to cooperate in the invasion and conquest of riaq. We offered them billions of dollarsand they turned down our bribe.
Turkey said that it was not enough. And secondly one reason was that there was no agreement reached about the Turkish role in post-war Iraq. After all: The US is both allied to Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds. And it was only possible to honour one of the two commitments. Otherwise the Kurds would be allionated.
And therefore the negotiations between the US and Turkey in that respect were not successful.

Japan wanted to help the nations of asia become better countries and find their proper place in the greater east asia co prosperity sphere.
Well, the argument later by Japan was to protect East Asia from Western colonialism. And from Germany to try to protect Eastern Europe from a possible invasion of the Soviet Union and that therefore this action should be considered a preventive strike (some historians).
However that is not the official position of the two countries of their own history.
And again: There is a huge difference between nations who condcut a war of agression to conquor other nations and to repress the people (Germany about 11 million deaths in their occupied territories outside the war itself; Japan about 10 million deahts of Koreans and Chinese in Japanese camps)
and a country that is trying to free the world of cruel and evil dictators (such as Saddam Hussein) who killed hundreds of thousands of people.
The world is better of with Saddam Hussein in prison and not in power.
A thing even the critics should take into account.

The difference however is: The US is the greatest - France isn´t.

Yawn. I'm glad to say I never subscribed to the Patriotic Bandwagon after 9/11. I didn't see the point of submitting blindly to a cause, on the same day a disaster occurred I might add.

...attempts to spread basic human rights and ideals.
...whether you fight for freedom and democracy.

More yawning. Funny how Bush calls Kerry a "flip-flopper": it seems that he and his own administration have flip-flopped from finding OMGWTFWMDs in Iraq to spreading the joys of corporate democracy in the Middle East! Too bad that the Islamic nations hate us more than ever now, and that their religion is based upon monarchy. At least Iraqis had more stability in their lives before the invasion. Now they deal with daily suicide bombings. And now Americans have to deal with daily the death of yet another young man or woman, fighting the corporate war.

The United States reserves the right to take action against those countries according to its own chosing.

No, we don't reserve the right to invade sovereign nations, abridge basic civil rights in our own country and written into our own Constitution, and to have our own leader bullshit us into believing that we are fighting this war for a reason other than oil and the big, fat, American dollar.

The U.S. does not have the right to invade anyone of our choosing!!! Come on, the whole thing about nation building in his campaign Bush said we would not be involved in nation building, also you don't force democray on people like this :mp5: or like this :sniper: or like this :gundge: democracy is something you choose, if the people possibly don't want democracy should we force them to take it?

The U.S. does not have the right to invade anyone of our choosing!!! Come on, the whole thing about nation building in his campaign Bush said we would not be involved in nation building, also you don't force democray on people like this :mp5: or like this :sniper: or like this :gundge: democracy is something you choose, if the people possibly don't want democracy should we force them to take it?
You are right. There is only one form of government you can´t force on others. And that is democracy. Otherwise it would not be a democracy after all. But you seem to assume that people chose not to have a democracy but rather a dictatorship. Whether it is true remains to be seen. Iraq may not chose a secular democracy or a Jeffersonian style of democracy or a Westminster style democracy. But as a German citizen I tell you we don´t have a Westminster style democracy either. We are actually more following the American modell - though without as much personalisation as we don´t chose the head of government directly. It is elected by parliament. Though the candidates of the two big parties play a key role. 2002 we even had an exclusive debate - Chancellor duell - between the incumbant and the candidate following the example of the presidential debates of the US.
A controversial decision since it is not in accordance with our political system and the representatives of the small parties were of course not part of this debate - although they play a much bigger role (two are in parliament) and the big parties need one of them as their coalition partner.

So: What I want to tell you is: You should believe in your values and in the superiority of your values towards those of dictatorships. People want to be free, live in dignity and honour and not under tyranny and despair.
That is not an American value or an American gift to the world. It is human nature. But often the conditions are so that it is not possible. In Afghanistan 10 million people went to elections. 40% women. That out of a population of 27 million - though a huge portion of it is under 18. So, we can assume that the turnout in percent was actually higher than by the last US election.
What better proof it there that people want to chose their leaders?
And I think we are going to see the same in Iraq.
Let the people decide and lets respect the result.
But for that to come true the conditions for it need to be created. Since the US took on this mission it has now also a responsibility to finish it. Everything else would be a much bigger desaster than if the mission wasn´t started at all. Now, it needs to become a success. For the sake of the US, for the sake of Iraq but also for the sake of the West in general. Also for the coaliton of the unwilling (France and Germany) for that matter.

The U.S. does not have the right to invade anyone of our choosing!!! Come on, the whole thing about nation building in his campaign Bush said we would not be involved in nation building,
That was a mistake. Clinton did nation building, Bush is doing nation building in a much bigger scale. He is in that sense following the policy of the last president of the US.

There is only one form of government you can´t force on others. And that is democracy.

Talk about hypocrisy!

What do you think is going on in Iraq now, comrade? Don't you see that democracy is being forced upon the Iraqi people?

If the Iraqis felt so compelled as to remove Hussein from power themselves, then they would organise without fear of the dictator's large hand. If the government were to kill someone because of their political movement, they would be made an example and would only lead to more support for the movement.

The power lay in the hands of the people. If they want to submit themselves to dictatorship, let them. It is NOT up to other countries to decide what is best for another halfway around the world!

The U.S. does not have the right to invade anyone of our choosing!!! Come on, the whole thing about nation building in his campaign Bush said we would not be involved in nation building, also you don't force democray on people like this :mp5: or like this :sniper: or like this :gundge: democracy is something you choose, if the people possibly don't want democracy should we force them to take it? :rolleyes: He didn't want to engage in nation building, but then he didn't want 3000 of our citizens murdered by the liberals favorite pet cause, Islamic radicals, either. Things change, Ask John Kerry's politacal advisors, who tell him to waffle all the time.

:rolleyes: He didn't want to engage in nation building, but then he didn't want 3000 of our citizens murdered by the liberals favorite pet cause, Islamic radicals, either. :confused: :confused: :confused:
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/umedia/20041024/cp.d73a266d16ce5b58b7d2246a69c8b5df

Why would stupid American Pigs be called Jews I'd call them the war mongerers.

Talk about hypocrisy!

What do you think is going on in Iraq now, comrade? Don't you see that democracy is being forced upon the Iraqi people?

If the Iraqis felt so compelled as to remove Hussein from power themselves, then they would organise without fear of the dictator's large hand. If the government were to kill someone because of their political movement, they would be made an example and would only lead to more support for the movement.

The power lay in the hands of the people. If they want to submit themselves to dictatorship, let them. It is NOT up to other countries to decide what is best for another halfway around the world!
First of all I´m not your comrade, commie. Secondly things are not that easy as you think. Just think about Eastern Europe. When the people rise up in 1953 in East Germany the Soviets pushed them down, 1956 in Hungary and 1968 in Czechoslovakia.
And the same threat existed in Poland.
The policy of strenght of the US prevented that as well as the reform movement in the Soviet Union.
In Iraq it was not possible to arrange an opposition. People were killed because of it. A dictator can rule against the will of the majority of the population. That is possible. He just need a loyal security force and a loyal secret service. Saddam had the loyality of the people around Tigrit and most of the Sunni Arabs on his side. But those are only about 20% of the population. Do you call that a legitimate government.
I see now problem when the US is overthrowing illegitimate governments according to its chosing.
I wouldn´t do it - but my country is not in the position of the US.
The US is the only remaining super power. And that gives it a special position. A special position, a special power and also a special responsibility. I don´t want to change with you in that respect. But you have to take and act according to its responsibilty.

Why would stupid American Pigs be called Jews I'd call them the war mongerers.
Hello. That are American soldiers. Would you like that British soldiers are called pigs? You should really watch your language. That was just inappropiate and not acceptable in my view.

Let's get something straight, one thing that's not happening in Iraq is the 'building' of anything.

Let's step back and look at it from a neutral position. Saddam killed and imprisoned his people. America has done the same to Iraqi's. They had few political and civil rights under Saddam, well ditto for the occupation. About the only thing that really changed for your average Iraqi is now their country is in ruins, there are now foreign troops doing the oppressing (not local boys who at least spoke the same language) and foreign governments and companies are stealing their national resources not Iraqi ones. They have elections to look forward to whose outcomes are as predictable as those held under Saddam. Life hasn't gotten any better for the average Iraqi and for too many it's gotten much worse.

The only thing we've 'built' is a breeding ground for hatred of America with plenty of desperate souls with nothing to loose by acting on that hatred.

:rolleyes: He didn't want to engage in nation building, but then he didn't want 3000 of our citizens murdered by the liberals favorite pet cause, Islamic radicals, either. Things change, Ask John Kerry's politacal advisors, who tell him to waffle all the time.

Since when did Iraq have anything to do with the planes in New York?

The insurgents in Iraq want an Islamic Theocracy. The US would prefer to see them have a democracy--- one big problem here- if elections were held in Iraq today the VOTERS would choose to live in an Islamic Theocracy after lving for decades under the heel of a Western influenced, US backed, secular dictator.

Most people outside of the US saw this as the big problem with removing Sadam Hussein by US military force. This is what the criticism of the Bush Doctorine is centered around- there are no exit strategies to openly debate because it secretly goes something like this:

1. invade
2. regime change
3. reduce Iraq to a US protectorate and police state
4. excite local situation until US opposition turns violent
5. label anti-US forces/politicians as terroists and insurgents
6. eliminate opposing factions/parties
7. allow elections with only US approved candidates
8. move in the oil tankers and build a US Air Base.

Really- this should only take 5-7 more years. Everyone should just stop worrying about it so much. You can't maintain this level of interest for much longer.

CNN/Fox News/everyone will start scaling back their coverage once the election is over and you'll only hear about problems in Iraq as often as you hear about Afghanistan/Haiti/Somolia/Grenada/pick a country...

Ah Kybernetia the US-sucking puppet again. The US thinks it is the greatest. It is not though. Just like in Japan or Germany, it's a capitalist-consumerist society which more and more loses the human part of itself and everyone is anonymous and nobody cares what happens around them. There are other countries where this is not the case and at least in this regard, the US is weak. It may be economically and militarily dominant, but it is not much better than other countries. In fact, Norway is officially the best :P

so much wrong stereotyping it makes me sick. if you lived here, you would understand how dumb what you just said is.

I would think that some of them find us as Jews. In some radical Muslim minds, by their own admission, Israel and the US are the same country.

Wenn Deutschland von 1990-2001 um 1,5% wächst und die USA um 3,4% im Schnitt pro Jahr ist das ja wohl etwas worüber man nachdenken muß.
Und das zeugt von fehlenden Selbstbewußtsein, nicht die Idee von anderen Ländern zu lernen.
aber genau da liegst du falsch, die usa sind vor allem besser in der täuschung. deren unternehmen blasen sich grundsätzlich auf, und machen sich größer als sie sind, während in deutschland das genau andersrum ist.
außerdem guck dir mal das handelsdefizit an von den amis. die leben nurnoch vom glauben der anderen länder, wenn nämlich plötzlich der investitionsfluss stoppt knallt es dort, und ähnlich wie mit der dotcom blase ist nachher nichts mehr übrig. und nichtmal im militärischen bereich sind die stark, guck dir doch irak an. ein paar zerlumpte bauern erschießen 1000 mann von denen und zuhause geht das gejaule los. eine armee besteht nicht nur aus panzern, sondern die heimatfront spielt dabei eine mindestens genauso wichtige rolle und wenn die an einem richtigen krieg beteiligt wären würden die einknicken wie ein strohhalm. es hat schon seinen grund warum die nur kleine entwicklungsländer in schutt und asche bomben, dadurch erscheinen die für viele leute die das nicht durchschauen als stark, und das ist am ende auch der punkt warum die ihren krieg gegen den terror führen, damit das vertrauen in das starke amerika bestehen bleibt und der investitionsfluss nicht anreißt.
du hast schon recht damit wenn du sagst das amerikanische imperium besteht noch lange. wenn alle menschen so denken würden wie du tut es das auch. zum glück ist aber die stimmung gegen amerika gekippt, und wenn bush noch mehr scheisse baut kippt sie endgültig, darum hoffe ich wirklich der wird wiedergewählt und bringt die welt endgültig gegen amerika auf.

Did they survey the insurgents to get those numbers? :D

I would think that some of them find us as Jews. In some radical Muslim minds, by their own admission, Israel and the US are the same country.Ignorance knows no borders, in some radical Christian minds, by their own admission, Iraq and Al-queeda are the same thing.

Tom Friedman's latest column in the times brings up something I wasnt aware of.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/opinion/24friedman.html?hp)

Much as americans used slurs like "kraut" and "charlie" and any number of other things to refer to their enemies in various wars, the Iraqi People have a term for american troops: jews.


His example was the overhearing of some iraqis saying "dont go down that road, the jews set up a roadblock."


Food for thought i suppose. Maybe its a side-effect of our "catastrophic success"

KILL THE JEW HATERS~!!!!!!! :eek:

i totally agree. someone had a nation deleted because they proposed to un that all jews be sent to palistine and be killed. im glad they were deleted.

ps. im a afro jewish - buddhist

Ignorance knows no borders, in some radical Christian minds, by their own admission, Iraq and Al-queeda are the same thing.
True, very true.

the liberals favorite pet cause, Islamic radicals,

Since when are the saudi royals and richies "liberals" ???

Last I checked they were personal friends and business partners of the president of the united states and his family.

First of all I´m not your comrade, commie.

Touchy, touchy. I always know I'm dealing with someone intelligent when they attack my method of showing equality. :rolleyes:

Touchy, touchy. I always know I'm dealing with someone intelligent when they attack my method of showing equality. :rolleyes:


You've got to remember that kybernetie's goal in life is to shoot a burgler.

He lives in seething hatred of women and all living beings.

He is a typical american conservative.

Also, he doesnt understand that we didnt invade iraq to "spread democracy"

He is a typical american conservative.

Aye, I deal with his type every day in downtown suburbia, USA.

so much wrong stereotyping it makes me sick. if you lived here, you would understand how dumb what you just said is.

I live here, and I understand completely what he is getting at.

CNN this afternoon showed a story about insurgents, they said they number around seven thousand at the begining, now aproxametly fifthteen to twenty thousand!
somehow CNN's numbers seem high!

guaranted alot are AlQueda or led and fiananced by AlQueda
Guaranteed, most of them weren't there Before we invaded.
See I love the way Bush and Rumsfeld toss around phrases like "Three-fourths of al Qaida have been killed or captured" so as to make us feel all safe and cozy about our security. The problem is they never give us stats as to how many MORE terrorists our actions have created.

But Iraq presents a base for the US in the region. A base which is geostrategically very useful. Also for the future and a potential conflict with Iran.
So you see we invaded Iraq so we can get Iran from the West and the East (Afghanistan)? Surely this WAS impetus for the "liberation," just ask Paul Wolfowitz. So my question is, you find this necessary and acceptable?
name another nation in the history of the world that's culture is as influential or that can project economic or military power as effectively as the US, and you might have the beginning of an effective argument rather than a string of nonsensical illogical ideas.
The Islamic Empire circa 1000-1450 A.D.

He is a typical american conservative.

yeah thats true. a american conservative that lives in germany :rolleyes:
strange but true.
but didnt you notice our discussion in german? that should told you that hes no "real" american conservative, or he wouldnt speak two languages eh?

I might add, so what?

He didn't want to engage in nation building, but then he didn't want 3000 of our citizens murdered by the liberals favorite pet cause, Islamic radicals, either. Things change, Ask John Kerry's politacal advisors, who tell him to waffle all the time.
So many things wrong in this post. Where to begin?
- Islamic radicals is not a liberal cause.
- The 9/11 attack and Irak have no links whatsoever.
- John Kerry does not waffle. Even if he does, Bush waffles much more.

Congratulation, you just made my ignore list.

du hast schon recht damit wenn du sagst das amerikanische imperium besteht noch lange. wenn alle menschen so denken würden wie du tut es das auch. zum glück ist aber die stimmung gegen amerika gekippt, und wenn bush noch mehr scheisse baut kippt sie endgültig, darum hoffe ich wirklich der wird wiedergewählt und bringt die welt endgültig gegen amerika auf.
Die Macht Amerikas bricht nicht durch Stimmungen oder Antipathien. Die Machtstellung Deutschlands (ohne hier einen Vergleich ziehen zu wollen) wurde auch nicht durch Antipathie gebrochen, sondern durch militärische Gewalt.
Großmächte oder auch Supermächte müssen nicht populär sein. Oder glaubst Du ernsthaft, dass britische Empire wäre populär gewesen? Trotzdem hat es über rund 350 Jahre die Weltmeere und große Teile der Welt beherrscht.
So einfach ist das: Man muß dazu nicht populär sein. Allenfalls respektiert. Und die Amerikaner werden respektiert. Genauso wie auch Deutschland und Japan respektiert wurde, als deren Wirtschaft noch brummte. Beliebt sind wir nicht, und beliebt sind die Amerikaner nicht. Mir ist das egal. Ich werde nicht auf Knien rumrutschen um beliebt zu werden. Das was über die Historie zu sagen ist wurde gesagt und ich kann das auch bekräftigen. Mehr nicht. Das ist, kann und darf kein Hindernis sein für unsere Zukunft. Auch nicht für die japanische oder italienische Zukunft übrigens.
Und noch was. Welches Land war es denn, das immer versucht hat Deutschland klein zu halten? Unter Napoleon I Anfang des 19 Jhr. und unter Napoleon II 1870/71? Welches Land war es denn, das denn Versailler Vertrag erfunden hat? Und welches Land war es, dass versucht hat mit GB eine Achse zu bilden um 1989/90 die Wiedervereinigung zu verhindern?
Ich denke Du kommst selber drauf.
Frankreich und GB haben in einem Punkt identische Interessen. Sie wollen beide verhindern, dass Deutschland eine eigenständige und starke Macht in Europa ist.
Amerika will das an sich nicht, da Amerika selbst KEINE Hegemonialinteressen in Europa verfolgt (anders als Frankreich seit de Gaulle und zunehmend (auch im Zuge der Osterweiterung) Großbritannien.
Aus amerikanischer Sicht war daher Deutschland der wichtigste Partner auf dem europäischen Kontinent.
In der transatlantischen Allianz lag der diplomatische und politische Bewegungspielraum Deutschlands. Schröder hat in zerstört indem er eben dieses Bündnis schwer beschädigt hat.
Wie können wir denn nun das amerikanische Vertrauen, dass deutsche Regierungen von 1949-2002 mühevoll aufgebaut haben, und das nun in einem Federstrich der "Superstaatsmanner" Schröder-Fischer zerstört wurde wieder aufbauen?
Frankreich frohlockt natürlich.
Endlich wurde das (fast) geschafft, was Frankreich seit den 60er-Jahren versucht: Deutschland und die USA auseinander zu bringen.
Das hat Frankreich nicht geschaft unter Brandt oder Kohl. Aber Schröder hat den Franzosen den Triumph verschafft.
Zum Schaden Deutschlands, dass nun in die Rolle eines französischen Vasallen geraten könnte. Abhängig von Frankreich.
Es war diplomatische Klugheit aller Regierungen bisher die transatlantischen Beziehungen (Deutschland-USA) und die deutsch-französischen Beziehungen nie gegeneinander auspielen zu lassen. Es war ein kolossaler Fehler des Duos Schröder-Fischer das zu tun.

Are there actually still people out there that still believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or had any WMD's? Bush offcials even have flipflopped their position from Iraq having WMD's to trying to GET them.
Uh-huh. All this supposed evidence and there was nothing there! I doubt anyone will really know the real motivation behind Iraq's invasion when the terrorists weren't even there.

Touchy, touchy. I always know I'm dealing with someone intelligent when they attack my method of showing equality. :rolleyes:
Yes I´m attacking your methods. The term comrade is a communists term. So adress your commie friends with it if you like but not other.
Btw: do you happen to know that the nazis also used that term: comrade - Genosse (german). Aside of course of Kamerad - the old comrades well? What do you think of them, comrade (Genosse/Kamerad)?
Of course: The term shows "equality" or rather uniformity: Uniformity of one group based on political and class criteria (communism) or political and racial criteria (national socialism).
Were remains the individual and the individual rights in this? The answer is of course nowhere. They have to be subordinant to the collective (communism) or the nation (national socialism: You are nothing, your people are everything).
In that sense I reject all collectivists ideologies and both communism (as it has shown in its history) and national socialism (as it has shown in its history) equally.
And I reject to be adressed with a term which was equally used in the systems of the two biggest dictators of the 20 th century: Hitler and Stalin.

You've got to remember that kybernetie's goal in life is to shoot a burgler.
He lives in seething hatred of women and all living beings.
He is a typical american conservative.
Also, he doesnt understand that we didnt invade iraq to "spread democracy"
I´m not anything of that. I don´t have this goal. I don´t have a gun. I´m not American.
But I do think that you invaded Iraq for security reasons and to reshape the region and to make it - if not democratic at least more democratic.
Democratic societies are peaceful societies.
Just visit Italy or Japan or my country Germany.
We are today - in our overwhelming majority - a peaceful society.
But we weren´t like that when we were a totalitarian dictatorship (1933-45) or when we had an authoritarian form of government (always till 1918 and in East Germany till 1989/90).
Western style democracy is a new thing. It is new in human history. America as the "first new nation" (Lipset) came into being when this concept was discussed at the time of enlightenment. It is therefore the only country that is based on those principals. Even Britain although of an early begining with the Magna Charta or the Glorious revolution had time of authoritarian goverments before that an during that period (like Cromwell). Not to speak about many other nations. I think it is the destiny of America to change the world and to lead in this historic period. You are in that position due to the fact that you are the only remaining super power. Regardless of what your do: you are in that position, in that power and in that responsibilty.

So you see we invaded Iraq so we can get Iran from the West and the East (Afghanistan)? Surely this WAS impetus for the "liberation," just ask Paul Wolfowitz. So my question is, you find this necessary and acceptable?
Given the fact that Iran is persuing its nuclear program it was obviously helpful in order to surround Iran and to have the option to strike from two sides and not just one if the use of force against Iran should become necessary.
Whether I find it necessary and acceptable is actually irrelevant. It is the reality now and everybody has to act now in accordance to the realities.
I don´t have the intelligence informations the governments are having. But I think that it is very useful that the US is now having Iraq as its base - so probably this decision was necessary and unavoidable giving the dangerous developments in the region and the rise of islamism - which is happening before 9/11, since them, before the Iraq war and after the Iraq war. This development seems to be a historic necessity. The window of opportunity in the 1990s to solve the problems through dialogue and negotiations has closed. We can discuss what mistakes were done in the past. But that is leading nowhere. We have to take the current realities. We see a radicalisation in the muslim world that is simular to the radicalisation in Germany during the 1930s. And it is better to confront it before it confronts us. Preventive strikes should and ought to be an option in the fight against terrorism, which should be defined as a fight against radical islamism (after all: Terrorism is not an enemy: It is a method of fighting. A criminal method of fighting but still a method of fighting. And it is and was used by many different groups also outside the islamic spectrum. Therefore I would clarify it in order to define the enemy in this global fight and war: Islamism and islamic terrorism.)

Given the fact that Iran is persuing its nuclear program it was obviously helpful in order to surround Iran and to have the option to strike from two sides and not just one if the use of force against Iran should become necessary.
Whether I find it necessary and acceptable is actually irrelevant. It is the reality now and everybody has to act now in accordance to the realities.
I don´t have the intelligence informations the governments are having. But I think that it is very useful that the US is now having Iraq as its base - so probably this decision was necessary and unavoidable giving the dangerous developments in the region and the rise of islamism - which is happening before 9/11, since them, before the Iraq war and after the Iraq war. This development seems to be a historic necessity. The window of opportunity in the 1990s to solve the problems through dialogue and negotiations has closed. We can discuss what mistakes were done in the past. But that is leading nowhere. We have to take the current realities. We see a radicalisation in the muslim world that is simular to the radicalisation in Germany during the 1930s. And it is better to confront it before it confronts us. Preventive strikes should and ought to be an option in the fight against terrorism, which should be defined as a fight against radical islamism (after all: Terrorism is not an enemy: It is a method of fighting. A criminal method of fighting but still a method of fighting. And it is and was used by many different groups also outside the islamic spectrum. Therefore I would clarify it in order to define the enemy in this global fight and war: Islamism and islamic terrorism.)



Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program because it knows that the US no longer has the capacity to invade and disarm it. America's armed forces are bogged down in iraq, and will be for quite some time (four years minimum regardless of who gets elected).

Only a draft would provide the manpower to invade iran, and it would be political suicide. The american government has lost its credibility with the international community and at least half of its own population, so claims of an 'imminent nuclear threat' from iran would be dismissed as more of the same government lying. Bush has made both 'spreading democracy' and 'national security' victims to a parable called "the boy who cried wolf." Politicizing both for partisan and financial gain has debased them both for at least a generation.

Invading iraq handed atomic weapons to iran and handed a massive arsenal of conventional weapons to militants without state sponsorship. It was one of the greatest blunders in modern military history, and one day the history channel will devote shows to it.

Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program because it knows that the US no longer has the capacity to invade and disarm it. America's armed forces are bogged down in iraq, and will be for quite some time (four years minimum regardless of who gets elected).

Only a draft would provide the manpower to invade iran, and it would be political suicide. The american government has lost its credibility with the international community and at least half of its own population, so claims of an 'imminent nuclear threat' from iran would be dismissed as more of the same government lying. Bush has made both 'spreading democracy' and 'national security' victims to a parable called "the boy who cried wolf." Politicizing both for partisan and financial gain has debased them both for at least a generation.

Invading iraq handed atomic weapons to iran and handed a massive arsenal of conventional weapons to militants without state sponsorship. It was one of the greatest blunders in modern military history, and one day the history channel will devote shows to it.

Am I the only one that has not jumped to conclusions on the Iran-nuclear programs? I mean, Iran is saying that it's use is strictly domestic and the IAEA (the international body that monitor these things) says that there is no evidence yet that points to a military use of these programs.

While I agree that it is disturbing to see Iran developping nuclear programs, jumping to military use conclusions is a bit premature at this point.

Am I the only one that has not jumped to conclusions on the Iran-nuclear programs? I mean, Iran is saying that it's use is strictly domestic and the IAEA (the international body that monitor these things) says that there is no evidence yet that points to a military use of these programs.

While I agree that it is disturbing to see Iran developping nuclear programs, jumping to military use conclusions is a bit premature at this point.
Come on: Why do you think that a country that has more than enough domestic resources for itself and even for export is developing a very expansive nuclear program? Why are they doing when all they have to do is dig to the ground (cost around 5 Dollar per Barrel) to get the stuff?
BTW: Iran is persuing this program since 1997. It has nothing to do with President Bush. And the US is since them very suspicous about it. And the suspiciousness seems to be correct. Iran is hiding things from the IAEA. Iran is enriching uranium. Iran has built facilities which could be used to built a bomb without informing the IAEA. Centrifuges are contaminated. Every evidence is pointing to the fact that Iran tries to develop nukes - simular to Pakistan for that matter.
Iran is in breach of its obligations on the non-proliferation treaty. It is now on the international community to show its readiness to confront Iran and to impose sanctions on it as a first step. If Iran fails to comply the use of force should and ought to be an option as a last resort. A nuclear Iran would spark an arms race in the region (Turkey, Greece, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, others). That must be prevented. All option should remain on the table. It is likely however that the US needs to do the job again alone.
And there is no doubt this time that Iran is dangerous, has a lot of weapons (rockets which even reach Central Europe, WMD and that it is on its way to produce nukes).

Die Macht Amerikas bricht nicht durch Stimmungen oder Antipathien. Die Machtstellung Deutschlands (ohne hier einen Vergleich ziehen zu wollen) wurde auch nicht durch Antipathie gebrochen, sondern durch militärische Gewalt.
Großmächte oder auch Supermächte müssen nicht populär sein. Oder glaubst Du ernsthaft, dass britische Empire wäre populär gewesen? Trotzdem hat es über rund 350 Jahre die Weltmeere und große Teile der Welt beherrscht.
So einfach ist das: Man muß dazu nicht populär sein. Allenfalls respektiert. Und die Amerikaner werden respektiert. Genauso wie auch Deutschland und Japan respektiert wurde, als deren Wirtschaft noch brummte. Beliebt sind wir nicht, und beliebt sind die Amerikaner nicht. Mir ist das egal. Ich werde nicht auf Knien rumrutschen um beliebt zu werden. Das was über die Historie zu sagen ist wurde gesagt und ich kann das auch bekräftigen. Mehr nicht. Das ist, kann und darf kein Hindernis sein für unsere Zukunft. Auch nicht für die japanische oder italienische Zukunft übrigens.
Und noch was. Welches Land war es denn, das immer versucht hat Deutschland klein zu halten? Unter Napoleon I Anfang des 19 Jhr. und unter Napoleon II 1870/71? Welches Land war es denn, das denn Versailler Vertrag erfunden hat? Und welches Land war es, dass versucht hat mit GB eine Achse zu bilden um 1989/90 die Wiedervereinigung zu verhindern?
Ich denke Du kommst selber drauf.
Frankreich und GB haben in einem Punkt identische Interessen. Sie wollen beide verhindern, dass Deutschland eine eigenständige und starke Macht in Europa ist.
Amerika will das an sich nicht, da Amerika selbst KEINE Hegemonialinteressen in Europa verfolgt (anders als Frankreich seit de Gaulle und zunehmend (auch im Zuge der Osterweiterung) Großbritannien.
Aus amerikanischer Sicht war daher Deutschland der wichtigste Partner auf dem europäischen Kontinent.
In der transatlantischen Allianz lag der diplomatische und politische Bewegungspielraum Deutschlands. Schröder hat in zerstört indem er eben dieses Bündnis schwer beschädigt hat.
Wie können wir denn nun das amerikanische Vertrauen, dass deutsche Regierungen von 1949-2002 mühevoll aufgebaut haben, und das nun in einem Federstrich der "Superstaatsmanner" Schröder-Fischer zerstört wurde wieder aufbauen?
Frankreich frohlockt natürlich.
Endlich wurde das (fast) geschafft, was Frankreich seit den 60er-Jahren versucht: Deutschland und die USA auseinander zu bringen.
Das hat Frankreich nicht geschaft unter Brandt oder Kohl. Aber Schröder hat den Franzosen den Triumph verschafft.
Zum Schaden Deutschlands, dass nun in die Rolle eines französischen Vasallen geraten könnte. Abhängig von Frankreich.
Es war diplomatische Klugheit aller Regierungen bisher die transatlantischen Beziehungen (Deutschland-USA) und die deutsch-französischen Beziehungen nie gegeneinander auspielen zu lassen. Es war ein kolossaler Fehler des Duos Schröder-Fischer das zu tun.

(I have been reading the German discussion a bit. (I'm Dutch myself) but I hope you do not mind me replying in English. I can read German perfectly well but writing is a totally different matter. Reply in German if you want. I actually think your discussion is more coherent and interesting then the inter-ami battle going on here. Hence. :P )

Großmächte oder auch Supermächte müssen nicht populär sein.
Interesting point, however because something has often been the case in the past clearly does not make it a normative issue nor does it prescribe a course of action for Europes response (the response of those not part of the hegemony. There has been theorising regarding the increasing interest that a power has in maintaining the coherence of the international system (according to size). Ie. a greater power ought to invest more in maintaining the coherency of the international system. The international system with its institutions works, ultimately, in the interest of the United States. Most of the institutions have been set up or made possible by the US, including NATO and the transatlantic alliance, the world economic organisations... and, yes, the United Nations. It pains me to see how such institutions are being cast aside but I think it is unfair to blame the current German government for the split as the Franco-German axis was a response to US unilateralism and non-cooperation rather then the other way around. Yes, they go along with the Gaullists who want to form a block against the United States... a third power. But really, are the two mutually exclusive? The United States has traditionally been a proponent of European Unity. Giving Europe its own, independent voice does not change the fundamental transatlantic bond.

The irony of this whole affair is, I can sympathise with both of your points of view. Kybernetia is absolutely right about the significance of the transatlantic alliance to Europe. We cannot just ditch that because we are disgusted or dissapointed with what the United States does. I am thorougly dissapointed as well and can only shake my head at that nation in general. However there is the economy, and there are geopolitics. Europe needs the United States, and must support its current "role" because the United States will be unable, economically, to support itself. Despite its rhetoric, the United States economy is dependent on the world. Vice-versa the Dutch and German economies depend on the United States.

The Nation ran an interesting article on this titled "The End of Empire" (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020923&c=2&s=greider), which I can duly recommend to you. It argues that "Interdependence [between nations] is not the problem, since it would provide a healthy foundation for maintaining a peaceable planet. The problem is that US leadership acts as though the changes [of the postwar economic order] never happened."

Under Bush, US Hegemony has become official doctrine instead of a de facto situation. Naturally this poses a risk to European interests because even the pretense of consultation between allies has been dropped. I do fear that this relationship will suffer irreperable damage, especially if Bush is re-elected. I'm all with Lotringen's sentiment. The United States foreign policy at times disgusts me. I'm no fan. In addition, no self-respecting state will conciously submit itself to a state that will not even accept consultation. I'd hate for the anti-amerikanists to be right but itis increasingly looking like they are. Searching for European partners that will listen is the logical consequence if the US is no longer percieved to act like an ally.

Frankreich und GB haben in einem Punkt identische Interessen. Sie wollen beide verhindern, dass Deutschland eine eigenständige und starke Macht in Europa ist.

I am currently following a course on the history of western-european cooperation, and I can understand that this is a touchy issue. However is this not more of a historical problem (De Gaulle >_>) then a current-day problem? France wanted to put Germany down. Great Brittain perhaps to a much lesser extent. However to claim that this is still the case ignores the reality of the Franco-German axis that exists now. Perhaps it is uniting of Gaullists and leftist Germans against a common foe, but it is unity nonetheless because both France and Germany will be irrelevant if they do not act together.

Amerika will das an sich nicht, da Amerika selbst KEINE Hegemonialinteressen in Europa verfolgt

Aus amerikanischer Sicht war daher Deutschland der wichtigste Partner auf dem europäischen Kontinent.
Again... perhaps historically. But current-day? (Even with a CDU/CSU government) I doubt this is the case if you look at the power games of US foreign policy, which has been to divide Europe to act against, amongst others, German interests. Dividing Europe is, unfortunately, rather easy. Examples would be the ICC extradition treaties, the "Old Europe" remark and the coalition of the willing, and let us not forget US pressure on trying to get Turkey into the European Union. All of these issues are not exactly in partnership with Germany rather they are a coalition of (for example) Eastern European states against Germany. The original reason for making Germany the main partner (namely to rearm the Bundesrepublik against the Soviet threat) does not exist anymore. The US was Germanies partner for pragmatic reasons in the years after WWII, when nobody else would. That time is over.

---
On another note, this is in reply to those claiming that reasons for war can be determined "as we go"

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2003/trall030619.gif

Come on: Why do you think that a country that has more than enough domestic resources for itself and even for export is developing a very expansive nuclear program? Why are they doing when all they have to do is dig to the ground (cost around 5 Dollar per Barrel) to get the stuff?
BTW: Iran is persuing this program since 1997. It has nothing to do with President Bush. And the US is since them very suspicous about it. And the suspiciousness seems to be correct. Iran is hiding things from the IAEA. Iran is enriching uranium. Iran has built facilities which could be used to built a bomb without informing the IAEA. Centrifuges are contaminated. Every evidence is pointing to the fact that Iran tries to develop nukes - simular to Pakistan for that matter.
Iran is in breach of its obligations on the non-proliferation treaty. It is now on the international community to show its readiness to confront Iran and to impose sanctions on it as a first step. If Iran fails to comply the use of force should and ought to be an option as a last resort. A nuclear Iran would spark an arms race in the region (Turkey, Greece, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, others). That must be prevented. All option should remain on the table. It is likely however that the US needs to do the job again alone.
And there is no doubt this time that Iran is dangerous, has a lot of weapons (rockets which even reach Central Europe, WMD and that it is on its way to produce nukes).
Just because you say that Iran is hiding things from the IAEA does not make it so. I'd like a link please.

Furthermore, the facilities built by Iran that can be used for weapons are the same facilities used to devellop civil nuclear programs. Of course Iran is enriching uranium, it's all part of the process to developp nuclear central for electricity. It so happens that it can also be used for nuclear warheads. It doesn't means it will be used that way. So your claim that every evidence points to a military objective are in fact more in the line of "every evidence can be used to mean that they are developping nuclear weapons". It can also be used to mean "they are developping nuclear power plants".

As to why the don't use oil: who knows? Maybe they want to export their oil and make money that way. Maybe they signed contract with companies and their oil is not theirs to use. Maybe they don't want to sell it to the "western imperialists". Maybe they want nuclear because it's cleaner. Who knows!

As for the Iran breach of the non-proliferation treaty: It's only true if they ARE developping weapons. Furthermore, the US will never go far in thier pressures if they invoke the UN treaties for obvious reasons.

As for Iran having WMD, rockets, etc. I would just say that it is their soverieng right to have that arsenal and to use it to protect it's citizens. The fact that they might devellop nuclear weapons does in no way supress that right. I'm sorry but that's the way it is. If you want to disarm them, better be prepared to disarm every single nation on the globe because that's what your argument is saying.

Just because you say that Iran is hiding things from the IAEA does not make it so. I'd like a link please.




Does iran even bother letting the IAEA in anymore? They know they are immune to US invasion thanks to the iraq blunder.

Und noch was. Welches Land war es denn, das immer versucht hat Deutschland klein zu halten? Unter Napoleon I Anfang des 19 Jhr. und unter Napoleon II 1870/71? Welches Land war es denn, das denn Versailler Vertrag erfunden hat? Und welches Land war es, dass versucht hat mit GB eine Achse zu bilden um 1989/90 die Wiedervereinigung zu verhindern?
Ich denke Du kommst selber drauf.
Frankreich und GB haben in einem Punkt identische Interessen. Sie wollen beide verhindern, dass Deutschland eine eigenständige und starke Macht in Europa ist. da stimme ich dir sogar mal zu. gerade frankreichs ziel war (!) es deutschland klein zu machen, das es ja keine großmacht ist. der versailler vertrag zeigt dies ziemlich deutlich, deutschland sollte niemals wieder in der lage sein frankreich entgegentreten zu können. der 2.wkg zeigt dann wieder das du mit einer großmacht so nicht umspringen kannst. (übrigens bin ich sehr überrascht wie human hitler mit dem besetzten frankreich umgesprungen ist. da hätte ich anderes erwartet.)
aber heute seh ich keine anzeichen mehr dafür das frankreich versucht deutschland klein zu halten bis auf der versuch 89/90 natürlich. seitdem läuft doch alles in perfekter kooperation, und ich würde auch sagen das wir mit den franzosen noch enger zusammenarbeiten sollten. denen scheint heute die amerikanische vorherrschaft ein genauso großer dorn im auge zu sein wie deutschlands stärke anfang des 19. jahrhunderts.

Amerika will das an sich nicht, da Amerika selbst KEINE Hegemonialinteressen in Europa verfolgt (anders als Frankreich seit de Gaulle und zunehmend (auch im Zuge der Osterweiterung) Großbritannien. ha da muss ich doch wirklich mal ernsthaft lachen. europa ist DER wichtigste teil der amerikanischen hegemonie. wiso sonst gibt es in europe mehr amerikanische truppen als sonst wo auf der welt, wiso hat der cia überall ihre spitzel basen, wiso sind soviele amerikanische firmen hier aktiv und wiso ist der amerikanische kultur imerialismus hier derart ausgeprägt?
all das sind starke zeichen einer hegenomie (oder imperium oder was auch immer du das bezeichnen willst) und frankreich und england sind überhaupt nicht in der lage versuche anzufangen eine hegemonie in europa aufzubauen mal davon abgesehen das sie selbst von seiten amerika in deren hegemonie integriert sind. all das geschah ja in dem kalten krieg freiwillig. heute beginnen die menschen zu sehen das wenn 2 dämonen sich streiten und einer weg ist, immernoch ein dämon übrig ist der auch nicht viel besser ist als der andere.

In der transatlantischen Allianz lag der diplomatische und politische Bewegungspielraum Deutschlands. Schröder hat in zerstört indem er eben dieses Bündnis schwer beschädigt hat. im kalten krieg war das so ja. heute brauchen wir kein amerika mehr das uns vor den bösen russen beschützt und können auf eigenen beinen stehen. warum auch nicht, der einzige den das stört ist ... na? ... amerika!

Wie können wir denn nun das amerikanische Vertrauen, dass deutsche Regierungen von 1949-2002 mühevoll aufgebaut haben, und das nun in einem Federstrich der "Superstaatsmanner" Schröder-Fischer zerstört wurde wieder aufbauen?
äh nur um es mal klarzustellen, es war ein rumsfeld und bush der vor dem irak krieg monatelang frankreich und deutschland pausenlos beschimpft hat. unsere politiker haben endlich einmal rückrat gezeigt und sind nicht direkt bush meilenweit in den arsch gekrochen bei seinen ungerechtfertigten angriffskriegen. das ist doch ein wunderbarer anfang für ein selbstbewusstes deutschland.

Zum Schaden Deutschlands, dass nun in die Rolle eines französischen Vasallen geraten könnte. Abhängig von Frankreich.

ein scheußlicher gedanke das stimmt. aber ich sehe keine versuche von frankreich uns in eine vasallenposition zu bekommen. kooperation, ja, aber nicht vasall. wenn der fall eintritt wirst du sehen das ich als einer der ersten eine frankreich feindliche position einnehme, aber ich denke dieser fall wird nicht eintreten.

We are today - in our overwhelming majority - a peaceful society.
But we weren´t like that when we were a totalitarian dictatorship (1933-45) or when we had an authoritarian form of government (always till 1918 and in East Germany till 1989/90).
I think it is the destiny of America to change the world and to lead in this historic period. You are in that position due to the fact that you are the only remaining super power. Regardless of what your do: you are in that position, in that power and in that responsibilty.
its not the goverment system that form their acts, its the inside and outside influences that do this.
democracy isnt a guarantee for a peacefull society, neither is a dictatorship a guaratee for a war. its just that: a goverment system.
and i think it is wrong to force a goverment system on people. sooner or later evolution (a bit strange to use this word when talking about goverments, but it fits) will kick in and a country will take a new goverment system, one that suits their people best.

While I agree that it is disturbing to see Iran developping nuclear programs, jumping to military use conclusions is a bit premature at this point.
even if they do develope nuclear weapons, what is wrong in giving a country the right to defend itself?

A nuclear Iran would spark an arms race in the region (Turkey, Greece, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, others). That must be prevented. All option should remain on the table. well, amerika has sparked this arms race when theyve prooven that conventional weapons are useless against such an overpowered foe. what other choice is there than to go nuclear to defend themselfes?
And there is no doubt this time that Iran is dangerous, has a lot of weapons (rockets which even reach Central Europe, WMD and that it is on its way to produce nukes).
dangerous like iraq was.
if theyd launch nuke to europe or anywhere else their country will be turned into a glass desert. theyre not so stupid.

even if they do develope nuclear weapons, what is wrong in giving a country the right to defend itself?
Well, they DID sign a non-proliferation treaty. They did sign a paper that said they wouldn't.

Wich I find ironic that the US tries to enforce a UN treaty while they completely disregard the same UN. ;)

(I have been reading the German discussion a bit. (I'm Dutch myself) but I hope you do not mind me replying in English. I can read German perfectly well but writing is a totally different matter. Reply in German if you want. I actually think your discussion is more coherent and interesting then the inter-ami battle going on here. Hence. :P ) das ist wahr, viel interessanter als das was die amis von sich geben. auch wenn kybernias logik manchmal schwer zu folgen ist imo.
aber vielleicht sollte ich erstmal eine erklärung abgeben warum ich solch ein thema überhaupt lieber in deutsch diskuttiere. immergeht das ja auf mein konto.

1. diskussionen in englisch sind ein extrem und ich habe schließlich nicht english studiert, es ist leichter und die chance das ich mich nicht klar, sondern total wirr ausdrücke und mißverstanden werde ist dabei nicht vorhanden. in der vergangenheit ist das oft passiert und es ist wirklich nervötend in jedem zweiten post alles klarstellen zu müssen.
2. in einer diskussion in der es um amerikanischen imperialismus und das ende von deren imperium geht müssen sich zwangsläuftig amis finden die beleidigend und störend eingreifen. muss nicht sein sowas, rationale diskussionen sind viel schöner.
3. amis wollen für alles und jedes links als beweis, und das kann sich jeder selber suchen, keine lust drauf. außerdem lenkt das vom kern der diskussion ab.
4. es geht vor allem um deutschlands status in der welt, und was können amis da schon relevantes zu sagen? unsere europäischen nachbarn können das schon zum teil, aber man kann nicht alles haben.

The international system with its institutions works, ultimately, in the interest of the United States. Most of the institutions have been set up or made possible by the US, including NATO and the transatlantic alliance, the world economic organisations... and, yes, the United Nations. alle diese organisationen wurden von den amis während des kalten krieges eingeführt, aber kein anderes land scheint heute soviel verachtung für die UN aufzubringen wie die amerikaner. warscheinlich deswegen weil die UN heute kein verlängerter arm der amerikanischen politik mehr ist, sie ist selbstständig und wagt sich sogar die usa zu kritisieren. die anderen organisationen repräsentieren mehr oder weniger die politik des kalten krieges, und/oder die amerikanische hegemonie. vor allem mein ich damit die nato. mitgleidschaft darin ist nur eine unterordnung in das amerikanische system, und wir sollten das schnellstens ändern. vorteile haben wir ohnehin nicht durch die mitgliedschaft in der nato. wer sollte uns schon angreifen lol

I think it is unfair to blame the current German government for the split as the Franco-German axis was a response to US unilateralism and non-cooperation rather then the other way around. Yes, they go along with the Gaullists who want to form a block against the United States... a third power. But really, are the two mutually exclusive? The United States has traditionally been a proponent of European Unity. Giving Europe its own, independent voice does not change the fundamental transatlantic bond. vielleicht würde das den früheren amerikanischen regierungen nichts ausmachen, aber der derzeitigen schon. so interpretiere ich jedenfalls das verhalten der amerikanischen politik. und es macht auch sinn wenn man europa nicht als afrika artiges gebilde sieht sondern als die immense wirtschafts und militärmacht die europe ist wenn es sich zusammenschließen würde. diese macht würde amerika völlig in den schatten stellen, und hätte auch wirtschaftlich amerika völlig in der hand, das wissen die in amerika auch. wenn frankreich und deutschland näher zusammenkommen würden, sich dann zusammenschließen ist das warscheinlich der beginn von einem vereinten europa und davor haben die amis mehr angst als vor allem anderen das in der welt passiert, mehr als china, terrorismus und russland zusammen. das gesamte verhalten in den letzten jahren, inclusive irak, zielt darauf ab das zu verhindern. frankreich und deutschland haben nämlich tatsächlich eine nicht unerhebliche menge an öl aus dem irak bekommen. jetzt nichtmehr, unter anderem deshalb ist unser benzin so teuer.

We cannot just ditch that because we are disgusted or dissapointed with what the United States does. I am thorougly dissapointed as well and can only shake my head at that nation in general. disgusted ist das richtige wort. und nicht nur die politik in den letzten jahren, auch die ganze gesellschaft, die ganze denkstruktur, das militär und GNP über allem steht ist einfach wiederlich. und noch so viele andere sachen, aber das ist ja hier nicht der punkt.
However there is the economy, and there are geopolitics. Europe needs the United States, and must support its current "role" because the United States will be unable, economically, to support itself. Despite its rhetoric, the United States economy is dependent on the world. Vice-versa the Dutch and German economies depend on the United States. aber zu einem wesentlich kleinerem prozentsatz. amerika ist zu 80% abhängig vom ausland, deutschland nur zu 20%. das sind jedenfalls die aktuellsten zahlen. auch wenn diese 20% wegbrechen, wir verkraften das. die amis nicht, mit diesem enorm aufgeblähten militär gibt das einen gewaltigen knall.

Under Bush, US Hegemony has become official doctrine instead of a de facto situation. Naturally this poses a risk to European interests because even the pretense of consultation between allies has been dropped. I do fear that this relationship will suffer irreperable damage, especially if Bush is re-elected. na das hoffe ich doch! bush SOLL wiedergewählt werden, und sich noch extremer verhalten! mehr kriege, mehr beleidigungen, mehr aggressionen, mehr ignorierte verträge! vielleicht überzeugt das endlich auch die letzten kritiker das europa und deutschland endlich auf eigenen beinen stehen muss, und es nicht nötig hat teil eines imperiums zu sein.

aber dein formulierung das die hegemonie offizielle doktrin geworden ist, ist zutreffend, und so schön zusammengefasst in einem satz. warum bin ich nicht darauf gekommen...

I'm all with Lotringen's sentiment. The United States foreign policy at times disgusts me. I'm no fan. In addition, no self-respecting state will conciously submit itself to a state that will not even accept consultation. I'd hate for the anti-amerikanists to be right but itis increasingly looking like they are. Searching for European partners that will listen is the logical consequence if the US is no longer percieved to act like an ally. dem stimm ich auch zu. jedes land mit nur ein bischen selbstvertrauen wird sich in so einem fall abwenden uns sich alliierte suchen. keine herrscher.
und es stärkt meine vorhersage das sich bei einem zusammenschluss von frankreich und deutschland ganz europa zusammenschließen wird. naja bis auf einige wenige natürlich. polen zb, aber das ist ein fall für sich.


I am currently following a course on the history of western-european cooperation, and I can understand that this is a touchy issue. However is this not more of a historical problem (De Gaulle >_>) then a current-day problem? France wanted to put Germany down. Great Brittain perhaps to a much lesser extent. However to claim that this is still the case ignores the reality of the Franco-German axis that exists now. Perhaps it is uniting of Gaullists and leftist Germans against a common foe, but it is unity nonetheless because both France and Germany will be irrelevant if they do not act together. sehr wahr. beide, deutschland und frankreich haben einzeln wenig zu sagen, aber der zusammenhalt stärkt beide. deutschland in eine vasallenposition zwingen zu wollen wird diese zusammenarbeit beenden, und das wissen die franzosen sicher auch.
die frühere konstellation von deutsch-französischer feindschaft ist vorbei, und gerade die beiden länder haben sehr viel zu gewinnen in ihrer zusammenarbeit. schon amüsant wenn mans durchdenkt...

Again... perhaps historically. But current-day? (Even with a CDU/CSU government) I doubt this is the case if you look at the power games of US foreign policy, which has been to divide Europe to act against, amongst others, German interests. Dividing Europe is, unfortunately, rather easy. Examples would be the ICC extradition treaties, the "Old Europe" remark and the coalition of the willing, obwohl das so eine boomerang aktion von den amis wahr. "Altes Europe" hat sich in eine art zeichen für selbstbewußtsein gegenüber amerika gewandelt, und wurde schon oft genug mit stolz gesagt. und "Koalition der Arschkriecher" hat sich aus der "coalition of the willing" entwickelt. hehe

and let us not forget US pressure on trying to get Turkey into the European Union. haben wir auch schon durchdiskuttiert. 30mil türken die sich über den balkan in richtung deutschland bewegen KANN nur die horrorvision jedes politikers sein. das gibt einen bürgerkrieg wie wir den noch nie hatten, und dann ist deutschland wirklich nichts anderes als ein dritte welt land.
ich seh das als direkten angriff gegen die existenz unseres landes. aber das zeigt den amerikanischen geist, bevor die unabhängig werden, zerstören wir sie lieber.

All of these issues are not exactly in partnership with Germany rather they are a coalition of (for example) Eastern European states against Germany. nun, die momentane ausgabe vom spiegel hat die überschrift "Deutschland ist exportweltmeister - von arbeitsplätzen".
und die gehen alle an die ostblock länder. würde mich nicht wundern wenn die amis da auch ihre finger im spiel haben. der ostblock ist ein kuckucksei, ein verdammt teures dazu. und dann noch polen. grrrr über die könnt ich mich endlos aufregen.

The original reason for making Germany the main partner (namely to rearm the Bundesrepublik against the Soviet threat) does not exist anymore. The US was Germanies partner for pragmatic reasons in the years after WWII, when nobody else would. That time is over. aus partnern aus notwendigkeit sind wieder konkurrenten geworden, wie eh und je. das spiel geht weiter :D

Well, they DID sign a non-proliferation treaty. They did sign a paper that said they wouldn't. yes thats true. you can blame them about ignoring a treaty. but i question the logic of this treaty. the US does the same and build up their nuclear arsenal. and hasnt bush prooven that hes aggressive and dont care for treatys?

Wich I find ironic that the US tries to enforce a UN treaty while they completely disregard the same UN. ;)
well... he cant be honest and say "we could use oil. he has oil, lets take it!" so any other reason fits.

You won´t get this news. Because the Americans are not like the Nazis or Imperial Japan. They don´t commit genocide.
of course, i believe that the American Indians and the Vietnamese don't count. I believe this because i am a patriotic American citizen; if i didn't beleive this then i would be a traitor weakening my country in the war on terrorism and the government would be perfectly justified in locking me up indefinately without trial as part of a 'national security investigation', as the USA PATRIOT act entitles it to.

Once again: Why do you people insist on reliving a two year old debate? Whether or not we went to war for the right reasons or not, WE'RE AT WAR. Period. End of debate. One side won, the other lost. Stop trying to relive the pre-war days and live in the fucking present.

The question is not whether or not we should have gone to war, that question has already answered itself. The fact is, we are at war, so how do we either get out of it safely or bring it to completion, not "Was it good that we did that?" two years after the fact.

Get over it. The Peace activists lost. There was, and is, a war. Stop trying to win a debate from two years ago.

One second guys, I gotta comment on this one.

In America, the citizens drive the democracy, right? It is our duty as Americans not to blindly follow what our leaders feel is best for us. When a leader goes to war for reasons that are later found out to be untrue, it is not only our right, but it is our duty to hold them accountable.

That's why we have elections. Intelligent Citizens = The ultimate check-n-balance.

Too bad we can't all be.

Am I the only one that has not jumped to conclusions on the Iran-nuclear programs? I mean, Iran is saying that it's use is strictly domestic and the IAEA (the international body that monitor these things) says that there is no evidence yet that points to a military use of these programs.

While I agree that it is disturbing to see Iran developping nuclear programs, jumping to military use conclusions is a bit premature at this point.


Iran is under the impression that the US is waging a war against islamic sovereignty, and the only weapon against a military superbully like the US is atomic deterrance.

cant you see
the iraqis can, and people like me have been saying it for years
isszy controls the us's mideast politiks, with out our support and aid they would either
a. have fallen and the palistians(sp) would have thier land back
b. would already be exposed for genocide

so the iraqis are right us service members in the mid east basicly are run by isszy

I have three questions:

1. Are you insane/mentally retarded?
2. Genocide? Do you consider killing terrorists genocide? Palestinians kill to kill innocents...Israelis kill to get the terrorists.
3. Yes, Israel controls middle east politics. WHAT middle east politics? ISRAEL IS THE ONLY DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. Are you trying to say that an itty bitty piece of land 9 miles wide at it's thinnest controls all of it's surrounding Asian continental countries and most of Northern Africa?

I have three questions:

1. Are you insane/mentally retarded?
2. Genocide? Do you consider killing terrorists genocide? Palestinians kill to kill innocents...Israelis kill to get the terrorists.
3. Yes, Israel controls middle east politics. WHAT middle east politics? ISRAEL IS THE ONLY DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. Are you trying to say that an itty bitty piece of land 9 miles wide at it's thinnest controls all of it's surrounding Asian continental countries and most of Northern Africa?


Israelis have killed many times more palestinian civilians than they themselves have lost.

Also, israel is using its military to opress the civilian inhabitants of gaza and the west bank while it breaks internation law by colonizing.

When israel returns to her legal borders, she will have the moral high ground.

Israelis have killed many times more palestinian civilians than they themselves have lost.

So does that make the Palestinians right? Because they've lost more lives? That's because Palestinian terrorists hide in residential areas while Israel tries to hunt them down. Obviously it's a bit difficult if Hamas is plotting away in Granny's basement. Also the CAUSES are what makes it wrong...PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS TRY to murder innocents. That's not what Israel is trying to do.

Also, israel is using its military to opress the civilian inhabitants of gaza and the west bank while it breaks internation law by colonizing.

Colonizing? The Palestinians were not forced to leave Israel. They CHOSE to and were persuaded by other Arab countries not to mix with those nasty Jews. Then they start complaining when they can't get back into Jerusalem because people are getting blown up? Honestly, I think having to wait in line at a checkpoint is better than hundreds of lives go down the drain.

When israel returns to her legal borders, she will have the moral high ground.

So this is about brownie points???

Much as americans used slurs like "kraut" and "charlie" and any number of other things to refer to their enemies in various wars, the Iraqi People have a term for american troops: jews.

His example was the overhearing of some iraqis saying "dont go down that road, the jews set up a roadblock."

Food for thought i suppose. Maybe its a side-effect of our "catastrophic success"
Doesn't surprise me, when I was working part-time as a barman, during the invasion of Afghanistan, an off-duty soldier expressed disappointment that he wasn't being sent, because as he put it "I want to kill myself a ******". I didn't even bother correcting him on the matter of ethnicity...

Goddamn ignorant rednecks.

So does that make the Palestinians right? Because they've lost more lives? That's because Palestinian terrorists hide in residential areas while Israel tries to hunt them down. Obviously it's a bit difficult if Hamas is plotting away in Granny's basement. Also the CAUSES are what makes it wrong...PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS TRY to murder innocents. That's not what Israel is trying to do.
Israel knows damn well that when it fires modern military explosives indiscriminately into residential areas that it will kill civilians en masse. It is intended.







So this is about brownie points???
Was japan's invasion of her neighbors a matter of 'brownie points' ? germany's???

Israel is a military aggressor, it is not in a position to claim self defense, it is the schoolyard bully of the region.


...

*bump* :D
cant resist...*bump*
kybernia where are you

and again *bump*