NationStates Jolt Archive

I fail to see how Socialism kills less than Capitalism, but hey if you believe that the NHS doesn't save lives then you go ahead...
The fact is, whether America is the 'greatest' country on earth, and by that I mean most advanced and with a stable economy it doesn't mean that everything it does is right infact some things about the U.S and what it has done are unbelievable and you swagger in saying that the U.N is wrong, an institution designed to promote equality, says alot about the U.S huh?

Back the World War Two which may have been addressed on a previous page I'm uncertain as I haven't read every single page. The fact is the U.S wasn't going to fight until they were attacked, the country which now claims to be The Force For Good in the world didn't even attack Hitler until Japan bombed them, pathetic!

Back to more previous points, whether people in the U.S like it or not you're not infallible, infact I think Vietnam proves that atleast.
And you attacked Vietnam because one side was Communist and God forbid (I'm an agnostic but nice term huh?) that any country support a system of government where everybody is equal, that would be a terrible crime against humanity!
You can't invade countries because they disagree with you, just because you have big guns pointed at Europe doesn't make Europe evil, it just means that we live in a nuclear age, and guess what the U.S aren't always the 'good-guys' they're just like any other country like the U.K, France, Germany...
I don't think you're allowed in here- too rational. ;)

I don't think you're allowed in here- too rational. ;)

Lol, thanks. :)

I like your posts too, I think. *Rushes of to check your exact posts*
-Ross

Just for fun...

I fail to see how Socialism kills less than Capitalism, but hey if you believe that the NHS doesn't save lives then you go ahead...

Sure the NHS saves lives, so do scientists who create anything from drugs to biomedical devices to chemicals that kill bacteria.

The fact is, whether America is the 'greatest' country on earth, and by that I mean most advanced and with a stable economy it doesn't mean that everything it does is right infact some things about the U.S and what it has done are unbelievable and you swagger in saying that the U.N is wrong, an institution designed to promote equality, says alot about the U.S huh?

I don't know if America is the greatest country on earth, but you're right, even if it is not everything it does is right. And not everything it does is wrong. I think it is proper for America to hold the UN accountable to the extent it can, regardless of what the UN considers its mission ('equality' as you say). When countries such as Sudan are given a post on the Human Rights comission of the UN, that speaks volumes. There is merit to pointing out such stupidity.


Back the World War Two which may have been addressed on a previous page I'm uncertain as I haven't read every single page. The fact is the U.S wasn't going to fight until they were attacked, the country which now claims to be The Force For Good in the world didn't even attack Hitler until Japan bombed them, pathetic!?

To deny that the US tipped the balance in WW2 is to ignore history, regardless of why it got involved. It certainly didn't have to- even if Hitler declared war on the US there is no way the Nazi machine could've marched to DC. After the war, the US and the USSR filled the power vacuum left by the UK and the French. In this dichotomy, the US clearly was "The Force for Good". Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, clearly the US is questioning and seeking to find its new role in the world. However, this doesn't mean that it is not at least "A" force for good in the world, and considering the alternatives, the best nation to fill the military and economic power vaccum.

Back to more previous points, whether people in the U.S like it or not you're not infallible, infact I think Vietnam proves that atleast.
And you attacked Vietnam because one side was Communist and God forbid (I'm an agnostic but nice term huh?) that any country support a system of government where everybody is equal, that would be a terrible crime against humanity!

Americans do not believe they're infallible in the least, and by and large do not get into large scale conflict. In reference to Communism, it is a system that, based on results, is inherently immoral...and has never lead to anything more than equality of misery for the masses. Poletbureau members and high ranking bureaucrats lived fairly lavish lifestyles, while the rank and file wait in bread lines. Based on results, both as a government and plan of economics, it is an utter failure responsible for millions of deaths both from political oppression and planned economics.

You can't invade countries because they disagree with you, just because you have big guns pointed at Europe doesn't make Europe evil, it just means that we live in a nuclear age, and guess what the U.S aren't always the 'good-guys' they're just like any other country like the U.K, France, Germany...
-Ross

America doesn't have big guns pointed at Europe, America has big guns in Europe to defend it from a threat that no longer exists, and that allowed Europe to build a generous welfare state instead of being able to defend itself.

You cant look at Europe as a whole as its not one nation, certainly the UK economy is much healthier than the US with record employment levels.

Dont forget your $1 trillion defiect. There was a surplus when Clinton left.

The US has never had a surplus, it has always had a deficet.

Just for fun...
I don't know if America is the greatest country on earth, but you're right, even if it is not everything it does is right. And not everything it does is wrong. I think it is proper for America to hold the UN accountable to the extent it can, regardless of what the UN considers its mission ('equality' as you say). When countries such as Sudan are given a post on the Human Rights comission of the UN, that speaks volumes. There is merit to pointing out such stupidity.

Every country in the world has been in the Human Rights comission at some point in time. Why? because THAT's the system, it's a rotating slot in alphabetical order. Why do they do it like this? having these countries run the Human Rights comission for a month creates an incentive to improve the conditions in their countries just to live up to the ideals of being head of said comission. There's a lot more to this than just "OMG!!11! SUD4N C0NTR0LS T3H UN HUM4N R1GHT5 COMI551ION1?1?!!!?1 OH NOES!!11! OMG WTF LOL!1!!1"

Once people get off their high horse in regards to the UN is when they'll start to learn how it operates a certain way and why it operates that way. It's very logical, you just need to see it with a non-partisan eye.

The US has never had a surplus, it has always had a deficet.

250+ billion surpluss by the end of Clinton's mandate. Look it up.

Sure the NHS saves lives, so do scientists who create anything from drugs to biomedical devices to chemicals that kill bacteria.

So we agree there, I'm uncertain, you agree with me?

I don't know if America is the greatest country on earth, but you're right, even if it is not everything it does is right. And not everything it does is wrong. I think it is proper for America to hold the UN accountable to the extent it can, regardless of what the UN considers its mission ('equality' as you say). When countries such as Sudan are given a post on the Human Rights comission of the UN, that speaks volumes. There is merit to pointing out such stupidity.

So you're saying that the U.N is wrong and that if we all decay into anarchy where the U.N can't hold the U.S accountable is better, accept it the history of the U.S needs more governing than the history of the U.N whether you wish to accept it or not.

To deny that the US tipped the balance in WW2 is to ignore history, regardless of why it got involved. It certainly didn't have to- even if Hitler declared war on the US there is no way the Nazi machine could've marched to DC. After the war, the US and the USSR filled the power vacuum left by the UK and the French. In this dichotomy, the US clearly was "The Force for Good". Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, clearly the US is questioning and seeking to find its new role in the world. However, this doesn't mean that it is not at least "A" force for good in the world, and considering the alternatives, the best nation to fill the military and economic power vaccum.

Probably, but I think the allies would've still won, just perhaps with much heavier losses.
And yes it is very important why America participated.
"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done."
I think I've got the quote right, it seems to work here, seeing as the U.S wasn't willing to attack an obvious genocidal tyrant it makes them hypocrits for all crusades to come against such foes. They can't take the moral high ground.

Americans do not believe they're infallible in the least, and by and large do not get into large scale conflict. In reference to Communism, it is a system that, based on results, is inherently immoral...and has never lead to anything more than equality of misery for the masses. Poletbureau members and high ranking bureaucrats lived fairly lavish lifestyles, while the rank and file wait in bread lines. Based on results, both as a government and plan of economics, it is an utter failure responsible for millions of deaths both from political oppression and planned economics.

There's never really been a true democratic communist country, it's really a Utopian set of ideals.
And on that subject I wonder how many people have died because of greed and hunger for profit, you have everybody in the slave trade, many past wars for land etc.
So even if they were true communist countries you're talking about which they are not the Capitalist death rate would be far higher.

America doesn't have big guns pointed at Europe, America has big guns in Europe to defend it from a threat that no longer exists, and that allowed Europe to build a generous welfare state instead of being able to defend itself.

So you're saying there isn't a single nuclear weapon pointed at any country in Europe, that's alittle naive of you, I bet most countries with nuclear weapons have some pointed at allies, they just keep it secret.

generous welfare state instead of being able to defend itself

Firstly, how much soil in Europe actually belongs to America?
Also, as you seem to claim the U.S is doing so well economically I could point at that it'd be very easy for you to have a welfare state that easily out-matches ours, but you choose not to. That's a major difference between the U.S and Europe.
Also, is it just me or do countries in Europe actually have armies? I mean the U.K is fighting in Iraq to help out the U.S, are there troops which have been asked to cover a reasonable section of Iraq by the American government, are these troops inferior. I doubt it, or you wouldn't have asked.
-Ross

I havent read many of the replies to this topic, because well im lazy.

I am constantly annoyed when people say 'but it has an effect on [insert country here] and the rest of the world'.

Hardy har har. Every countries leader/government affects a multitude of other countries, so dont go singling the US out merely because they are the only superpower left.

I agree the US has a great deal of influence, but so does the major players in Europe. France, Germany and their EU chums has just as much or more influence on the world as the US. But they generally go about their ways peacfully, so it doesnt get as much awe and repent that the US does when they use military force..

So to all you turds who think you should have a say in the electing of the US President, you can, just move their from your preppy Chateau's.

[QUOTE=Vacant Planets]Every country in the world has been in the Human Rights comission at some point in time. Why? because THAT's the system, it's a rotating slot in alphabetical order. Why do they do it like this? having these countries run the Human Rights comission for a month creates an incentive to improve the conditions in their countries just to live up to the ideals of being head of said comission. There's a lot more to this than just "OMG!!11! SUD4N C0NTR0LS T3H UN HUM4N R1GHT5 COMI551ION1?1?!!!?1 OH NOES!!11! OMG WTF LOL!1!!1"[QUOTE]

Please tell me, in a cause and effect relationship, what human rights ideals Sudan is now living up to simply because it received a head position on a UN committee?

Also, please tell me how rotating these positions benefits any mission of improving human rights around the globe?

So to all you turds who think you should have a say in the electing of the US President, you can, just move their from your preppy Chateau's.
I had to laugh when I read this. Not everyone here is European you know, even though most of the hate seems directed at them.
And it's chateaux. ;)

So you're saying there isn't a single nuclear weapon pointed at any country in Europe, that's alittle naive of you, I bet most countries with nuclear weapons have some pointed at allies, they just keep it secret.

No, no nuclear weapons are pointed at any country in Europe (although i would like a few to be....). I dont know if you've caught on to the technilogical changes that have come in, in the past ooooh lets say the past few decades? But yeah, they allow nuclear powers to lo and behold point them anywhere with computer navigation.

All nuclear weapons have a safeguard which means they are aimed by default at a no-existent target (read ocean). Even ones which have not been declared have this safeguard, just it may not be in the designated area.

Ok! Time for Canada, the U.S's closest neighbour, to add a few cents worth of comments.

The Canadian economy hasn't been this high in decades.
Everyone in Canada who had any sort of financial background believed that the downward spiral that Bush put the U.S in would enevitably take Canada with it. However, our doller skyrocketed to 85c American! (don't laugh, that's really high. It sounds pathetic, but it's exciting.)

This is not because we helped America in any recent way. Sure, we sent a few troops to Afghanistan. The extent of what we did there was basically get bombed by American troops. There's one Canadian boy who won't be coming home. It was our first death in a combat zone since WWII. And it was a trigger-happy American pilot who opened fire, after getting explicit orders not to. Friendly fire incedent my ass.

When Bush asked Canada to send troops to Iraq, we basically laughed and said: "We are not doing you any favours." Bush then got into a tizzy, but at least there wasn't any "Freedom Fries" stuff going on. Which I find funny, but sad at the same time.

I said at the beginning of Bush's first term that my friends and I would live to see the downfall of the greastest empire since Rome. They laughed at me then, but now...well, let's just say that I'm not sad to see the hypocritical bugger go. It's time that the largest war-mongering state was put to rest and allowed a European ruled world once again.

Besides, Europe is so very, very pretty!

However, I did enjoy NYC while I was there. Necause New York City is it's own little country...and it's just cool.

yeah, I think I'm done my rambling for today. I probably just reiterated points...but that's ok.

woot

No, no nuclear weapons are pointed at any country in Europe (although i would like a few to be....). I dont know if you've caught on to the technilogical changes that have come in, in the past ooooh lets say the past few decades? But yeah, they allow nuclear powers to lo and behold point them anywhere with computer navigation.

All nuclear weapons have a safeguard which means they are aimed by default at a no-existent target (read ocean). Even ones which have not been declared have this safeguard, just it may not be in the designated area.

Funny, I didn't think the American Military was in the habit of giving out it's tactical nuclear strategies to "ordinary" people.

I dont think when he said point, he meant that they line it up through a sight... He probably means that it's a set program they can pick from a list. And believe me, they'll have them programmed in somewhere. Be stupid not to.

The Mighty Golden Sun: So we agree there, I'm uncertain, you agree with me?

I agree that the NHS saves lives, but I am not convinced that absent the NHS, there wouldn't be another body to fulfill similar functions.

So you're saying that the U.N is wrong and that if we all decay into anarchy where the U.N can't hold the U.S accountable is better, accept it the history of the U.S needs more governing than the history of the U.N whether you wish to accept it or not.

Please clarify. I'm saying that the UN is sometimes wrong. I'm saying that "if we all decay into anarchy" is an unliklely scenario, also if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Who, exactly, does the UN hold accountable? What do you mean that "the U.S needs more governing than the history of the U.N whether you wish to accept it or not"?

Probably, but I think the allies would've still won, just perhaps with much heavier losses.

There is nothing on the Western front to indicate this, and without allied pressure on the west, it would've been impossible for the USSR to push as eastward as it did.


And yes it is very important why America participated.
"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done."
I think I've got the quote right, it seems to work here, seeing as the U.S wasn't willing to attack an obvious genocidal tyrant it makes them hypocrits for all crusades to come against such foes. They can't take the moral high ground.

Is that quote a principle or is it something to be conveniently slapped on hodgepodge? And to state that because the US didn't rush out and attack Hitler when it became known that he was exterminating the Jews, et al., means that the US cannot therefore take a stand against any other tyrant is preposterous. That's like saying that since you didn't call the police on your abusive neighbor the first time you heard screaming, you can never never again call the police at a sign of struggle. "You see officer, I abdicated the moral high ground weeks ago, and I don't feel right reclaiming it. Sorry about Mrs. Hendrson, she was a nice lady."



There's never really been a true democratic communist country, it's really a Utopian set of ideals.

There has never been a truly democratic communist country because power and choice are incomatible.

And on that subject I wonder how many people have died because of greed and hunger for profit, you have everybody in the slave trade, many past wars for land etc.

Do you think any fewer have died because of greed for power, gulag slave labor, and Afganistan? We're not talking communist theory, we're taling communist reality.

So even if they were true communist countries you're talking about which they are not the Capitalist death rate would be far higher.

I'm sorry, but I thought we were talking about the reality of the implementation of the communist system, not fairy tales. In that case, there have been no true capitalist systems. So I guess we're all just absolved of our sins.

So you're saying there isn't a single nuclear weapon pointed at any country in Europe, that's alittle naive of you, I bet most countries with nuclear weapons have some pointed at allies, they just keep it secret.

You can speculate until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make your contention true.

Firstly, how much soil in Europe actually belongs to America?

Out suide of embassys, none. We're in Europe at the behest of European governments.


Also, as you seem to claim the U.S is doing so well economically I could point at that it'd be very easy for you to have a welfare state that easily out-matches ours, but you choose not to. That's a major difference between the U.S and Europe.

And what you choose for your government to do for it's citizens is your own choice. We could easily have a more generous welfare state but we choose NOT TO.

Also, is it just me or do countries in Europe actually have armies? I mean the U.K is fighting in Iraq to help out the U.S, are there troops which have been asked to cover a reasonable section of Iraq by the American government, are these troops inferior. I doubt it, or you wouldn't have asked.

Absolutely the UK has a military...the largest in Europe in fact. But nothing in comparison to the US. This has been a major issue with the NATO countries for decades- most of Western Europe investing little in its own defence, its implemented technology being outdated.

I agree that the NHS saves lives, but I am not convinced that absent the NHS, there wouldn't be another body to fulfill similar functions.

Like the one in the U.S where if you haven't got enough money for your health insurance (Is that the term they use?) you can pass by hospitals in an ambulance which could've saved your life.

Please clarify. I'm saying that the UN is sometimes wrong. I'm saying that "if we all decay into anarchy" is an unliklely scenario, also if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Who, exactly, does the UN hold accountable? What do you mean that "the U.S needs more governing than the history of the U.N whether you wish to accept it or not"?

I mean, theoretically sanctions should be placed upon America by the U.N for Iraq, because they drew the conclusion that the war was illegal. This of course isn't neccesarrily my personel opinion just and example. And when the U.N placed sanctions on certain regimes in Africa.
I merely meant that the history of the U.S doesn't really compare favourably to the history of the U.N.

Is that quote a principle or is it something to be conveniently slapped on hodgepodge? And to state that because the US didn't rush out and attack Hitler when it became known that he was exterminating the Jews, et al., means that the US cannot therefore take a stand against any other tyrant is preposterous. That's like saying that since you didn't call the police on your abusive neighbor the first time you heard screaming, you can never never again call the police at a sign of struggle. "You see officer, I abdicated the moral high ground weeks ago, and I don't feel right reclaiming it. Sorry about Mrs. Hendrson, she was a nice lady."

I wouldn't have remembered that quote from ages ago if it wasn't significant.
No, what I actually meant was that the U.S mentality of 'we are the good guys' which you must admit they adopt often is a hypocritical one, they should fight against dictators and such but they shouldn't act as if they are a force chosen by some higher being to do it, they should accept that others are needed too.
I'm merely pointing out, don't assume America is somehow better than the rest of the world.

-Ross

The stock markets jumped purely because of relief that the election was not going to drag on over weeks and months.

The stock markets jumped because they knew they had another four years of sweetheart deals.

Ok! Time for Canada, the U.S's closest neighbour, to add a few cents worth of comments.

The Canadian economy hasn't been this high in decades.
Everyone in Canada who had any sort of financial background believed that the downward spiral that Bush put the U.S in would enevitably take Canada with it. However, our doller skyrocketed to 85c American! (don't laugh, that's really high. It sounds pathetic, but it's exciting.)


Growing up across from Sarnia, Ontario, I love Canada for its contribution to sport in the form of hockey and its mass market beers.

Having said that, the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the American dollar is not an indication of the strength of the Canadian economy relative to the American economy. It is an indication of monetary policy. A devalued dollar makes American exports cheaper.

America has never once in it's history relied on Europe to do anything because its filled with a bunch of skitzophrenic nations who are powerless.
May I remind you that if it weren't for the Europeans you would still be hunting animals on the plains with your bow and arrows to get some food? By bashing Europe you are bashing your own history and ancestors. Too bad most Americans are so blinded that all they can see is "Look at us, we are so great because we have big guns", but they forget that they barely have a history at all and they have to thank Europe for bringing people and advancement to their continent.

Ah well, I hope I still live the day China takes over from America because it's just a matter of time before that it is going to happen. Maybe it will bring back some of the peace we had during the 10-13th century.

[QUOTE=The Mighty Golden Sun]Like the one in the U.S where if you haven't got enough money for your health insurance (Is that the term they use?) you can pass by hospitals in an ambulance which could've saved your life.

It is law in the United States that a hospital must treat people regardless of their ability to pay.



I mean, theoretically sanctions should be placed upon America by the U.N for Iraq, because they drew the conclusion that the war was illegal. This of course isn't neccesarrily my personel opinion just and example. And when the U.N placed sanctions on certain regimes in Africa.

It sounds to me that the US action was in keeping with the quote you listed on your last post


I merely meant that the history of the U.S doesn't really compare favourably to the history of the U.N.

The US history is 200 years long. The history of the UN is a quarter of that. No doubt the US has made mistakes, but most of them the same mistakes made by those who bring it up incessantly.

I wouldn't have remembered that quote from ages ago if it wasn't significant.

I would then suggest you apply that principle evenhandedly

No, what I actually meant was that the U.S mentality of 'we are the good guys' which you must admit they adopt often is a hypocritical one, they should fight against dictators and such but they shouldn't act as if they are a force chosen by some higher being to do it, they should accept that others are needed too.

We accept that we need others. I think we made it perfectly clear that we'd rather have your support in the whole Iraq situation. But if others are unwilling to help, should we, as a rule, sit idle? The US is living up to the principle layed out in your quote.

I'm merely pointing out, don't assume America is somehow better than the rest of the world.

I don't assume that the US is "better" than the rest of the world. We acted against a dictator, in the spirit of your principle, while most of the rest of the world shot spitballs at us.

Ross...I have added to my response in the post before last. I submitted it in error before I was done with the response.

I don't assume that the US is "better" than the rest of the world. We acted against a dictator, in the spirit of your principle, while most of the rest of the world shot spitballs at us.

You acted against a sovereign nation without motivation, or motivated on a lie. That, and 15000+ dead civilians (no one counted the iraqui army dead) is good enough reason to shot spitballs at you. Unless you are saying that a country as the right to attack other, just because that country doesnt likes its neighbour political regime. In that case, you must find Adolf Hitler, or Stalin, a swell guy.

This of course isn't neccesarrily my personel opinion
-Me

It sounds to me that the US action was in keeping with the quote you listed on your last post -You

I personally believe that the U.N should've eventually decided the war was just, but I think they should've perhaps started with a country where the dictator was doing things which where more serious.

It is law in the United States that a hospital must treat people regardless of their ability to pay.

Really, in all States?

We accept that we need others. I think we made it perfectly clear that we'd rather have your support in the whole Iraq situation. But if others are unwilling to help, should we, as a rule, sit idle? The US is living up to the principle layed out in your quote.

Then why Iraq, there are hundreds of dictatorships? Does the U.S do something about all them? No. Should it? Yes.
Does this make the U.S hypocritical? Yes.
So if we're following my prinicples it should be attacking more than one dictatorship, and also shouldn't be funding certain groups as it has and I'm sure it still does. Remember they have given people they hunt now large sums of money.

P.S: Sorry if I sound harsh, I like debating and you're intelligent so it's fun.
-Ross

May I remind you that if it weren't for the Europeans you would still be hunting animals on the plains with your bow and arrows to get some food? By bashing Europe you are bashing your own history and ancestors. Too bad most Americans are so blinded that all they can see is "Look at us, we are so great because we have big guns", but they forget that they barely have a history at all and they have to thank Europe for bringing people and advancement to their continent.

Ah well, I hope I still live the day China takes over from America because it's just a matter of time before that it is going to happen. Maybe it will bring back some of the peace we had during the 10-13th century.

I don't agree with the sentiment that you responded to. America owes Europe quite a bit culturally, particularly our legal system.

Although your comment about China is quite premature and seems to lack some knowledge about issues within their banking system. I'm no expert, but it doesn't appear to be quite the tiger it's cracked up to be.

Dont forget your $1 trillion defiect. There was a surplus when Clinton left.

There was a projected surplus, that evaporated when 9/11 hit and all that spending for homeland security/iraq war.

I'm hoping that Bush keeps his promise to cut the deficit in half. But then again, what politician keeps his promises?

You acted against a sovereign nation without motivation, or motivated on a lie. That, and 15000+ dead civilians (no one counted the iraqui army dead) is good enough reason to shot spitballs at you. Unless you are saying that a country as the right to attack other, just because that country doesnt likes its neighbour political regime. In that case, you must find Adolf Hitler, or Stalin, a swell guy.

I was specifically responding to a quote that Ross had given me:
"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done."

Now, you can agree or disagree with the merits of the quote. If you believe it to be true, then sitting by and doing nothing (or maybe even well meaning actions that accomplish nothing) about evil "commands it to be done." Its very sad that 15,000 "civilians" have died (especially since insurgents are civilians in their ruberic). Either you can state that any nation-state can commit any atrocity to its citizens without reprocussions or you can state that it is the international community's business.

I personally believe that the U.N should've eventually decided the war was just, but I think they should've perhaps started with a country where the dictator was doing things which where more serious.

How long should we wait for the UN? How long before one country or another decides the UN body suffers from paralysis? How many resolutions are necessary? We know that there were serious considerations about loosening those sanctions. In regard to starting with Iraq...I think a regime in the middle east was key to the decision.



Really, in all States?

I know that emergency care cannot be denied. That is a part of the health care problem in the US- people who have no insurance filling up Emergency Rooms.

Then why Iraq, there are hundreds of dictatorships? Does the U.S do something about all them? No. Should it? Yes.
Does this make the U.S hypocritical? Yes.

Part of the whole progressive theory of the root causes of fundamentalist terrorism is the lack of democracy in the mid-east causes frustration within certain classes of people. I believe that the whole theory is that an Iraqi democracy will bolster democractic movements in the region, leading to major reforms. Whether this is true or not, time will tell. But I suppose it could've started just as easily in Syria


So if we're following my prinicples it should be attacking more than one dictatorship, and also shouldn't be funding certain groups as it has and I'm sure it still does. Remember they have given people they hunt now large sums of money.

If the US were omnipotent and omnipresent, I suppose we would be attacking more than one dictatorship. Simply because we cannot do something perfectly doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it at all. I would never make an omlet again.

Sorry if I sound harsh, I like debating and you're intelligent so it's fun.

Thanks :-) I'm enjoying myself too. And you don't sound harsh- there are not blanket statements of condemnation or charachter assasination, so I'm happy.

:fluffle:

You acted against a sovereign nation without motivation, or motivated on a lie.

So, what you're saying is all those people killed and tortured under Saddam didn't die. I think that if Saddam had only lived another twenty years (Which is likely seeing the luxury I'm betting he had) then infact he would've killed a number in reasonable height, perhaps alot less but they did find mass graves remember?
Also, if the people in Iraq wish to be freed from an oppressive regime then you could point out it's our duty to help them, our duty not as members of an international community but our duty as humans?
It's an interesting point no?
-Ross

How long should we wait for the UN? How long before one country or another decides the UN body suffers from paralysis? How many resolutions are necessary? We know that there were serious considerations about loosening those sanctions. In regard to starting with Iraq...I think a regime in the middle east was key to the decision.

The U.N is slow, but if you'd argued your case then Iraq would've been taken by a coalition reasonably quickly I think.
Although I personally think that sometimes international law has to be bypassed (Occasionally), the fact is you need the U.N in on this, so isolating them by ignoring them isn't going to win you a mass war on terror.

Part of the whole progressive theory of the root causes of fundamentalist terrorism is the lack of democracy in the mid-east causes frustration within certain classes of people. I believe that the whole theory is that an Iraqi democracy will bolster democractic movements in the region, leading to major reforms. Whether this is true or not, time will tell. But I suppose it could've started just as easily in Syria

Why the Middle East? Why don't we send troops to help Sudan? They obviously need it seriously and quickly but somehow Iraq, the oil field state is selected.
And I think that the U.S has a big enough army combined with Britain to fight alone, I however believe with the U.N too it would be far better.
Maybe Palestine and Israel should've been sorted out first, maybe they have urgent need considering...

If the US were omnipotent and omnipresent, I suppose we would be attacking more than one dictatorship. Simply because we cannot do something perfectly doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it at all. I would never make an omlet again.

As I stated previously I think that if 80% of the U.S army was mobolised and 80% of British forces you could successfully take out a significant amount of regimes all at once, that way the benefits would be on a grand scale.
But maybe not, just an idea. Or perhaps take places like Fallujah (sp?) swiftly?

Thanks :-) I'm enjoying myself too. And you don't sound harsh- there are not blanket statements of condemnation or charachter assasination, so I'm happy.

Thanks. ;)
Yes, it's good when things are done in a reasonable way rather than flaming.
:cool:

-Ross

Has the UN or Europe acted yet to save the people dying in Sudan? Or are you waiting for the US to do something about it?

Has the UN or Europe acted yet to save the people dying in Sudan? Or are you waiting for the US to do something about it?

I think they have made attempts, not particularly effective events, but yeah. I think the idea is for the African Union to take the lead here. While that's a noble idea, I'm not sure if it will work, unless things somehow resolve through negotiation.

If blair was sending his henchmen to rape your family while you watched then YEP id bet you would want someone to come fix it.
Rob

Fix it with the likes of Lynndie England, right...

I think they have made attempts, not particularly effective events, but yeah. I think the idea is for the African Union to take the lead here. While that's a noble idea, I'm not sure if it will work, unless things somehow resolve through negotiation.

Yea I don't think the AU is moving that quickly.. I'm not to sure negotiations will work. It's genocide. And the UN has hessitated to use that word because then they'd have to do something about it..

Has the UN or Europe acted yet to save the people dying in Sudan? Or are you waiting for the US to do something about it?

I'm guessing the U.N is trying to negociate and may eventually go to war.
However they will probably spend a long time debating it.
If I were Prime Minister or President I'd urge the U.N to reach a conclucion and if they didn't I'd have to work out whether troops would help. I doubt they would though, with so much history.
-Ross

I'm guessing the U.N is trying to negociate and may eventually go to war.
However they will probably spend a long time debating it.
If I were Prime Minister or President I'd urge the U.N to reach a conclucion and if they didn't I'd have to work out whether troops would help. I doubt they would though, with so much history.
-Ross

This would possibly work if there were not people dying because of our inaction. [Yes I included the US]

This would possibly work if there were not people dying because of our inaction. [Yes I included the US]

There are already some U.N troops in tehre already, protecting the supply convoys of medical aid etc aren't there?
Also, I think you could get away with invading it without U.N clearance but that makes the U.N pointless and you cannot do that, I believe that a U.N force would accomplish far more than any other force.
And maybe America which for it's size contributes less than other countries (in aid terms) shouldn't invade so much but pour more money into aid which would also help to save lives.
But I think you have to tread very carefully about this, there's a fine line between doing something because the U.N is taking too long and if you want to do something because you want it instanaeous. If you cross the line you're risking alot...
-Ross

True.

But I read somewhere, [looking for site] that if the UN declaired that it was genocide, they then can legally send troops.

It's a mess and probably more complicated than any of us know.. It's just sad that this is happening.

So, what you're saying is all those people killed and tortured under Saddam didn't die. I think that if Saddam had only lived another twenty years (Which is likely seeing the luxury I'm betting he had) then infact he would've killed a number in reasonable height, perhaps alot less but they did find mass graves remember?
Also, if the people in Iraq wish to be freed from an oppressive regime then you could point out it's our duty to help them, our duty not as members of an international community but our duty as humans?
It's an interesting point no?
-Ross

Its your duty? Perhaps if you were powerful and intelligent enough to pull it off.

Iraq is total chaos, 100,000 Iraqis have been killed in this war. And you are hated by the Iraqi people with a passion. So hated that the Iraqi people are willing to fight on forever against you even though they know that their nation will be totally destroyed before you will ever leave. They would sooner destroy their own nation and their own lives before giving up to your rule.

Its tragic.

The U.N is slow, but if you'd argued your case then Iraq would've been taken by a coalition reasonably quickly I think.
Although I personally think that sometimes international law has to be bypassed (Occasionally), the fact is you need the U.N in on this, so isolating them by ignoring them isn't going to win you a mass war on terror.

Part of the reason, IMHO, that the UN is slow is that is the nature of bureaucracies in general. The other part, IMHO, is that action against Iraq was not in the economic interests of many of the states who opposed intervention.

Why the Middle East? Why don't we send troops to help Sudan? They obviously need it seriously and quickly but somehow Iraq, the oil field state is selected.

Because the Middle-East is the birthplace of Mohammed, and thus Islamic fundamentalism. As far as the oil issue goes, there is enough scrutiny to ensure that nothing excessive occurs. Of course (and I am not aiming this comment towards you) there will always be those who believe everything the US does is for oil (which is intellectually lazy) or who ignore the value of oil to the market.


And I think that the U.S has a big enough army combined with Britain to fight alone, I however believe with the U.N too it would be far better.
Maybe Palestine and Israel should've been sorted out first, maybe they have urgent need considering...

I agree with you that it desirable that the UN be on board any action...I just don't think it should be a "deal breaker" that they're not. The nations making up the Security Council seem to have no fewer conflicts of interest than does the US.

As I stated previously I think that if 80% of the U.S army was mobolised and 80% of British forces you could successfully take out a significant amount of regimes all at once, that way the benefits would be on a grand scale.
But maybe not, just an idea. Or perhaps take places like Fallujah (sp?) swiftly?

To me, the Fallujah issue smells like Vietnam- the military (and Iraqis) suffering the consequences of decisions based on politics.

Iraq is total chaos, 100,000 Iraqis have been killed in this war. And you are hated by the Iraqi people with a passion. So hated that the Iraqi people are willing to fight on forever against you even though they know that their nation will be totally destroyed before you will ever leave. They would sooner destroy their own nation and their own lives before giving up to your rule.

According to polls the Iraqi people are still glad that we helped them, even after thousands of civilians in Iraq died they still are grateful, even after their brothers, sisters, father, mothers, friends have been killed by bombs they still wish to be free, doesn't that prove how they feel?!

If you give somebody a choice you tell them: You can either live a life of slavery, or you have one chance, just one of freedom although it will be dangrous. which do you think they would choose?

-Ross

According to polls the Iraqi people are still glad that we helped them, even after thousands of civilians in Iraq died they still are grateful, even after their brothers, sisters, father, mothers, friends have been killed by bombs they still wish to be free, doesn't that prove how they feel?!

If you give somebody a choice you tell them: You can either live a life of slavery, or you have one chance, just one of freedom although it will be dangrous. which do you think they would choose?

-Ross

Polls taken by the invading nation, right? No way that's trustworthy...

I don't think there is any way to really tell their feeling.

Part of the reason, IMHO, that the UN is slow is that is the nature of bureaucracies in general. The other part, IMHO, is that action against Iraq was not in the economic interests of many of the states who opposed intervention.

I personally think we should invade, but I think that the U.N is important that it's approach should be quicker, but that it's approach must be the one used.
I do however wish it would condone taking Sudan...

Because the Middle-East is the birthplace of Mohammed, and thus Islamic fundamentalism. As far as the oil issue goes, there is enough scrutiny to ensure that nothing excessive occurs. Of course (and I am not aiming this comment towards you) there will always be those who believe everything the US does is for oil (which is intellectually lazy) or who ignore the value of oil to the market.

Yes, but he was the prophet of a God which is supposed to love his people, it's like the Christian God with a few important differences.
It's like saying "Well Jesus was born in Jerusalem so we'll look there for the KKK." (Hate the KKK!)
Although terrorism starts there, terrorism will exist for a long time whether it's under the guise of Islam extremists or Christian ones.

Of course (and I am not aiming this comment towards you) there will always be those who believe everything the US does is for oil (which is intellectually lazy) or who ignore the value of oil to the market.

I know, I personally get annoyed at people who use that as an excuse, I don't think politics is that corrupt, I was merely stating that there were places worse than Iraq that we should've started with, if this is the approach we are taking.

I agree with you that it desirable that the UN be on board any action...I just don't think it should be a "deal breaker" that they're not. The nations making up the Security Council seem to have no fewer conflicts of interest than does the US.

Yes but because the U.N is a group of countries all with different governments and the U.S is one country with one government it's difficult to say that the U.S will be less biased than the U.N

To me, the Fallujah issue smells like Vietnam- the military (and Iraqis) suffering the consequences of decisions based on politics.

Maybe, but we shouldn't use Napalm on it, that's for sure.
I think perhaps we should storm it quickly with an elite force of troops, perhaps even drop some in via helicopter?
But these are military tactics that don't really matter.
But first we should warn the inhabitants to leave... Set up blockades around it to monitor who leaves so extremists can't...

-Ross

Polls taken by the invading nation, right? No way that's trustworthy...

So you believe the people in Iraq prefered the previous government?
Atleast now they're aiming towards a democratic future, I hope.
And the polls were taken by the media... I watched a man who'd been tortured by Saddam on the news, his family killed, crying, and saying that it was a great thing. It's easy in the 'rich' West to sit back and say war is wrong, but imagine somebody in iraq's point of view. Scared even to speak?
I know that's an extreme example but I imagine few would be for him.
-Ross

So you believe the people in Iraq prefered the previous government?
Atleast now they're aiming towards a democratic future, I hope.
And the polls were taken by the media... I watched a man who'd been tortured by Saddam on the news, his family killed, crying, and saying that it was a great thing. It's easy in the 'rich' West to sit back and say war is wrong, but imagine somebody in iraq's point of view. Scared even to speak?
I know that's an extreme example but I imagine few would be for him.
-Ross

The media from the invading country... Still not trustworthy...
And it's easy to pluck heartstrings: We've seen cheering Iraqis, dead Iraqis, Iraqis being sexually molested and tortured by Americans, crying Iraqis, resentful Iraqis, silent Iraqis, smiling Iraqis... etc etc etc.
You can agree with the war, and say it was a "necessary evil"... But you can't claim to know what the Iraqis themselves think.

In my opinion, the fact that American soldiers remain under fire speaks for itself.

"The media from the invading country... Still not trustworthy...
And it's easy to pluck heartstrings: We've seen cheering Iraqis, dead Iraqis, Iraqis being sexually molested and tortured by Americans, crying Iraqis, resentful Iraqis, silent Iraqis, smiling Iraqis... etc etc etc.
You can agree with the war, and say it was a "necessary evil"... But you can't claim to know what the Iraqis themselves think.

In my opinion, the fact that American soldiers remain under fire speaks for itself. "

Well, the media is anti war, for now the majority of the British public are so i doubt they'd be helping with propaganda, no, they're full of criticism for the war, I'd doubt they'd portray things that way.
I don't know, if most Iraqi's claim the war was good I'll believe them, because I refuse to believe unless proven otherwise that somebody would choose to live in a dictatorship if given the choice.
-Ross

Well, the media is anti war, for now the majority of the British public are so i doubt they'd be helping with propaganda, no, they're full of criticism for the war, I'd doubt they'd portray things that way.
I don't know, if most Iraqi's claim the war was good I'll believe them, because I refuse to believe unless proven otherwise that somebody would choose to live in a dictatorship if given the choice.
-Ross

They were not given the choice. And I doubt very much anyone would choose to have bombs dropped on them if given the choice.

Going back someway, I object to people describing Great Britain as 'England' it is infact made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Actually the majority of UK combat troops in Iraq are Scottish, such as the 'Black Watch' recently deployed to deal with Falluja. Also 70% of the famous SAS special forces are Scottish.

The war on terror cannot be stopped with invasion, people like Bin Laden use these events as a recruitment tool, solving the Isreal/Palestine issue would go a massive way to ending global terrorism, invading another arab/islamic state would only make things worse. A recent documentary screened in the UK has alerted us to the fact that Bin Laden and his extremists are slowly taking root in Africa, exploiting the poor starving people forgotten by the west, if we dont act now a whole new generation of terrorists will arise. Bush's policies have done nothing to solve the fundamental reasons behind the terror, we must act to prevent it occuring not try to deal with it after its already happened.

Of course if Reagon and Bush Snr. hadnt funded, trained and equiped a certain group of Islamic militants led by Osama Bin Laden all those years ago then maybe we wouldnt be dealing with this at all.

You cant look at Europe as a whole as its not one nation, certainly the UK economy is much healthier than the US with record employment levels.

Dont forget your $1 trillion defiect. There was a surplus when Clinton left.

Oooooooh! Fight! Fight! Fight!

(I'm an American, but I'm not a chimp. I didn't support Bush, and I sure as hell didn't vote for him. I can't even legally vote over here. Anyway, let's get some Iraquis over here for a regeime change.)

You acted against a sovereign nation without motivation, or motivated on a lie. That, and 15000+ dead civilians (no one counted the iraqui army dead) is good enough reason to shot spitballs at you. Unless you are saying that a country as the right to attack other, just because that country doesnt likes its neighbour political regime. In that case, you must find Adolf Hitler, or Stalin, a swell guy.

well said - characterizes the either ignorance of most of us Americans or the plain pre-world-war ideals that your naitons people are civilized, and others or not, or that the lives of your citezenry is just worth more than the next.

I hope my country and it's President, Bush, will formaly apollogize for all of the suffering he has caused the Iraqi People - although you may have to wait another 4 years before the US takes a genuine interest in Iraqi's.

I really think we are just in it for the oil.

You cant look at Europe as a whole as its not one nation

You forget that Germany is not Europe alone

ROFLMAO!!!

One EUro says you can't look at Europe as a whole, and another one says you MUST look at Europe as a whole! Yeah, you guys really have your sh*t together!

ROFLMAO!!!

One EUro says you can't look at Europe as a whole, and another one says you MUST look at Europe as a whole! Yeah, you guys really have your sh*t together!

This because the UK has its own economy as we do not use the Euro, mainland Europe uses the Euro currency, therefore has one economy, the 'eurozone economy' not all EU countries use the single currency.

I really think we are just in it for the oil.

Where is the oil, then? Huh? Where is it? If we were simply taking Iraq's oil, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than it is in the US now. Just face it - I know it's difficult for you to understand, but face it, deal with it - we...did...not...invade...Iraq...for...their...oil.

me...well, I'm just scared for the next four years....

This is an SOS to all Europeans, Eurasians, Australians whatever! We in America need a regime change help us.

dude...Even Newer Talgania....your just in denial now man.....

plz invade our country (don't worry we have like no military here, it's all in Iraq) and kick out da chimp.

dude...Even Newer Talgania....your just in denial now man.....

I'm in denial?!? You're the one in denial. Answer the question! Where's the oil? Why aren't we getting a flood of cheap oil?

Ah...Yes, you mortal enemies the French. :rolleyes:

Yes indeed. But rarely does America remember that if it wasn't for the British efforts, North Americans would all be speaking French.

In fact it was the the Briitish instituting some very small taxes to PAY for the war against the Evil Imperial French forces that precipitated the Americans declaring war on the British!

Oh but they helped us out against Germany a couple of times. Lest we ever forget that...

Actually it was the arrival of the French at end of the war of independence that sealed victory for the americans, who knows if they hadnt helped the americans they may not have won.

I have a great idea. I think all Europeans should be able to vote in American elections! I mean, it is obvious that we are not bright enough to elect our own leadership. Case in point: I had to have a Belgian type this for me due to my lack of competence. Heck, European votes should count twice just to make sure we don't accidentally screw it up.

We live in a global society, for instance what if the UK elects a government that was hostile to the US? Not good for the States as they lose their principal international allie. The US election has repurcusions for the whole world, so of course people will have an opinion.
Im sure many Americans will show interest in the UK elections next year, not on the same scale by any means, but everyone is entitled to their view.

Where is the oil, then? Huh? Where is it? If we were simply taking Iraq's oil, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than it is in the US now. Just face it - I know it's difficult for you to understand, but face it, deal with it - we...did...not...invade...Iraq...for...their...oil.

The "war for oil" allegation just fits neatly on a bumper sticker. No proof required.

Ross-

I had a glich with my IE and I wasn't able to post my response. It seems as though the thread has moved on....

Yeah thats right Bush won!!! Now the nation can finally move on to better things such as Iran, Sadi Arabia, and the rest of the middle east :mp5:
Now that the elections over Kerry and edwards can finally get their personal relationship out of the public eye. could you imagine the 2 of them in the white house. The would paint it all rainbowiy

Fried what's your e-mail?
I just wanted to stay in touch, you don't have to tell me but I think your views are interesting.
-Ross

Bush would never touch the Saudis, they are too good friends with his daddy :D

Actually it was the arrival of the French at end of the war of independence that sealed victory for the americans, who knows if they hadnt helped the americans they may not have won.
Good point. The few hundred British troops retreating from Yorktown would have managed to flee so valiently as to overthrow a continent.

Good point. The few hundred British troops retreating from Yorktown would have managed to flee so valiently as to overthrow a continent.

haha yeah, was just pointing out that the French helped your nation at its earliest stage, was directed at those earlier desribing the French as 'bitches' etc.

Bush rocks !

He's fucked the economy so much that my £1 buys $1.85, meaning I can buy loads of great stuff from the U.S. at almost half the price I'd pay over here in the UK !

Even taking into account the expense of having items shipped by airmail across the Atlantic, it means I can buy things from the U.S. cheaper than I can get them from High Streets across Britain.

Okay, so the (illegal) war in Iraq is going down the shitter along with the rest of the free world's opinion of the U.S. but still... here's to Dubya ! :)

Honestly, if you want to get into what language North Americans would be speaking, lets talk about Europe, because if it wasn't for our boys Eisenhower and Patton, Europe would be speaking German, or rather, Russian if we let the Cold War go. Face it, Europe is WORTHLESS in the grand scheme of things, save Eastern Europe, as they all recognize how valuable freedom is after 50 years of communist control. You European SOB's have no right to call our leader a 'chimp' nor do you have the right to say you think Bush is a bad leader. I'm sorry, the people of America, at least the majority of them by 3.5 million, know Bush is a strong leader with the best interests of the United States in his mind. If your country was attacked and 3,000 of your CIVILIANS were killed in a massive terrorist attack, I believe you would understand Bush's position. The world must be rid of terrorists, wherever they are, no matter how many, and Bush knows this. I care not for the French, and to tell you the truth, I am ashamed to be of German ancestry after the crap you are all putting Bush through. My god, we can't let a person with a set of balls invade a country known to violate UN regulations and to harbor terrorists, at least without our consent. That, my friends, is bovine scatology, and I hope that all of your countries are attack by terrorists, with the same magnitude as 9/11, and I hope Bush has the gall to turn his back on you as you did to us a short three years ago. The only countries in this world worth the title of ally to the United States are Britain and Australia. The reason? They stand by us because they know its in their better interests to do so. As far as the Euro surpassing the US Dollar? Lets face it, the only reason for the European Union was because Germany and France's economies were so horrible they could no longer support their own currencies. The Euro may be ahead now, but the US dollar will be on top within the next year, when all the short work hours and poor economic planning catches up to you guys. You want to know why the United States has been on top for so long? It's because we have the highest per capita production of any country in the world. That's right, we WORK HARD. My god, its a new concept for you European bastards, but it certainly is one that works.

France, they managed to sell to both sides at the same time.

The man has a point

Honestly, if you want to get into what language North Americans would be speaking, lets talk about Europe, because if it wasn't for our boys Eisenhower and Patton, Europe would be speaking German, or rather, Russian if we let the Cold War go. Face it, Europe is WORTHLESS in the grand scheme of things, save Eastern Europe, as they all recognize how valuable freedom is after 50 years of communist control. You European SOB's have no right to call our leader a 'chimp' nor do you have the right to say you think Bush is a bad leader. I'm sorry, the people of America, at least the majority of them by 3.5 million, know Bush is a strong leader with the best interests of the United States in his mind. If your country was attacked and 3,000 of your CIVILIANS were killed in a massive terrorist attack, I believe you would understand Bush's position. The world must be rid of terrorists, wherever they are, no matter how many, and Bush knows this. I care not for the French, and to tell you the truth, I am ashamed to be of German ancestry after the crap you are all putting Bush through. My god, we can't let a person with a set of balls invade a country known to violate UN regulations and to harbor terrorists, at least without our consent. That, my friends, is bovine scatology, and I hope that all of your countries are attack by terrorists, with the same magnitude as 9/11, and I hope Bush has the gall to turn his back on you as you did to us a short three years ago. The only countries in this world worth the title of ally to the United States are Britain and Australia. The reason? They stand by us because they know its in their better interests to do so. As far as the Euro surpassing the US Dollar? Lets face it, the only reason for the European Union was because Germany and France's economies were so horrible they could no longer support their own currencies. The Euro may be ahead now, but the US dollar will be on top within the next year, when all the short work hours and poor economic planning catches up to you guys. You want to know why the United States has been on top for so long? It's because we have the highest per capita production of any country in the world. That's right, we WORK HARD. My god, its a new concept for you European bastards, but it certainly is one that works.

Using language and points like that aint on, and to be honest the only countries to suffer terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been allied countries (god knows how we have avoided one for this long, sooner or later it will happen) other Euro nations stood with America in Afganastan because they backed the US 100% then, just because they then decided against the Iraq war is their decision and is the right of any free democratic country to do so.

I have a great idea. I think all Europeans should be able to vote in American elections! I mean, it is obvious that we are not bright enough to elect our own leadership. Case in point: I had to have a Belgian type this for me due to my lack of competence. Heck, European votes should count twice just to make sure we don't accidentally screw it up.

Fine, then they must pay US taxes and Social Security.

Ugh...I'm tired of the "You'd be speaking German!" "No! You'd be speaking French!" bullshit that gets us nowhere.

I cant believe my country voted for him, I apologize on behalf of my country to the world.

Ugh...I'm tired of the "You'd be speaking German!" "No! You'd be speaking French!"

If Guy Fawks'd blown up Parliament then Britain might be a strict Catholic state with no monarchy.
But we do, so stop debating over what'd happened, what happened in the past was people could look over their differences and help one another, it appears that you can't now! So much for progress. :( :sniper:
Just reinforcing Fried's point.
I'll take that as a 'no' on the e-mail thing? Sorry, sounded pretty wierd huh?
-Ross

Honestly, if you want to get into what language North Americans would be speaking, lets talk about Europe, because if it wasn't for our boys Eisenhower and Patton, Europe would be speaking German, or rather, Russian if we let the Cold War go. Face it, Europe is WORTHLESS in the grand scheme of things, save Eastern Europe, as they all recognize how valuable freedom is after 50 years of communist control. You European SOB's have no right to call our leader a 'chimp' nor do you have the right to say you think Bush is a bad leader. I'm sorry, the people of America, at least the majority of them by 3.5 million, know Bush is a strong leader with the best interests of the United States in his mind. If your country was attacked and 3,000 of your CIVILIANS were killed in a massive terrorist attack, I believe you would understand Bush's position. The world must be rid of terrorists, wherever they are, no matter how many, and Bush knows this. I care not for the French, and to tell you the truth, I am ashamed to be of German ancestry after the crap you are all putting Bush through. My god, we can't let a person with a set of balls invade a country known to violate UN regulations and to harbor terrorists, at least without our consent. That, my friends, is bovine scatology, and I hope that all of your countries are attack by terrorists, with the same magnitude as 9/11, and I hope Bush has the gall to turn his back on you as you did to us a short three years ago. The only countries in this world worth the title of ally to the United States are Britain and Australia. The reason? They stand by us because they know its in their better interests to do so. As far as the Euro surpassing the US Dollar? Lets face it, the only reason for the European Union was because Germany and France's economies were so horrible they could no longer support their own currencies. The Euro may be ahead now, but the US dollar will be on top within the next year, when all the short work hours and poor economic planning catches up to you guys. You want to know why the United States has been on top for so long? It's because we have the highest per capita production of any country in the world. That's right, we WORK HARD. My god, its a new concept for you European bastards, but it certainly is one that works.

1. russia defeated the germans, not US... of course US helped A LOT, but not the much they teach you at the school
2. Russia would not try to "take over" the world, this "communist" take over is only propaganda, of course Russia was giving money and weapons to countries who wanted to be communist, but that´s all, they were not invading. (like you did in south america)
3. Yeah, the terrorist attacks, you know, the point of all that was to teach america that you cannot attack everyone without expecting it to come back someday, a dumb way to teach it, but, that was the intention, you were not attacked "for no reason", you were attacked because you provoked, that´s a fact.
4. Wanna talk about a country who disrespect more the UN then the United States? Well, maybe Israel...
5. The euro stuff, maybe you are right, their economies were going down and they decided to join hands, that´s what civilized people do, now, when the US economy began to fall, you turned at South America and threatened us to sign unfair deals (terrorizing us saying "sign or we will boycott you like we did with cuba") well, that will come back, as we started to make business with China and instead of helping America (like france and germany are doing with each other) we will most likely laugh as you fall.

I think that´s all...

6. Oh, I forgot the "WORK HARD" part. Try living in a 3rd world country, that´s working hard, try be an immigrant in US, that´s working hard, try to make social changes withou disrupting the economy (like europe does), that´s working hard. America stole A LOT from south america during the 60s, 70s and 80s and now will steal from Iraq. That, friend, is not working hard...

Ross,

I sent it as a telegram to your NS.

And the eurozone economy is in far healthier state than the US economy. Also its worth noting that China's economy will become the world's largest in the next few years. Continued EU expansion east, eventually including other former Soviet states and possibly Russia itself will create another huge economy to rival the US.

Hear, hear. (to Sblargh, among others)

My dear, I used to believe that i was proud to be an american, but if you are indeed representing the american mindset, i might have to rethink that. the blind, passionate arrogant anger you've displayed is exactly what you're denouncing the other countries for displaying, and possibly the reason they do so.

Without further ado, let's begin:


>Exiled Finlandia
>Face it, Europe is WORTHLESS in the grand scheme of things, save Eastern Europe, as they all recognize how valuable freedom is after 50 years of communist control.

Oh, come on now. That's first not nice, and secondly, totally unfounded as you know...western europe is still democratic and hasnt lapsed into a sea of writhing anarchy.

>You European SOB's have no right to call our leader a 'chimp' nor do you have the right to say you think Bush is a bad leader.

I know they're not american, but i'd like to believe we're big enough people to extend our right to freedom of speech to them

>I'm sorry, the people of America, at least the majority of them by 3.5 million, know Bush is a strong leader with the best interests of the United States in his mind.

Technically, (i now must give kudos to jon stewart who i got this from), the number one issue was moral values, so you cant claim that he was elected to protect us, since he very well might have been elected to keep two guys from kissing. That, and all the places in the us hit by 9-11 (NY and washington dc) voted for kerry. Just a thought. Also, i'm really bugged by the prez's whole "i earned capital in this election" bit. 3.5 million voters is not a strong victory. Even though he was elected, a large part (48% of the country) believes he shouldnt have been.

>If your country was attacked and 3,000 of your CIVILIANS were killed in a massive terrorist attack, I believe you would understand Bush's position.

Actually, i believe all the countries you're addressing have been hit by things far worse. Noting that this was the first attack on american soil is a huge give away to that. Germany, England, France have suffered through shit and damage and still dont agree w/ bush's position

>The world must be rid of terrorists, wherever they are, no matter how many, and Bush knows this.

Great, but explain to me how attacking one of the few secular relatively free middle eastern countries accomplishes that? Saddam may have been a bastard, but he wasnt a terrorist. If you're really concerned about terrorists, ask yourself where's Osama

>My god, we can't let a person with a set of balls invade a country known to violate UN regulations and to harbor terrorists, at least without our consent.

I dont believe the issue here is that bush has balls as much as it's that he doesnt have a brain to speak of

>That, my friends, is bovine scatology, and I hope that all of your countries are attack by terrorists, with the same magnitude as 9/11, and I hope Bush has the gall to turn his back on you as you did to us a short three years ago.

why all the anger? You know, that might be a reason they dislike us. oh, and i dont think they turned there back on us w/ 9-11. the world weeped w/ us there. they turned their backs when we used it as an excuse to invade a country not at all connected with it, then insulted them when they refused to join.

>The only countries in this world worth the title of ally to the United States are Britain and Australia. The reason? They stand by us because they know its in their better interests to do so.

Their better intrests? or what? we'll spank them?

>The Euro may be ahead now, but the US dollar will be on top within the next year, when all the short work hours and poor economic planning catches up to you guys.

i'm not gonna touch this. time will tell

>You want to know why the United States has been on top for so long? It's because we have the highest per capita production of any country in the world. That's right, we WORK HARD. My god, its a new concept for you European bastards, but it certainly is one that works.

yea, we work hard whenever we can drag ourselves away from our xboxes and tv screens.

ciao honey :)

1. russia defeated the germans, not US... of course US helped A LOT, but not the much they teach you at the school

Russia won on the Eastern front, it did not, even come close to defeating Germany by itself. That is why it is most accurate to state that "The Allies" defeated Germany.

2. Russia would not try to "take over" the world, this "communist" take over is only propaganda, of course Russia was giving money and weapons to countries who wanted to be communist, but that´s all, they were not invading. (like you did in south america)

I'm really not quite sure what you're smoking, but I'd like a hit. The USSR exercised control over Eastern Europe. Period. It invaded Afganistan. It armed every communist revolution around the world.


3. Yeah, the terrorist attacks, you know, the point of all that was to teach america that you cannot attack everyone without expecting it to come back someday, a dumb way to teach it, but, that was the intention, you were not attacked "for no reason", you were attacked because you provoked, that´s a fact.

If their intention was to "teach" the US not to "attack everyone" then the message was lost in translation. bin Laden doesn't like our bases in Saudi Arabia and doesn't like our support of Isreal. That's really his message. But, frankly, allowing people like him to control US policy is lunacy.

6. Oh, I forgot the "WORK HARD" part. Try living in a 3rd world country, that´s working hard, try be an immigrant in US, that´s working hard, try to make social changes withou disrupting the economy (like europe does), that´s working hard. America stole A LOT from south america during the 60s, 70s and 80s and now will steal from Iraq. That, friend, is not working hard...

Please explain what the US stole from South America in the 60s, 70s, and 80s?

Also, Europe does not make social changes without dirupting the economy. Well, to put it more precisely, without effecting the economy.

1. russia defeated the germans, not US... of course US helped A LOT, but not the much they teach you at the school

Russia won on the Eastern front, it did not, even come close to defeating Germany by itself. That is why it is most accurate to state that "The Allies" defeated Germany.

2. Russia would not try to "take over" the world, this "communist" take over is only propaganda, of course Russia was giving money and weapons to countries who wanted to be communist, but that´s all, they were not invading. (like you did in south america)

I'm really not quite sure what you're smoking, but I'd like a hit. The USSR exercised control over Eastern Europe. Period. It invaded Afganistan. It armed every communist revolution around the world.


3. Yeah, the terrorist attacks, you know, the point of all that was to teach america that you cannot attack everyone without expecting it to come back someday, a dumb way to teach it, but, that was the intention, you were not attacked "for no reason", you were attacked because you provoked, that´s a fact.

If their intention was to "teach" the US not to "attack everyone" then the message was lost in translation. bin Laden doesn't like our bases in Saudi Arabia and doesn't like our support of Isreal. That's really his message. But, frankly, allowing people like him to control US policy is lunacy.

6. Oh, I forgot the "WORK HARD" part. Try living in a 3rd world country, that´s working hard, try be an immigrant in US, that´s working hard, try to make social changes withou disrupting the economy (like europe does), that´s working hard. America stole A LOT from south america during the 60s, 70s and 80s and now will steal from Iraq. That, friend, is not working hard...

Please explain what the US stole from South America in the 60s, 70s, and 80s?

Also, Europe does not make social changes without dirupting the economy. Well, to put it more precisely, without effecting the economy.

Russia won on the Eastern front, it did not, even come close to defeating Germany by itself. That is why it is most accurate to state that "The Allies" defeated Germany.

Sorry man, but Russia got to Berlin, whether this would've been different if the rest of the Allies had been losing is debatable, however Russian forces pushed onto Berlin.

I'm really not quite sure what you're smoking, but I'd like a hit. The USSR exercised control over Eastern Europe. Period. It invaded Afganistan. It armed every communist revolution around the world.

I'm uncertain of this, but it is true that many of the countries that compromise 'Russia' now wish to be independant states opposed to being run by Russia.

I'm really not quite sure what you're smoking, but I'd like a hit. The USSR exercised control over Eastern Europe. Period. It invaded Afganistan. It armed every communist revolution around the world.

Just as I'm sure America did with Capitalist or anti Communist countries, i.e Vietnam.

If their intention was to "teach" the US not to "attack everyone" then the message was lost in translation. bin Laden doesn't like our bases in Saudi Arabia and doesn't like our support of Isreal. That's really his message. But, frankly, allowing people like him to control US policy is lunacy.

Yes, he did it because he thinks the U.S is basically evil, which it isn't, I may personally disapprove of Capitalism but what he did was appalling and disgusting.

Also, Europe does not make social changes without dirupting the economy. Well, to put it more precisely, without effecting the economy.

Exactly but Europe does make changes wheras America seems to be stuck with the constitution and all who say it's wrong or could be better are ignored. Kind've like the Catholic church was with Protestants.
(That wasn't meant to be offensive or a reflection of you personally but I think America could be more open to views which contradict the Constitution?)
-Ross

Russia won on the Eastern front, it did not, even come close to defeating Germany by itself. That is why it is most accurate to state that "The Allies" defeated Germany.



I'm really not quite sure what you're smoking, but I'd like a hit. The USSR exercised control over Eastern Europe. Period. It invaded Afganistan. It armed every communist revolution around the world.




If their intention was to "teach" the US not to "attack everyone" then the message was lost in translation. bin Laden doesn't like our bases in Saudi Arabia and doesn't like our support of Isreal. That's really his message. But, frankly, allowing people like him to control US policy is lunacy.



Please explain what the US stole from South America in the 60s, 70s, and 80s?

Also, Europe does not make social changes without dirupting the economy. Well, to put it more precisely, without effecting the economy.

It was really lost in translation, in no way I come to close to approve the terrorist action, but, if it was an act of war, it would have hit an military target, it hit the WTC and civilians because it wanted to pass on a message and the message was "stop messing around with countries you have nothing to do with". Obviously, you think the only answer to violence is more violence, the war against afghanistan was a necessity, the war agains iraq is pure brainless rage.

Now, here in Brasil, military government took over the country in 1964 (and only left in 85), this was done with US money because they feared Brasil could turn into communism, hundreds of people were killed and tortured for being socialist, all this, with US money, this happened in all countries of south america, I only knowthe details here because I live here, anyway, after this government was in power, it made a lot of unecessary loans at extraordinary high interest rates, no normal government would do this, but brasil´s psychotic dictators did, because US, who put them in power, asked to, up to today, we are still trying to pay the loans, our hospitals and schools are literally falling apart because we are paying a debt that a military dictator did to thannk the country who helped he stay in power. It´s billions of dollars every year. Again, billions that could go to education, but that ends up going to your pockets. Sorry if I don´t make myself very clear, I don´t know english very well and I end up making long sentences to explain words wich I don´t know the translation.Tks

250+ billion surpluss by the end of Clinton's mandate. Look it up.
Yeah, but still....Bush is the best US President of the 21st Century.

Yeah, but still....Bush is the best US President of the 21st Century.

Correct. I bet the next one will be too.... Otherwise i would be genuinely depressed....

And the eurozone economy is in far healthier state than the US economy. Also its worth noting that China's economy will become the world's largest in the next few years. Continued EU expansion east, eventually including other former Soviet states and possibly Russia itself will create another huge economy to rival the US.
The Eurozone's economy is experiencing about half the growth of the USA. Take the "core" EU members or weight it by GDP size and its even worse, Germany and Italy can't even get above 2% growth.

I honestly believe that the worst thing about Bush getting a second term is that proves Americans are stupid. I mean, after the last four years I was honestly stunned that anyone could vote for Bush. During the campaigns I remember speaking with Bush supporters and asking them why they were voting for Bush. They could never give me a legitimate answer. They could never site one good thing about his policies. They couldn't state one good thing about his record.

I always said that the majority of the American people were fat, stupid, selfish sheep. I never really believed that deep down until after the election. The people of America have failed their fellow man and each other.

There is really nothing more to say about the subject. It is useless to argue. These are my opinions. The majority has spoken and they have said what they wanted. America wants Bush. I think that is the worst thing we could have said to the world.

....America wants Bush....yup...America wants Bush.....

Yeah, but still....Bush is the best US President of the 21st Century.

as well as the only one, i assume you are joking but just making sure.

as well as the only one, i assume you are joking but just making sure.there was no fooling you...was there :D

....You are asuming correctly

there was no fooling you...was there :D

....You are asuming correctly

no there is not. don't even try i'm warning you! i'm not insane honest no the men in the white van run Frank my pink elephant friend! (or is that drunk?)

is there anyone here? talk if you are plz. i'll start it off. Who here hates the chimp (Bush)?

I honestly believe that the worst thing about Bush getting a second term is that proves Americans are stupid. I mean, after the last four years I was honestly stunned that anyone could vote for Bush. During the campaigns I remember speaking with Bush supporters and asking them why they were voting for Bush. They could never give me a legitimate answer. They could never site one good thing about his policies. They couldn't state one good thing about his record.

I always said that the majority of the American people were fat, stupid, selfish sheep. I never really believed that deep down until after the election. The people of America have failed their fellow man and each other.

There is really nothing more to say about the subject. It is useless to argue. These are my opinions. The majority has spoken and they have said what they wanted. America wants Bush. I think that is the worst thing we could have said to the world.

And you have a right to your own wrong opinions.

See the nice thing is i could say a majority of europians are arrogant, selfserving, whinners, and that wouldn't make it true. (which it isn't, i don't believe any of it, i'm just using it to make a point)

So what you say means nothing to me.

is there anyone here? talk if you are plz. i'll start it off. Who here hates the chimp (Bush)?
My guess is 90% of the Human race do not like him.

And you have a right to your own wrong opinions.Heh, opinions aren't really wrong or right. It's actions trying to force those opinions on others that can become wrong or right.

His is an opinion the majority of the world agrees with, if they know about it/think about it at all. Because really, I thought there was hope for my countrymen. I thought that our freedom, liberty, and respect was more important than regulating the lives of gays or reproductive rights of women. I thought that people would think about who they voted for, instead of voting for whoever their mommy and daddy voted for. I thought that, if New York City, by far hit the hardest by terrorism, would vote overwhelmingly Kerry, then the rest of the world would take a hint or two... apparently, I was very wrong. I'm extremely depressed about the direction my country's going in. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, I really would, but with 57 million people voting for a man because he unilaterally attacked the Middle East at the urgings of corporate giants... it's just depressing.

You cant look at Europe as a whole as its not one nation, certainly the UK economy is much healthier than the US with record employment levels.

Dont forget your $1 trillion defiect. There was a surplus when Clinton left.

Incidentally, it's been estimated that around 7 million people in the UK are out of work, out of around 60 million. That's a little over 1/8th of the population, or way over 10%. This, and the last administration has let quite a lot of people slip unnoticed onto Incapacity Benefit and other forms of welfare, which don't show up in the official unemployment figures. The UK is indeed a powerful economy, but with government policies like this, it won't last. That and the tax rates are already stifling.

Incidentally, it's been estimated that around 7 million people in the UK are out of work, out of around 60 million. That's a little over 1/8th of the population, or way over 10%. This, and the last administration has let quite a lot of people slip unnoticed onto Incapacity Benefit and other forms of welfare, which don't show up in the official unemployment figures. The UK is indeed a powerful economy, but with government policies like this, it won't last. That and the tax rates are already stifling.

actually are you counting some of the ex-Soviet countries, many of those are still in dissarray. actually some countries in Europe are much better off then the U.S.

It was really lost in translation, in no way I come to close to approve the terrorist action, but, if it was an act of war, it would have hit an military target, it hit the WTC and civilians because it wanted to pass on a message and the message was "stop messing around with countries you have nothing to do with". Obviously, you think the only answer to violence is more violence, the war against afghanistan was a necessity, the war agains iraq is pure brainless rage.

This wasn't an act of war in ways that we are accustomed to the phrase, no. And frankly, I don't think the Islamofascists give two thoughts about US involvement anywhere but the M.E. (except, perhaps as a PR gambit, since this has been a common leftist fantasy for decades- live in an impoverished nation? Blame colonialism, or US Imperialism in specific). No, I believe the answer to violence is to deter violence through strength, not place the policy of my nation, or that of any nation, at the whimsy or perceived grievence of any group with access to jet liners, assault rifles, or fertilizer bombs. The moment any group stoops to violence to change my nation's policies, the dialog is officially over. Simple behaviorism. If it succeeeds once, it will make violence a viable vehicle for the prodding of policy changes for ANY group with grievences against my country. The message I want sent is violence does not = satisfactory results. One can wax eloquent about "the cycle of violence" (which more often than not serves as an indicator that a person hasn't seriously considered the issue, IMHO) but this theory only seems relevent if the groups involved desire peace. I don't see that in Islamic terrorism. People often cite peace when they're talking about the Ireali-Palestinian conflict. Peace does not benefit Hamas. Peace does not benefit the PLO. Their hierarchy of power depends on the continuation of hostility. Peace is not in these groups' best interest, even if it is in the best interest of Palenstinians.


Now, here in Brasil, military government took over the country in 1964 (and only left in 85), this was done with US money because they feared Brasil could turn into communism, hundreds of people were killed and tortured for being socialist, all this, with US money, this happened in all countries of south america, I only knowthe details here because I live here, anyway, after this government was in power, it made a lot of unecessary loans at extraordinary high interest rates, no normal government would do this, but brasil´s psychotic dictators did, because US, who put them in power, asked to, up to today, we are still trying to pay the loans, our hospitals and schools are literally falling apart because we are paying a debt that a military dictator did to thannk the country who helped he stay in power. It´s billions of dollars every year. Again, billions that could go to education, but that ends up going to your pockets. Sorry if I don´t make myself very clear, I don´t know english very well and I end up making long sentences to explain words wich I don´t know the translation.Tks

Your English is fine, and far better than my Portugese ;-)

I would agree that the US has in the past, particularly during the cold war, supported thugs and dictators simply because they were anti-communist. I wish a more wise decision could've been made, but the simple fact is that the US would stop at nothing to defeat the USSR as a nation and communism as an ideology. It was an "end justifies the means" strategy that succeeded at the price of the lives of people we never met and have never seen. The other side of the coin is that people tend to wax romantic about the socialists who were put down- many of which were and are no better than the regimes they intended to replace.

The IMF has advocated policies that are unwise, but there is a Hebrew proverb: The borrower is slave to the lender. (Brazillian inflation was moderate in 1998, then the value of your currancy started to fall. The IMF issued seriously unwise advice at that time, causing economic havoc). While I understand your frustration with your nation's tax revenue going toward lending nations of the IMF, there is serious talk within the Bush administration of forgiving all foreign debt. After which, I think my nation needs to stop lending money to other nations.

Well golly gee... I'm so upset the rest of the world is upset at the way the election of my country turned out, so-

Actually, no I'm not. With the exception of the nations I give a rats ass about, like England, Australia and Canada, the rest of you guys can go back to worshipping volcanoes and sacrificing goats and leave our elections to us.

If Mr. Savage and others imagine that one can somehow "overcome" the German army by lying on one's back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money, and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen...

What I object to is the intellectual cowardice of people who are objectively and to some extent emotionally pro-Fascist, but who don't care to say so and take refuge behind the formula "I am just as anti-Fascist as anyone, but--". The result of that so-called peace propaganda is just as dishonest and intellectually disgusting as war propaganda. Like war propaganda, it concentrates on putting forward a "case", obscuring the opponent's point of view and avoiding awkward questions.

-George Orwell

Incidentally, it's been estimated that around 7 million people in the UK are out of work, out of around 60 million. That's a little over 1/8th of the population, or way over 10%. This, and the last administration has let quite a lot of people slip unnoticed onto Incapacity Benefit and other forms of welfare, which don't show up in the official unemployment figures. The UK is indeed a powerful economy, but with government policies like this, it won't last. That and the tax rates are already stifling.

Emmm dont know where you are getting this from, there are not 7 million in unemployment, you cant try and base it on population either as not all 60 million can work, many are too young, too old etc. What do you mean by 'last administration' seeing as how weve had the same admisitration for almost a decade now if what you say about the previous conservative government is true its errelevant. Tax rates stiffling? Income taxes havent been raised here in years and they are by no means high, they will appear higher than US taxes as ours pay towards the NHS, welfare state, free university tution etc. The UK economy is both strong stable and our currency is worth almost $1.9 to every £1.

Don't you see that it was partly the contempt that Europeans hold Bush in that helped get him re-elected. If they had just bitten their tongue instead of running round calling Bush and Americans idiots, it might have been a very close election with a different result.

The condesending manner of the Guardian's letter writing campaign, coupled with the sneers of European intellectuals probably did more than anything else to win Bush the whitehouse.

Now for old times sake gigatron, call him "chimp" just one more time :)
What, so now we can't make jokes about your leader, yet you can call us limeys and frogs?

Now, here in Brasil, military government took over the country in 1964 (and only left in 85), this was done with US money because they feared Brasil could turn into communism, hundreds of people were killed and tortured for being socialist, all this, with US money, this happened in all countries of south america, I only knowthe details here because I live here, anyway, after this government was in power, it made a lot of unecessary loans at extraordinary high interest rates, no normal government would do this, but brasil´s psychotic dictators did, because US, who put them in power, asked to, up to today, we are still trying to pay the loans, our hospitals and schools are literally falling apart because we are paying a debt that a military dictator did to thannk the country who helped he stay in power. It´s billions of dollars every year. Again, billions that could go to education, but that ends up going to your pockets. Sorry if I don´t make myself very clear, I don´t know english very well and I end up making long sentences to explain words wich I don´t know the translation.Tks

Your English is fine. Sorry about the U.S. government royally screwing you guys over, but by this you can tell that although american i'm an unpatriotic America hating son of a bitch liberal. (seen from nutjob conservative viewpoint. :headbang: ) but yeah America does this to many countries so you are in excellent company. We do it to promote our intrests tho personally i would think not having a bunch of countries populace ticked off at us would be a good thing but i'm a crazy liberal.

.... If we were simply taking Iraq's oil, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than it is in the US now. ....The genious Chimp that runs America did not foresee that Iraquis would Blow (daily) their own Pipelanes...rather than to lets us have their Oil.

The way i see it...Some Interest Groups (Military-Complex-Corporations, Israel Lobby, etc)...used the Promise to get cheap Oil...to convince Cheney and Bush.

We are not getting the cheap Oil...But Halliburton (and others) shares are Up...

Whenever there is War...thare is always somebody getting very rich..

The genious Chimp that runs America did not foresee that Iraquis would Blow (daily) their own Pipelanes...rather than to lets us have their Oil.

The way i see it...Some Interest Groups (Military-Complex-Corporations, Israel Lobby, etc)...used the Promise to get cheap Oil...to convince Cheney and Bush.

We are not getting the cheap Oil...But Halliburton (and others) shares are Up...

Whenever there is War...thare is always somebody getting very rich..

yes, we probably did go there for the oil, but it wouldn't be for the American peoples sake it is so some gay fags at Haliburton can get a hell of a lot of cash. It was not for the government, not for us but for Haliburton god blast the chimp (o and dick cheney too)

Emmm dont know where you are getting this from, there are not 7 million in unemployment, you cant try and base it on population either as not all 60 million can work, many are too young, too old etc. What do you mean by 'last administration' seeing as how weve had the same admisitration for almost a decade now if what you say about the previous conservative government is true its errelevant. Tax rates stiffling? Income taxes havent been raised here in years and they are by no means high, they will appear higher than US taxes as ours pay towards the NHS, welfare state, free university tution etc. The UK economy is both strong stable and our currency is worth almost $1.9 to every £1.

7 million. While under a million are on Jobseeker's Allowance, it is comparitively easy, compared with previous years, to get yourself shuffled onto Incapacity Benefit or other forms of welfare. The total number of people in the UK not working, using these figures, is around 7 million.

Also - the UK not raising its taxes? Where are you getting your figures from?
Budget deficits (yay for Labour tax-and-spend philosophy) and the need for income tax rises:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1681336.stm

Council tax now so high the government is having to act to prevent more protests of the kind seen in the past year or so with people refusing to pay:
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_localgov/documents/page/odpm_locgov_023988.hcsp

Gordon Brown taxing us until the pips squeak:
http://www.yourmoney.com/economists_warn_of_tax_hikes_ahead/

An admittedly biased source, but if you want to dish the dirt on God, the best person to ask is the devil:
http://www.davidwilletts.org.uk/record.jsp?type=news&ID=99&sectionID=2

I could find more, but I'm sure you get the gist.

no WWI was an Austrian prince and a hungarian patriot, (or the other way around) that sparked that war but yah it was germany in WWII
I just want to say that is not the reason for the start of the war, merely the catalyst. And it was a Austrian prince (Ferdinand) and a raical Serbian nationalist, a member of the Black Hand. Also, Austria would not have acted without German prodding.