NationStates Jolt Archive

That the Terrorists made a grave miscalculation about how the U.S. would respond to the attacks of 9/11…

All indications to that point had been that the U.S. would pick a single target or two that they believed to be directly linked to the attacks and send in a cruise missile or two and that would be the end of it.

8 years of lackadaisical responses from Bill Clinton got them to believe that the U.S. would not start a WAR over such acts. They believed us to be weak. They believed they could do these attacks and then go hide for a couple of years to regroup and then plan and execute another attack.

They didn't know George Bush!

They didn't know that Bush would make a commitment to the American people that we would do all we can to see this doesn't happen again!

What do some not understand about “Or the countries who Harbor them”?

They GRAVELY miscalculated the resolve THIS President has to DEFEND America in the light of these new and gathering Dangers throughout the World...

That miscalculation has cost them dearly, and continues to cost them day after day.

The Bush Doctrine will make the entire world a safer place. You don't have to thank him now, just as many didn't thank Reagan as he did what he knew to be right. Your children and grandchildren will thank him in the decades to come, much like we do with Ronald Reagan today.

Many people, including John Kerry, warned Reagan that Communism couldn't be fought, just as those same people are telling Bush now that we should only react when attacked. Luckily for the entire World, Ronald Reagan and therefore America did not waiver in a commitment to confront the enemy in the early 80’s. One can only wonder how many Human lives could have been saved had the Europeans of the early 1930’s had the same resolve against the growing threats of their time…

Anyone willing to re-live the 1930’s going into the Second World War or would you rather re-live the 1980’s which witnessed the beginning of the end of the Soviet Empire?

I know which I would rather “re-live”…

Regards,
Gaar

*gets out popcorn*

*shrugs*

Whatever you say cutie-pie, if it makes you happy, then I don't bedrudge you.

*get's marshmallows out*

That the Terrorists made a grave miscalculation about how the U.S. would respond to the attacks of 9/11…

All indications to that point had been that the U.S. would pick a single target or two that they believed to be directly linked to the attacks and send in a cruise missile or two and that would be the end of it.

8 years of lackadaisical responses from Bill Clinton got them to believe that the U.S. would not start a WAR over such acts. They believed us to be weak. They believed they could do these attacks and then go hide for a couple of years to regroup and then plan and execute another attack.

They didn't know George Bush!

They didn't know that Bush would make a commitment to the American people that we would do all we can to see this doesn't happen again!

What do some not understand about “Or the countries who Harbor them”?

They GRAVELY miscalculated the resolve THIS President has to DEFEND America in the light of these new and gathering Dangers throughout the World...

That miscalculation has cost them dearly, and continues to cost them day after day.

The Bush Doctrine will make the entire world a safer place. You don't have to thank him now, just as many didn't thank Reagan as he did what he knew to be right. Your children and grandchildren will thank him in the decades to come, much like we do with Ronald Reagan today.

Many people, including John Kerry, warned Reagan that Communism couldn't be fought, just as those same people are telling Bush now that we should only react when attacked. Luckily for the entire World, Ronald Reagan and therefore America did not waiver in a commitment to confront the enemy in the early 80’s. One can only wonder how many Human lives could have been saved had the Europeans of the early 1930’s had the same resolve against the growing threats of their time…

Anyone willing to re-live the 1930’s going into the Second World War or would you rather re-live the 1980’s which witnessed the beginning of the end of the Soviet Empire?

I know which I would rather “re-live”…

Regards,
Gaar


I shall disagree. Bushs war on terrorism isn't working. I don't think him sending troops all over world will harm anyone but civilians and that is one thing what increases terrorism. So I'm in a fear of another 9/11 more and more everyday.

I'm not well informed about Reagan and his work, but I strongly doubt that world is safer place because of him.

I've never read this thread on NS before...

*puts green hat back on*

I'm not well informed about Reagan and his work, but I strongly doubt that world is safer place because of him.
True. I don't think he invented the safety pin either.

I shall disagree. Bushs war on terrorism isn't working. I don't think him sending troops all over world will harm anyone but civilians and that is one thing what increases terrorism. So I'm in a fear of another 9/11 more and more everyday.

I'm not well informed about Reagan and his work, but I strongly doubt that world is safer place because of him.

Really?

Then perhaps you can explain how the Terrorists keep calling for attacks in the U.S., but we have still yet to see any?!?!

All indications are that their abilities are diminishing, not increasing!

Regards,
Gaar

Really?

Then perhaps you can explain how the Terrorists keep calling for attacks in the U.S., but we have still yet to see any?!?!

All indications are that their abilities are diminishing, not increasing!

Regards,
Gaar
Hey, did anyone else know that Terrorists was a proper noun? Why didn't anyone tell me?

*gets chocolate buttions out and a drink*

lets watch the show, ah trolls got to love them

*get fire guard out*

I don't think he invented the safety pin either.

That's simply YOUR opinion! If you had ACTUALLY LOOKED, you would see that YOU WERE WRONG!

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blhunt_pin.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin
http://www.thunderbirdsupply.com/proddetail.asp?id=491120

Maybe you should think things through before stating OBVIOUS fallacies.

Stop lying, you filthy liberal.

Regards,
Mr Stabby

You know something? I'm going to just watch this thread. Hey Torching, you got any spare popcorn?

You know something? I'm going to just watch this thread. Hey Torching, you got any spare popcorn?

Here's some garlic salt...

What some people don't get is no amount of "let me tell you why you disagree with me and explain it to you and then you'll suddenly see the light" threads are going to change the minds of people who hold one or more of the following opinions:

1) The war in Iraq was not about terror.
2) The effect that the US has had on the world in recent years is mostly negative.
3) The US president is an idiot.
4) War IS terror.
5) Terroism and the fear of it has been used as a political tool.
and so on...

*gets chocolate buttions out and a drink*

lets watch the show, ah trolls got to love them

*get fire guard out*
Not the best troll though, let's face it.

I mean, you have to start with a good thread title, and he's fallen down seriously there. "What most don't get..." won't draw in the required audience for a really good flame-fest.

Secondly, his post is too long. The flamers are too thick to concentrate through more than three short paragraphs, so they just won't bother. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but generally it would have been more effective to simply leave a short post that doesn't immediately highlight how rubbish his argument is.

He just needs to be slightly wrong, to draw people into the debate. And then get more and more unreasonable as the debate goes on. He's gone down a dead-end alley, and left himself with nowhere else to go.

Textbook schoolboy error.

Really?

Then perhaps you can explain how the Terrorists keep calling for attacks in the U.S., but we have still yet to see any?!?!

All indications are that their abilities are diminishing, not increasing!

Regards,
Gaar

Do you honestly think this is somekind of war we have seen in the past...
These take time (thak god). And I hope USA will stop the war on terrorism
before we all get hurt. It is a nice thought but it won't work.



I hate this 'terrorism is new' and 'terrorism is more alive than ever' crap.
It's an old concept and it's been very much alive all the time.

Not the best troll though, let's face it.

I mean, you have to start with a good thread title, and he's fallen down seriously there. "What most don't get..." won't draw in the required audience for a really good flame-fest.

Secondly, his post is too long. The flamers are too thick to concentrate through more than three short paragraphs, so they just won't bother. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but generally it would have been more effective to simply leave a short post that doesn't immediately highlight how rubbish his argument is.

He just needs to be slightly wrong, to draw people into the debate. And then get more and more unreasonable as the debate goes on. He's gone down a dead-end alley, and left himself with nowhere else to go.

Textbook schoolboy error.

So instead of just blathering on, perhaps you might try and address even a single issue?

I mean, it's all well and good to insult someone, as long as you have a point to make while doing it...

Regards,
Gaar

What some people don't get is no amount of "let me tell you why you disagree with me and explain it to you and then you'll suddenly see the light" threads are going to change the minds of people who hold one or more of the following opinions:

1) The war in Iraq was not about terror.
2) The effect that the US has had on the world in recent years is mostly negative.
3) The US president is an idiot.
4) War IS terror.
5) Terroism and the fear of it has been used as a political tool.
and so on...

They are welcome to have any OPINION they like...

I was just hoping they would be a bit informed before they made it.

Regards,
Gaar

Do you honestly think this is somekind of war we have seen in the past...
These take time (thak god). And I hope USA will stop the war on terrorism
before we all get hurt. It is a nice thought but it won't work.

I hate this 'terrorism is new' and 'terrorism is more alive than ever' crap.
It's an old concept and it's been very much alive all the time.

So because it isn't "new" we shouldn't try and fight it?!?!

So instead of just blathering on, perhaps you might try and address even a single issue?

He's probably just afraid that YOU'LL report HIM to the Secret Service.

Regards,
Mr Stabby

So because it isn't "new" we shouldn't try and fight it?!?!


Sorry it came out wrong. It wasn't directed at your posts.
I just hate when people assume it's a modern day proplem. (It happens alot)

So because it isn't "new" we shouldn't try and fight it?!?!
No but the Us could admit is was wrong about turning a blind eye in the past!

I was just hoping they would be a bit informed before they made it.

Some of the people who hold those opinions are pretty well informed. You trying to tell them what "they don't get" is not going to change their minds.

Not the best troll though, let's face it.

I mean, you have to start with a good thread title, and he's fallen down seriously there. "What most don't get..." won't draw in the required audience for a really good flame-fest.

Secondly, his post is too long. The flamers are too thick to concentrate through more than three short paragraphs, so they just won't bother. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but generally it would have been more effective to simply leave a short post that doesn't immediately highlight how rubbish his argument is.

He just needs to be slightly wrong, to draw people into the debate. And then get more and more unreasonable as the debate goes on. He's gone down a dead-end alley, and left himself with nowhere else to go.

Textbook schoolboy error.

i did not say he was the best but trolls are good for entainment, it's like watching a chimp, simple but funny

No but the Us could admit is was wrong about turning a blind eye in the past!

OK, I admit it...

Can we fight them now?

Regards,
Gaar

Some of the people who hold those opinions are pretty well informed. You trying to tell them what "they don't get" is not going to change their minds.

And so people who believe the way I do are not well informed?

Or is it that we may just have a sincere difference of opinion?

Regards,
Gaar

Really?

Then perhaps you can explain how the Terrorists keep calling for attacks in the U.S., but we have still yet to see any?!?!

All indications are that their abilities are diminishing, not increasing!

Regards,
Gaar

Er, guys you had ONE day of attacks, EVER.

Count yourselves lucky.

Er, guys you had ONE day of attacks, EVER.

Count yourselves lucky.

So we should turn our heads and just let it happen again?

Er, guys you had ONE day of attacks, EVER.

Not entirely true.

Let's not forget that the WTC was attacked in 1993 as well.

And the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.

Looks like you forgot to CHECK YOUR FACTS!

(Sorry, I'm not really an asshole, but this is fun)

Regards,
Mr Stabby

Sorry it came out wrong. It wasn't directed at your posts.
I just hate when people assume it's a modern day proplem. (It happens alot)
well, that's what he/she wrote
Quote:..in the light of these NEW and gathering Dangers throughout the World...

I disagree with Urantia but won't bother to argue about it right now.

Anyone have some soda? That popcorn was great, but with all the fires, its making me thirsty.

I'm harbouring a terrorist, he's over there on my couch.

well, that's what he/she wrote
Quote:..in the light of these NEW and gathering Dangers throughout the World...

I disagree with Urantia but won't bother to argue about it right now.

They were fairly new to us...

But ok, I mis-spoke. Does that change wether we should do something about it or not?

Regards,
Gaar

Not the best troll though, let's face it.

I mean, you have to start with a good thread title, and he's fallen down seriously there. "What most don't get..." won't draw in the required audience for a really good flame-fest.

Secondly, his post is too long. The flamers are too thick to concentrate through more than three short paragraphs, so they just won't bother. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but generally it would have been more effective to simply leave a short post that doesn't immediately highlight how rubbish his argument is.

He just needs to be slightly wrong, to draw people into the debate. And then get more and more unreasonable as the debate goes on. He's gone down a dead-end alley, and left himself with nowhere else to go.

Textbook schoolboy error.

With respect, I think you're being a little unfair. This one does have a signature piece. As shown here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404654&goto=nextoldest) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404650&goto=nextnewest) .

Not entirely true.

Let's not forget that the WTC was attacked in 1993 as well.

And the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.

Looks like you forgot to CHECK YOUR FACTS!

(Sorry, I'm not really an asshole, but this is fun)

Regards,
Mr Stabby


Yes, but you (USA) still have very short history for these kind of things.

Not entirely true.

Let's not forget that the WTC was attacked in 1993 as well.
And the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
Looks like you forgot to CHECK YOUR FACTS!
(Sorry, I'm not really an asshole, but this is fun)

Regards,
Mr Stabby

Your right I didn't specify my comment well enough.

One day when when, on the US mainland, You didn't try to kill each other.
(your right this is fun)

No, I don't mean turn the other cheek, but (and I know this has been covered ad nauseum) take it out on the guys that were involved.

Yes, but you (USA) still have very short history for these kind of things.

And hence the reason I said NEW and gathering...

But let's say I was wrong.

Still wondering how that changes ANYTHING?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

No, I don't mean turn the other cheek, but (and I know this has been covered ad nauseum) take it out on the guys that were involved.

Something about "And the Country's that Harbor them" you don't understand?

And hence the reason I said NEW and gathering...

But let's say I was wrong.

Still wondering how that changes ANYTHING?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

I admit this is on the sidetrack.

I'm not from the U.S.

Take a look at my location!

If you had PAID ATTENTION, I wouldn't have to EVEN WRITE THIS POST!

Regards,
Mr Stabby

(Wow, this is great fun.)

Why be a passive observer/apathetic member of the audience when you can just entertain yourself with active involvement!

They didn't know George Bush!


They tried to bait the fool, but the fool turned out to be even more foolish than they had thought. Never underestimate a madman.

They didn't expect anyone to be insane enough to attack two countries and threaten two more as a result of a skyscraper collapsing. Can you fault them?

What some people don't get is no amount of "let me tell you why you disagree with me and explain it to you and then you'll suddenly see the light" threads are going to change the minds of people who hold one or more of the following opinions:

1) The war in Iraq was not about terror.
2) The effect that the US has had on the world in recent years is mostly negative.
3) The US president is an idiot.
4) War IS terror.
5) Terroism and the fear of it has been used as a political tool.
and so on...

1) Directly true - although intelligence did suggest otherwise - indirectly untrue. You see, for all the imperialistic jingoism it sounds like, if people are free people are happier. Ergo, putting freedom and democracy into Iraq will help, because people aren't oppressed by a dictatorship and, in addition, they can have a proper say on the world stage.

2) Personal opinion. I find the fall of the Soviet Union to be a rather good thing. The first Gulf War, although sadly incomplete, showed Saddam not to be messing around and allowed the UN to at least keep him at bay for 12 years, even if they took no action when Saddam broke resolutions and wars.

3) Bush simply disagrees with you. It doesn't make him an idiot. It means he sees things from a different perspective. And in the absence of a higher power telling us right from wrong, there can only be Human opinions.

4) *Shakes head* I don't think you'll find there have been too many people talking about how great war is, and how we should be commiting more troops. No, I think you'll find the vast majority of people accept that war is a horrible thing, but it is a horrible necessity. None of your mealy-mouthed "Let's try talking about giving them flowers" crap.

5) This one is true, but after 9/11, Madrid, and Beslan, I'm kinda scared as well, and I know chances are damned low I or anyone I know will be caught in one.

and so on...

That the Terrorists made a grave miscalculation about how the U.S. would respond to the attacks of 9/11…

All indications to that point had been that the U.S. would pick a single target or two that they believed to be directly linked to the attacks and send in a cruise missile or two and that would be the end of it.

8 years of lackadaisical responses from Bill Clinton got them to believe that the U.S. would not start a WAR over such acts. They believed us to be weak. They believed they could do these attacks and then go hide for a couple of years to regroup and then plan and execute another attack.

They didn't know George Bush!

They didn't know that Bush would make a commitment to the American people that we would do all we can to see this doesn't happen again!

And fall right into Osama's hands. Infuritating the world and making the terrorist actually look like their cause if supported by something.

What do some not understand about “Or the countries who Harbor them”?

They GRAVELY miscalculated the resolve THIS President has to DEFEND America in the light of these new and gathering Dangers throughout the World...

Nope, they calculated this exact opportunity. Bush almost seems like he is working with them...

That miscalculation has cost them dearly, and continues to cost them day after day.

The Bush Doctrine will make the entire world a safer place. You don't have to thank him now, just as many didn't thank Reagan as he did what he knew to be right. Your children and grandchildren will thank him in the decades to come, much like we do with Ronald Reagan today.

Safer place for terorism. Numbers are growing for their cause; while ours is shrinking.

Many people, including John Kerry, warned Reagan that Communism couldn't be fought, just as those same people are telling Bush now that we should only react when attacked. Luckily for the entire World, Ronald Reagan and therefore America did not waiver in a commitment to confront the enemy in the early 80’s. One can only wonder how many Human lives could have been saved had the Europeans of the early 1930’s had the same resolve against the growing threats of their time…

Communism wasn't fought... Bush attacked, something Reagon didn't do.

Anyone willing to re-live the 1930’s going into the Second World War or would you rather re-live the 1980’s which witnessed the beginning of the end of the Soviet Empire?

I know which I would rather “re-live”…

Regards,
Gaar

I'd live the first time (I wasn't around back than) either.

I'm not from the U.S.

Take a look at my location!

If you had PAID ATTENTION, I wouldn't have to EVEN WRITE THIS POST!

Regards,
Mr Stabby

(Wow, this is great fun.)

Why be a passive observer/apathetic member of the audience when you can just entertain yourself with active involvement!

I looked your location. I just thought you were lying :p
My bad.

Er, guys you had ONE day of attacks, EVER.

Count yourselves lucky.

So the 1973 police shootings never happened? (A syrian, unamed)
The 1993 attack on the WTC never happened? (Al-Qaeda)
The 1997 Subway bombing never took place? (Gazi Abu Mezer)
The series of embassy bombings in 1998 never happened? (Bin Laden)

Of course its not as much as some countries, but we had more than one day. Of course, this is not all of the acts of international terrorism, just a few, and it is not even counting domestic terrorism. (Oklahoma Bombings, etc.)

**Sorry, it took a while to post so I didn't see the post just like this

And fall right into Osama's hands. Infuritating the world and making the terrorist actually look like their cause if supported by something.

Nope, they calculated this exact opportunity. Bush almost seems like he is working with them...

Safer place for terorism. Numbers are growing for their cause; while ours is shrinking.

Communism wasn't fought... Bush attacked, something Reagon didn't do.

I'd live the first time (I wasn't around back than) either.

I am left wondering how you can "believe" the Terrorists are doing so well, when they aren't able to follow through on their OWN stated efforts to ATTACK the U.S. on U.S. Soil for some Months now?!?!

Or is it they are just "waiting" for their opportunity, even though their Leaders are PLEADING with them to DO SOMETHING!?!?

Me thinks the FACTS don't support YOUR assertions.

Regards,
Gaar

With respect, I think you're being a little unfair. This one does have a signature piece. As shown here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404654&goto=nextoldest) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404650&goto=nextnewest) .
I'm afraid you are wrong. The signature piece is "Something about [something or other] you don't understand?"
Just pay attention.

They were fairly new to us...

But ok, I mis-spoke. Does that change wether we should do something about it or not?

Regards,
Gaar
Of course something should be done about it. We just disagree about how we should solve the problem. Your methods are causing more and more anger among poor, uneducated young arabs. They may not attack USA, they may attack Spain or France or Italy. IMO fighting against poverty would be much more efficient.

I'm afraid you are wrong. The signature piece is "Something about [something or other] you don't understand?"
Just pay attention.
No. THIS is the signature piece. Here's ANOTHER ONE!

Your children and grandchildren will thank him in the decades to come, much like we do with Ronald Reagan today.

Many people, including John Kerry, warned Reagan that Communism couldn't be fought, just as those same people are telling Bush now that we should only react when attacked. Luckily for the entire World, Ronald Reagan and therefore America did not waiver in a commitment to confront the enemy in the early 80’s.

What do you thank the old actor for? And how did he fight communism?

Something about "And the Country's that Harbor them" you don't understand?

Sure, when do plan to invade the rest of the planet and impose martial law on yourselves?

Do you really believe that there arn't people in every country supporting these terrorists?

I am left wondering how you can "believe" the Terrorists are doing so well, when they aren't able to follow through on their OWN stated efforts to ATTACK the U.S. on U.S. Soil for some Months now?!?!

Or is it they are just "waiting" for their opportunity, even though their Leaders are PLEADING with them to DO SOMETHING!?!?

Me thinks the FACTS don't support YOUR assertions.

Regards,
Gaar

their OWN stated efforts to ATTACK the U.S

I personally haven't seen anything like that what I could take seriously.
I mean I just can't be so sure like you. That their statments are real.

Of course something should be done about it. We just disagree about how we should solve the problem. Your methods are causing more and more anger among poor, uneducated young arabs. They may not attack USA, they may attack Spain or France or Italy. IMO fighting against poverty would be much more efficient.

Maybe...

But somehow I believe that 12+ Million Iraqi's would disagree with you.

Regards,
Gaar

Maybe...

But somehow I believe that 12+ Million Iraqi's would disagree with you.

Regards,
Gaar

but you don't have any basis for your beliefs, although if you listened to iraqis talking, you might find out what they think.

As horrible as it may sound, I will laugh at these people like Urantia II when we get hit again... THEN I'll laugh at the Bush supporters.

Sure, when do plan to invade the rest of the planet and impose martial law on yourselves?

Do you really believe that there arn't people in every country supporting these terrorists?

Perhaps...

But not many that have ignored 17 UN Resolutions over some 12 years...

Or that were shooting at Pilots patrolling the no-fly zone.

Or that had occupied a neighboring Country and had to be removed by force of Arms.

Regards,
Gaar

As horrible as it may sound, I will laugh at these people like Urantia II when we get hit again... THEN I'll laugh at the Bush supporters.

And we are just glad that you haven't been able to laugh yet...

We aren't saying that you won't at some time, but we aren't going to just sit back and wait for it to happen.

Something tells me that Terrorists running for their lives aren't going to have much time to plan an attack in the U.S.

Regards,
Gaar

Maybe...

But somehow I believe that 12+ Million Iraqi's would disagree with you.

Regards,
Gaar
eh?
You're saying they agree with you?

Anyway, most of the terrorist involved in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, as you know. They were living in Europe and trained in USA. So why don't fight against terrorism in countries where terrorists live?

Something tells me that Terrorists running for their lives aren't going to have much time to plan an attack in the U.S.

Regards,
Gaar

you keep telling us that "something tells you..." stuff. are you a CIA agent? or is the "something" in question Fox News?

I love RANDOM CAPITALS aswell

Regards,
my name

I love RANDOM CAPITALS aswell

Regards,
my name

Tovil. Man I love that place. I nearly got beaten there up cos I wouldn't give some kid a pound! (The Tovil in Maidstone anyway!)

Perhaps...

But not many that have ignored 17 UN Resolutions over some 12 years...

Or that were shooting at Pilots patrolling the no-fly zone.

Or that had occupied a neighboring Country and had to be removed by force of Arms.

Regards,
Gaar

So if I said you couldn't use your own yard, but I can, you wouldn't be a bit annoyed?

Re thier previous excursion, Anything we wanted to do about that, we should have done that then. Or do we reopen the old wounds?

eh?
You're saying they agree with you?

Anyway, most of the terrorist involved in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, as you know. They were living in Europe and trained in USA. So why don't fight against terrorism in countries where terrorists live?

No, I am saying that a good many of the people of the Nation we are Liberating WOULDN'T agree with you...

Because we KNOW that the Nations in which they live are not necessarily supporting of Terror. There are those in the U.S. that would use terror too, that doesn't mean we support it, does it?

Iraq had SHOWN their defiance of the World, had they not?

Regards,
Gaar

So if I said you couldn't use your own yard, but I can, you wouldn't be a bit annoyed?

Re thier previous excursion, Anything we wanted to do about that, we should have done that then. Or do we reopen the old wounds?

If I had "invaded" my neighbors yard, what would YOU care what I thought about it?

Regards,
Gaar

Tovil. Man I love that place. I nearly got beaten there up cos I wouldn't give some kid a pound! (The Tovil in Maidstone anyway!)

Thats the one, Maidstone Tempests finest

Iraq had SHOWN their defiance of the World, had they not?


If you mean Iraq had failed to comply with UN resolutions, then you are misinformed. Iran was complying fully with UN resolutions, and the UN inspection team repeatedly confirmed this.

However, two rogue states, the US and the UK, invaded Iraq in spite of the UN telling them that such an invasion would be illegal.

Nuke LONDON NOW etc

No, I am saying that a good many of the people of Nation we are Liberating WOULDN'T agree with you...

Because we KNOW that the Nations in which they live are not necessarily supporting of Terror. There are those in the U.S. that would use terror too, that doesn't mean we support it, does it?

Iraq had SHOWN their defiance of the World, had they not?

Regards,
Gaar
Could you answer my other question too?

No, I am saying that a good many of the people of Nation we are Liberating WOULDN'T agree with you...

Because we KNOW that the Nations in which they live are not necessarily supporting of Terror. There are those in the U.S. that would use terror too, that doesn't mean we support it, does it?

Iraq had SHOWN their defiance of the World, had they not?

Regards,
Gaar

Are you talking the whole world or just the US?

I know you get confused like with the "world" series etc.

Most countries have refused to comply with all resolutions. I think that France has one of the highest counts of disagreements.

The Bush Doctrine will make the entire world a safer place. You don't have to thank him now, just as many didn't thank Reagan as he did what he knew to be right. Your children and grandchildren will thank him in the decades to come, much like we do with Ronald Reagan today.
I believe this is the bread and butter of the first post..? You are hoping Bush doctrine will make the world a safer place. That's all good and fine. Let's hope so. While we are waiting for this to happen, could you please provide us with some proof that there is a trend towards the world becoming a safer place (terrorism-wise)?

Why not use the Department of State series " Patterns of Global Terrorism". Start from the Clinton era (or earlier), and show us how Bush has made the world (or USA) safer. I bet you can't even find a trend in terrorist attacks. They vary greatly from year to year. And I believe that has nothing to do with who is the president.

What comes to R. Reagan, I doubt he is as internationally acclaimed person as you seem to think.

If you mean Iraq had failed to comply with UN resolutions, then you are misinformed. Iran was complying fully with UN resolutions, and the UN inspection team repeatedly confirmed this.

However, two rogue states, the US and the UK, invaded Iraq in spite of the UN telling them that such an invasion would be illegal.

Nuke LONDON NOW etc

Hmmmm....

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/12/1037080732005.html?oneclick=true

I think you need to do just a bit of Research.

Regards,
Gaar

Try reading something like this first before expressing opinions about how you think Iraqis feel about being invaded. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465076009/qid=1110807973/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-7577335-9345537?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Could you answer my other question too?

What other question?

Are you talking the whole world or just the US?

I know you get confused like with the "world" series etc.

Most countries have refused to comply with all resolutions. I think that France has one of the highest counts of disagreements.
Actually, I think you'll find that the US has the highest number of vetoes used, by some considerable distance. I think France has one of the lowest.

What comes to R. Reagan, I doubt he is as internationally acclaimed person as you seem to think.

in the UK he is generally regarded as a guy who seemed nice, but was never in control and was only ever a puppet. Most see his second term as astounding in that he appeared "not all there" during most of the time.

Sorry if it offends but this was and is how people i know see him.

Try reading something like this first before expressing opinions about how you think Iraqis feel about being invaded. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465076009/qid=1110807973/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-7577335-9345537?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

And perhaps YOU should try seeing what the PEOPLE FEEL?!?!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nearly half the Iraqis polled in a survey conducted primarily in March and early April said they believed the U.S.-led war had done more harm than good, but 61 percent of respondents said Saddam Hussein's ouster made it worth any hardships.

Nearly half -- 47 percent -- said they believed attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq could not be justified, while 52 percent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time.

Does anyone remember United State of Europe?

Shall we all fluffle Gaar?

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

There are SIX reported incidents of Iraqi Soldiers FIRING ON U.S. and U.K. planes during the past 8 YEARS!

While NONE of the incidents resulted in ANY damage to said aircraft.

I think that this proves that... um... well...

Something tells me that YOU should apologise!

Regards,
Mr Stabby

If you mean Iraq had failed to comply with UN resolutions, then you are misinformed. Iran was complying fully with UN resolutions, and the UN inspection team repeatedly confirmed this.

However, two rogue states, the US and the UK, invaded Iraq in spite of the UN telling them that such an invasion would be illegal.

Nuke LONDON NOW etc

Hmmmm....

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/12/1037080732005.html?oneclick=true

I think you need to do just a bit of Research.

Regards,
Gaar

A link to the sydney morning herald sign-up page? that's really going to show me. Do you have any actual evidence that what I said was wrong?

What other question?
Why don't you fight against terrorism in countries where terrorists live? There are terrorists in Iraq (at least now...) but they have nothing to do with 9/11 kind of attacks. Terrorists who are able to do that kind of attacks are quite often living in Europe. They make their plans in Europe and train in Europe (and USA). Were any of the terrorists involved in 9/11 from Iraq or Afghanistan?

And perhaps YOU should try seeing what the PEOPLE FEEL?!?!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nearly half the Iraqis polled in a survey conducted primarily in March and early April said they believed the U.S.-led war had done more harm than good, but 61 percent of respondents said Saddam Hussein's ouster made it worth any hardships.

Nearly half -- 47 percent -- said they believed attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq could not be justified, while 52 percent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time.

so nearly half said it did more harm than good, and more than half said it was justifiable to attack US forces, and you think your war was justified because half of them don't want to attack you? way to win a popularity contest. "I should get to be in charge because less than 50% of the people don't want to attack me"

A link to the sydney morning herald sign-up page? that's really going to show me. Do you have any actual evidence that what I said was wrong?

Hmmm...

Try this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/

Sorry, I don't know how that happened.

And perhaps YOU should try seeing what the PEOPLE FEEL?!?!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nearly half the Iraqis polled in a survey conducted primarily in March and early April said they believed the U.S.-led war had done more harm than good, but 61 percent of respondents said Saddam Hussein's ouster made it worth any hardships.

Nearly half -- 47 percent -- said they believed attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq could not be justified, while 52 percent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time.


But only 33% said war has done more good than harm
and 46% said it has done more harm than good.
In the end that's the point. (Yes I'm propably wrong again :( )

Hmmm...

Try this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/

Sorry, I don't know how that happened.

Wait, not sure that was what you were asking about...

Too many questions going at once.

Wish you guys could do your OWN Research, instead of just stating your OPINION as some type of FACT...

Regards,
Gaar

And perhaps YOU should try seeing what the PEOPLE FEEL?!?!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nearly half the Iraqis polled in a survey conducted primarily in March and early April said they believed the U.S.-led war had done more harm than good, but 61 percent of respondents said Saddam Hussein's ouster made it worth any hardships.

Nearly half -- 47 percent -- said they believed attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq could not be justified, while 52 percent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time.
Yes, but look at the same results for different ethnic groups. Very few liked Saddam, but now there are potential ethnic tensions which were not a huge problem before. And my post wasn't directed specifically at you. My point, as your post actually pointed out, is that you cannot state simply that everybody is better off or everybody is worse off. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Here are my arguments against the war:

1. We were lied to. There were no WMDs, and Iraq has nothing to do with Islamists. Saddam is a bad Muslim and the Islamists hate him as much as the Bush family do.

2. Conduct of the US Army. Horrific. Shoot first, ask questions later. How to wind the hearts & minds, I think not. And I'm not talking about the torture.

3. A complete and utter ignorance of developmental relief theories. The invading forces removed the incumbent system of law and order, without replacing it. Looting and violence engulfed Baghdad. Then you had thousands of people begging for work, and being ignored. Instead Americans are brought in to do all the work. How do you expect the Iraqis to think you are there to help them if you do not involve them in rebuilding their own country?

Try reading my original post first, why don't you? There was a link.

Gaar, keep up the good work. It's hard to even read what these liberals write though. How can they be so backward in their thinking? I think they are just upset because Bush was saying that it would spread democracy throught the region, and now it is starting to. The whole Syria Lebanon thing, the elections in the Palestinian authority, they don't want to have to give a man they have been calling an idiot credit for that. They were wrong with Reagan, they are wrong again.

:headbang: ----> Liberal Brain Storming Session.

But only 33% said war has done more good than harm
and 46% said it has done more harm than good.
In the end that's the point. (Yes I'm propably wrong again :( )

No, the point is that better than 60% said getting rid of Saddam was worth ANY hardship...

And that not EVERYONE seems to agree, even in Iraq.

So saying that ALL or most is simply not true.

Regards,
Gaar

Gaar, keep up the good work. It's hard to even read what these liberals write though. How can they be so backward in their thinking? I think they are just upset because Bush was saying that it would spread democracy throught the region, and now it is starting to. The whole Syria Lebanon thing, the elections in the Palestinian authority, they don't want to have to give a man they have been calling an idiot credit for that. They were wrong with Reagan, they are wrong again.

:headbang: ----> Liberal Brain Storming Session.

Thank you...

Which makes my point that we will let the results speak for themselves and History can be our Judge!

Regards,
Gaar

Gaar, keep up the good work. It's hard to even read what these liberals write though. How can they be so backward in their thinking? I think they are just upset because Bush was saying that it would spread democracy throught the region, and now it is starting to. The whole Syria Lebanon thing, the elections in the Palestinian authority, they don't want to have to give a man they have been calling an idiot credit for that. They were wrong with Reagan, they are wrong again.

:headbang: ----> Liberal Brain Storming Session.
Ah, a puppet troll.

C'mon and give me a cuddle. :fluffle:

Hmmm...

Try this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/

Sorry, I don't know how that happened.


that is a link to a poll taken almost 12 months ago. I wonder if Iraq still feels the same now, after another 12 months without security, or even secure water and electricity.

Also, whatever the people of Iraq think, I was disputing your claim that Iraq had defied the world. And I stand by it - Iraq didn't defy the world, but the US and UK did.

Ah, a puppet troll.

C'mon and give me a cuddle. :fluffle:

Funny how many subjects on this Forum are "Trolling" but these Liberals will only call it on those they don't like...

And then they post without making any point, which is spam, but they wouldn't call THEMSELVES on breaking the rules, will they?

Regards,
Gaar

that is a link to a poll taken almost 12 months ago. I wonder if Iraq still feels the same now, after another 12 months without security, or even secure water and electricity.

Also, whatever the people of Iraq think, I was disputing your claim that Iraq had defied the world. And I stand by it - Iraq didn't defy the world, but the US and UK did.

Actually, they likely feel even better...

Given their Elections HAVE happened and they are assuming more and more control for theirselves.

Regards,
Gaar

Also, whatever the people of Iraq think, I was disputing your claim that Iraq had defied the world. And I stand by it - Iraq didn't defy the world, but the US and UK did.

That's right...

And the link that didn't work was to an Article about how Iraq had just defied another UN Resolution for Weapon Inspectors.

Regards,
Gaar

Funny how many subjects on this Forum are "Trolling" but these Liberals will only call it on those they don't like...

And then they post without making any point, which is spam, but they wouldn't call THEMSELVES on breaking the rules, will they?

Regards,
Gaar
MY GOD!!!!

I'm one of THEM!!! A stinking dirty LIBERAL!!!

No, I just take the piss out of idiots. I find trolls endlessly entertaining. Especially the ones who just call you a liberal when they can't knock down your arguments. I told you what I think.

Actually, they likely feel even better...

Given their Elections HAVE happened and they are assuming more and more control for theirselves.

Regards,
Gaar


But most of them (Iraq) want's U.S troops out.
Bush claims they liberated (sp?) Iraq, but why won't they leave.
I say let Iraq handle it's own domestic proplems. I think they can handle it
'cause they are not fighting against themselfs, but agaist foreign troops
usually U.S troops.
Lets give Iraq a chance.

MY GOD!!!!

I'm one of THEM!!! A stinking dirty LIBERAL!!!

No, I just take the piss out of idiots. I find trolls endlessly entertaining. Especially the ones who just call you a liberal when they can't knock down your arguments. I told you what I think.

Really?!?!

When? I must have missed it in all of the other Bull you were posting...

I would happily "knock down" your arguments, if you made any!

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, they likely feel even better...

Given their Elections HAVE happened and they are assuming more and more control for theirselves.

Regards,
Gaar
As I pointed out, Iraqis are not one ethnic group. I'm positive the Kurds and Shi'ites are well chuffed, but what about the Sunnis?

I'll try again. This book will explain it much better, if you care to follow the link rather than retort with "You know nothing" or "You're one of those liberals, aren't you?":

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465076009/qid=1110807973/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-7577335-9345537?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Yes, but look at the same results for different ethnic groups. Very few liked Saddam, but now there are potential ethnic tensions which were not a huge problem before. And my post wasn't directed specifically at you. My point, as your post actually pointed out, is that you cannot state simply that everybody is better off or everybody is worse off. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Here are my arguments against the war:

1. We were lied to. There were no WMDs, and Iraq has nothing to do with Islamists. Saddam is a bad Muslim and the Islamists hate him as much as the Bush family do.

2. Conduct of the US Army. Horrific. Shoot first, ask questions later. How to wind the hearts & minds, I think not. And I'm not talking about the torture.

3. A complete and utter ignorance of developmental relief theories. The invading forces removed the incumbent system of law and order, without replacing it. Looting and violence engulfed Baghdad. Then you had thousands of people begging for work, and being ignored. Instead Americans are brought in to do all the work. How do you expect the Iraqis to think you are there to help them if you do not involve them in rebuilding their own country?

Try reading my original post first, why don't you? There was a link.

Well, go on them. Knock them down.

But most of them (Iraq) want's U.S troops out.
Bush claims they liberated (sp?) Iraq, but why won't they leave.
I say let Iraq handle it's own domestic proplems. I think they can handle it
'cause they are not fighting against themselfs, but agaist foreign troops
usually U.S troops.
Lets give Iraq a chance.

Actually, the majority don't want us out now...

Iraqi's are fighting the insurgents mainly, or perhaps YOU would be kind enough to peovide a link that says the Iraqi Soldiers are fighting the U.S. Soldiers?

Regards,
Gaar

But most of them (Iraq) want's U.S troops out.
Bush claims they liberated (sp?) Iraq, but why won't they leave.
I say let Iraq handle it's own domestic proplems. I think they can handle it
'cause they are not fighting against themselfs, but agaist foreign troops
usually U.S troops.
Lets give Iraq a chance.
Leaving isn't a good idea. The country will fall to pieces if they do. It does, however, need to be handled very differently.

Actually, the majority don't want us out now...

Iraqi's are fighting the insurgents mainly, or perhaps YOU would be kind enough to peovide a link that says the Iraqi Soldiers are fighting the U.S. Soldiers?

Regards,
Gaar
So all the Sunnis aren't Iraqi then?

Well I don't know if I can agree. It does not seem to me as if they would expect only a few missiles after committing one of the worst acts of the century. It seems to me that if the terrorists goal was to kill Americans and make the Muslim world hate America then I think they might be doing what they intended. Not only did they kill Americans on September 11, but by making America enter Afghanistan and Iraq it has managed to put more Americans in danger, undermine confidence and unity and paint America as a villian in parts of the Muslim community more effectivly.

Actually, the majority don't want us out now...

Iraqi's are fighting the insurgents mainly, or perhaps YOU would be kind enough to peovide a link that says the Iraqi Soldiers are fighting the U.S. Soldiers?

Regards,
Gaar


I think there are U.S soldiers dying every week.

Well I don't know if I can agree. It does not seem to me as if they would expect only a few missiles after committing one of the worst acts of the century. It seems to me that if the terrorists goal was to kill Americans and make the Muslim world hate America then I think they might be doing what they intended. Not only did they kill Americans on September 11, but by making America enter Afghanistan and Iraq it has managed to put more Americans in danger, undermine confidence and unity and paint America as a villian in parts of the Muslim community more effectivly.
Oh, that was good. I was holding that one back for later, after toying with him a bit more.

Leaving isn't a good idea. The country will fall to pieces if they do. It does, however, need to be handled very differently.


You are right. But I think it's not ours (meaning anybody else than Iraq) to safe from falling into pieces.

Well, go on them. Knock them down.
1. We were lied to. There were no WMDs, and Iraq has nothing to do with Islamists. Saddam is a bad Muslim and the Islamists hate him as much as the Bush family do.

4 Independant Agencies ALL said the same thing, and Bush took their word for it, how is that Lying?

Perhaps you should READ the 9/11 Commission Report, if YOU think Iraq had no Terrorists working within its borders?

2. Conduct of the US Army. Horrific. Shoot first, ask questions later. How to wind the hearts & minds, I think not. And I'm not talking about the torture..

With a few exceptions I am VERY PROUD of the conduct of our Troops.

Perhaps you need to SEE what is ACTUALLY happening over there.

There are plenty of personal stories at this site...

http://www.anysoldier.us/OtherEfforts.html

3. A complete and utter ignorance of developmental relief theories. The invading forces removed the incumbent system of law and order, without replacing it. Looting and violence engulfed Baghdad. Then you had thousands of people begging for work, and being ignored. Instead Americans are brought in to do all the work. How do you expect the Iraqis to think you are there to help them if you do not involve them in rebuilding their own country?

Without replacing it? What the Hell do you think we are doing? You think people can just be "picked" to do such things without being TRAINED?

And YOU blame US for the Iraqi's not being responsible for their own actions in looting?

And perhaps YOU also need to be made aware of the number of Locals that are being hired to "work" for the U.S. companies that have gone there? How do you think the Terrorists were able to "blow up" that Cantina a few Months ago?

Do you think we should just bring in more Iraqi's to "help" without checking on them so they can do more damage to us?

Sure there are problems in Iraq, just like there are in ANY COUNTRY that has just had a dramatic change in they way they Govern themselves. Do you think the U.S. was a cozy little place immediately after the Revolutionary War? How many YEARS do you think it took us to settle things down?

Any other points you'd like to make?

Regards,
Gaar

So all the Sunnis aren't Iraqi then?

And aren't they killing MORE Iraqi's than U.S. Soldiers now?

So are YOU trying to equate these insurgents with the Iraqi's that are trying to Govern their Country?

Regards,
Gaar

You are right. But I think it's not ours (meaning anybody else than Iraq) to safe from falling into pieces.
There is moral responsability, though, to help them do that themselves. No development can work without ownership. If the Iraqis don't create their own system, then they won't feel like they own it, so they won't want it. They want something they've built themselves, and to be proud of it.

Here's a few more terms from my knowledge of development, and let's see if anyone can tell me why they're important, and why the US in particular have failed to implement them:

Participation
Partnership
Exit Strategy

That'll do for now...

*lol*
what most people don't understand is, that most terrorists don't even care about the US :p
But it is impressive how egocentric some people could be.
But that must be part of the same strange mind that decided to attack Iraq after an act of terrorism done by saudi-arabians.

I don't know if I should laught or cry..

Well I don't know if I can agree. It does not seem to me as if they would expect only a few missiles after committing one of the worst acts of the century. It seems to me that if the terrorists goal was to kill Americans and make the Muslim world hate America then I think they might be doing what they intended. Not only did they kill Americans on September 11, but by making America enter Afghanistan and Iraq it has managed to put more Americans in danger, undermine confidence and unity and paint America as a villian in parts of the Muslim community more effectivly.

I would much rather our Troops, that are trained to deal with such threats, be the ones that are 'put in danger' than just allow the Terrorists to "choose" who THEY want to target...

Again, the FACT that, despite their best efforts, they are unable to commit more acts of Terror on U.S. Soil is a good sign that what we are doing is working.

Something about that you don't get?

Regards,
Gaar

There is moral responsability, though, to help them do that themselves. No development can work without ownership. If the Iraqis don't create their own system, then they won't feel like they own it, so they won't want it. They want something they've built themselves, and to be proud of it.

Here's a few more terms from my knowledge of development, and let's see if anyone can tell me why they're important, and why the US in particular have failed to implement them:

Participation
Partnership
Exit Strategy

That'll do for now...

So what is it YOU think is happening RIGHT NOW there?!?!

They ARE building a Government! Watch and LEARN...

Regards,
Gaar

But that must be part of the same strange mind that decided to attack Iraq after an act of terrorism done by saudi-arabians.

Asked and answered.

4 Independant Agencies ALL said the same thing, and Bush took their word for it, how is that Lying?

Perhaps you should READ the 9/11 Commission Report, if YOU think Iraq had no Terrorists working within its borders?

Um, I think you'll find that many independent reports also said the opposite things.

With a few exceptions I am VERY PROUD of thew comduct of our Troops.

I'm not. They fired warning shots at civilians, and if they didn't run away, assumed they were enemies. They shot at passing cars, including the Italian journalist just after she was freed about a week ago.

Perhaps you need to SEE what is ACTUALLY happening over there.

There are plenty of personal stories at this site...

http://www.anysoldier.us/OtherEfforts.html

There are plenty of good stories in "One Hundred & One Nights" by Asne Seierstad too, of Iraqi civilians.

Without replacing it? What the Hell do you think we are doing? You think people can just be "picked" to do such things without being TRAINED?

And YOU blame US for the Iraqi's not being responsible for their own actions in looting?

Yes, I do blame them. They removed a system of law and order and should have had enough troops to replace it immediately. What do you think would happen in the US if the police decided to strike for a week, and the military just said it was none of their responsibility. Would you be more angry at the criminals or the authorities for sitting back and doing nothing?

And perhaps YOU also need to be made aware of the number of Locals that are being hired to "work" for the U.S. companies that have gone there? How do you think the Terrorists were able to "blow up" that Cantina a few Months ago?

Do you think we should just bring in more Iraqi's to "help" without checking on them so they can do more damage to us?

Well, it would help if the profits from the rebuild were going to Iraq and not American pockets.

Sure there are problems in Iraq, just like there are in ANY COUNTRY that has just had a dramatic change in they way they Govern themselves. Do you think the U.S. was a cozy little place immediately after the Revolutionary War? How many YEARS do you think it took us to settle things down?

Agree with that, but it was very badly managed, with no exit strategy.

Any other points you'd like to make?

Regards,
Gaar

No, I'll just amble along for a bit.

*lol*
what most people don't understand is, that most terrorists don't even care about the US :p


I don't know if I should laught or cry..


Thank you! :fluffle:

So what is it YOU think is happening RIGHT NOW there?!?!

They ARE building a Government! Watch and LEARN...

Regards,
Gaar
And how long did it take?

*lol*
what most people don't understand is, that most terrorists don't even care about the US :p
But it is impressive how egocentric some people could be.
But that must be part of the same strange mind that decided to attack Iraq after an act of terrorism done by saudi-arabians.

I don't know if I should laught or cry..
Fluffle. Always fluffle. It worked on the United State of Europe. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Um, I think you'll find that many independent reports also said the opposite things.

So that makes it Lying, in your mind?



I'm not. They fired warning shots at civilians, and if they didn't run away, assumed they were enemies. They shot at passing cars, including the Italian journalist just after she was freed about a week ago.

War is Hell, something about that YOU don't understand?

There are plenty of good stories in "One Hundred & One Nights" by Asne Seierstad too, of Iraqi civilians.

Ok, so I guess you are wrong then?

Yes, I do blame them. They removed a system of law and order and should have had enough troops to replace it immediately. What do you think would happen in the US if the police decided to strike for a week, and the military just said it was none of their responsibility. Would you be more angry at the criminals or the authorities for sitting back and doing nothing?

Again, War is Hell... I get the feeling that sentiment is lost on you.

Well, it would help if the profits from the rebuild were going to Iraq and not American pockets.

And just how many Iraqi Companies do YOU think are capable of supplying what the U.S. Companies are doing? Hell, there aren't many U.S. Companies that are capable.

And here I thought you were going to have some tough questions...

Regards,
Gaar

I would much rather our Troops, that are trained to deal with such threats, be the ones that are 'put in danger' than just allow the Terrorists to "choose" who THEY want to target...

Again, the FACT that, despite their best efforts, they are unable to commit more acts of Terror on U.S. Soil is a good sign that what we are doing is working.

Something about that you don't get?

Regards,
Gaar

The Capital letters don't make the point any better.

Also the fact that they did it once, proves that they can, that they haven't just means that they haven't.
The IRA haven't bombed for a while, but I don't doubt they could. Do you see what I am saying?
The 9/11 thing was not the best way to kill people but it made the point they wanted to. The next attack will happen when they want it to.
As someone once said, It's not hard to commit a crime but it is hard to get away with it. these guys are prepared for suicide missions, that's virtually impossible to stop, just ask Israel.
The calls to arms are just cover, the agencies have to spend time tracking and tracing the lone gunmen, this gives more room to the terrorist cell.

When it comes to fighting terrorists, please give some credit to the Israelis and the Brits, they have been doing it for much longer, and if they can wipe it out May be it's not so easy?

And how long did it take?

Something about their doing it "Right now" and the term "Building" YOU don't understand?

How many YEARS did it take the U.S. to "Build" ours?

Regards,
Gaar

Read the book mate. Read the book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465076009/qid=1110807973/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-7577335-9345537?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

And have a fluffle. :fluffle:

No, have three. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Something about their doing it "Right now" and the term "Building" YOU don't understand?

How many YEARS did it take the U.S. to "Build" ours?

Regards,
Gaar
Lots, I don't doubt. But development theory has come a long way since then.

So what is it YOU think is happening RIGHT NOW there?!?!
Lets see:
they killed 2 Bodyguards from Blackwater Security Consulting yesterday. - Yeah, they really like you guys. They like you so much that a lot of americans prefer not to show any national color down there an call themself british or even french citizens.

Asked and answered.
Uhh, sorry, yu don't get the point, i'll try to explain.

Saudi Arabia: the US Buddy in the region because you have access to their oil. But at all a corrupt, antidemokartic regime.
This is also the place the terrorists came from.

Iraq: Another country, and also an corrupt dictatorship. They didn't "attack" you, but they also don't sell their oil to you. But it was the much nicer target, as it is not your friend, and this evil dictator wanted to kill Georgies Daddy some years ago and they didn't have a real army since the last war. But without any real reason for an "answer" Georgie had the great idea to find some "proofs" for imaginary nuclear weapons. (Which disappeared after the war! :p)
Meanwhile another evil dictator build a small nuclear weapon, recognizing that this is the only way to be save from american arbitrariness.

I can only say: Thank you, the world is a nicer and safer place with a destabilized iraq and northern Korea wiht the bomb. :rolleyes:

Also the fact that they did it once, proves that they can, that they haven't just means that they haven't.

Again, as many have already pointed out, they just didn't "do it" once...

And that they haven't done it again SINCE we decided to "take the fight to them" points to some type of results, does it not?

The IRA haven't bombed for a while, but I don't doubt they could. Do you see what I am saying?

Yes, and I am not saying they won't, just that they HAVEN'T since 9/11, and that is a good sign that what we are doing just may be working.

The 9/11 thing was not the best way to kill people but it made the point they wanted to. The next attack will happen when they want it to.

Yeah, I'm not buying that. There are MANY reports saying they would "like to", but they haven't.

As someone once said, It's not hard to commit a crime but it is hard to get away with it. these guys are prepared for suicide missions, that's virtually impossible to stop, just ask Israel.
The calls to arms are just cover, the agencies have to spend time tracking and tracing the lone gunmen, this gives more room to the terrorist cell.

Really?!?! Then wouldn't that point to their numbers decreasing and not increasing as many of you are suggesting? If the numbers were increasing, and they are ready to die for their cause, where are all the attacks?!?!

Again, logic doesn't support YOUR assertions.

When it comes to fighting terrorists, please give some credit to the Israelis and the Brits, they have been doing it for much longer, and if they can wipe it out May be it's not so easy?

I give them ALL the credit in the World.

And where have I EVER suggested it would be "easy"?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Lots, I don't doubt. But development theory has come a long way since then.

Ok, so how long did it take Russia to settle down after their recent changes?

Or was that "too long ago" too to count?

Regards,
Gaar

Uhh, sorry, yu don't get the point, i'll try to explain.

Saudi Arabia: the US Buddy in the region because you have access to their oil. But at all a corrupt, antidemokartic regime.
This is also the place the terrorists came from.


No, you didn't get mine...

We don't hold Countries responsible for the actions of a few of its citizens.

Something about that YOU don't understand?

Saddam WAS Iraq's Government and hence the distinction.

Regards,
Gaar

Ok, so how long did it take Russia to settle down after their recent changes?

Or was that "too long ago" too to count?

Regards,
Gaar


Don't assume Russia is doing so badly with it.
I'm not praising them, but They are on they way.
And they are doing better all the time, thanks to the fact they have been able to do it by themselfs

Again, as many have already pointed out, they just didn't "do it" once...

And that they haven't done it again SINCE we decided to "take the fight to them" points to some type of results, does it not?

Yes, and I am not saying they won't, just that they HAVEN'T since 9/11, and that is a good sign that what we are doing just may be working.

Yeah, I'm not buying that. There are MANY reports saying they would "like to", but they haven't.

Really?!?! Then wouldn't that point to their numbers decreasing and not increasing as many of you are suggesting? If the numbers were increasing, and they are ready to die for their cause, where are all the attacks?!?!

Again, logic doesn't support YOUR assertions.

I give them ALL the credit in the World.

And where have I EVER suggested it would be "easy"?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry but I disagree.

That the IRA has stopped bombing, came around due to TALKS, not arms.
The Isrealis are also trying to talk to the palastinians.

What does "Terrorist" mean? not that they are willing to fight a war, but that they will terrorise people.
Tony Blair, is trying to use it to win his election, George Bush sucessfully used it during his.

I get access to a lot of the prevention of terrorism action taken by police in the UK and they have the opinion it is a when not an if. Niether have they said that the threat is reducing. That we have not seen a large scale act in the US or the UK, means that we are getting used to the hightend state of alert we are living in, not that the status is lower.

Don't assume Russia is doing so badly with it.
I'm not praising them, but They are on they way.
And they are doing better all the time, thanks to the fact they have been able to do it by themselfs

I don't assume anything...

Just pointing out that these things take time.

Democracy doesn't happen overnight.

Russia has been working on it for well over a decade now, and some here want results in Iraq in 1/10 that time...

Regards,
Gaar

Saddam WAS Iraq's Government and hence the distinction.
And until today there is no proof for a conection between bin Laden and Saddam. Saddam was a paranoid dictator, but he was a atheistic one.
He didn't care much about religios fundamentalism...to be honest Saddam's iraq was last place that hid these kind of terrorists in the region.

Ok, so how long did it take Russia to settle down after their recent changes?

Or was that "too long ago" too to count?

Regards,
Gaar
Did I say "settle down"? I'm sorry if you misunderstood. But a new system of law and order at least should have been started on day one. It wasn't.

And until today there is no proof for a conection between bin Laden and Saddam. Saddam was a paranoid dictator, but he was a atheistic one.
He didn't care much about religios fundamentalism...to be honest Saddam's iraq was last place that hid these kind of terrorists in the region.

And I am not suggesting there ever was.

Something about his other actions for well over a decade that you missed?

I think you should READ the 9/11 Commission Report, then we can talk.

Regards,
Gaar

I'm giving up now. Have a life to live and all that.

*cue "I won the argument" claims*

feel free to give something to a worthy cause if you want:

www.justgiving.com/saharaphil

Did I say "settle down"? I'm sorry if you misunderstood. But a new system of law and order at least should have been started on day one. It wasn't.

Sorry, I disagree...

The ONLY way that would have been done would have been if the U.S. had Dictated what System they would use.

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry, I disagree...

The ONLY way that would have been done would have been if the U.S. had Dictated what System they would use.

Regards,
Gaar


They Didn't?

Who did then, the vote may be free but the blueprint is pure US. even the interim Govt, was selected.

Russia has been working on it for well over a decade now, and some here want results in Iraq in 1/10 that time...

Regards,
Gaar

I just want it to start ;)

I just want it to start ;)

I guess you missed the Elections then... :p

Regards,
Gaar

They Didn't?

Who did then, the vote may be free but the blueprint is pure US. even the interim Govt, was selected.

We may have "picked" some of the players that began the process, but I am pretty sure those players have been free to implement any Democratic System they choose...

Do YOU have reason to believe differently?

Regards,
Gaar

We may have "picked" some of the players that began the process, but I am pretty sure those players have been free to implement any Democratic System they choose...

Do YOU have reason to believe differently?

Regards,
Gaar

Only that if you pick the team they tend to play the game you choose.

I think you should READ the 9/11 Commission Report
Why? It's just a justifcation for the done actions. And not independent in any form.You could also suggest do read "Mein Kampf" or the communist manifest for a realistic picture of fascism or communism.
the problem for your guys in america is, that you haven't access to any form of neutral information - almost all newspapers and TV stations only show (or are forced to show...) pro-admistration news.
I think you should try to read some foreign newspapers, for some new insights.

Contra principia negantem non est disputandum. :)

Only that if you pick the team they tend to play the game you choose.
Also you dictate the game. Is democracy the best system for ther culture? Is there a system that has worked better for longer? Just because is nearly works for you does not make it the best for every one else.

'Do not do unto others as you would have done unto you, their tastes may not be the same.'

Why? It's just a justifcation for the done actions. And not independent in any form.You could also suggest do read "Mein Kampf" or the communist manifest for a realistic picture of fascism or communism.
the problem for your guys in america is, that you haven't access to any form of neutral information - almost all newspapers and TV stations only show (or are forced to show...) pro-admistration news.
I think you should try to read some foreign newspapers, for some new insights.

Contra principia negantem non est disputandum. :)

Uhhh, because it PROVES that Iraq DID have ties to Terrorist Groups, and points out that even without "ties" many groups were doing as they pleased because there was no one that was going to stop them.

Al Queda had a "Chem shop" that they were running in one of the Northern Provinces. No link to Saddam but it was there none the less.

I am just refuting the LIE that people are trying to say that there were no Terrorists in Iraq before we went to War with them...

Do you have a problem with me doing that?

Regards,
Gaar

Also you dictate the game. Is democracy the best system for ther culture? Is there a system that has worked better for longer? Just because is nearly works for you does not make it the best for every one else.

'Do not do unto others as you would have done unto you, their tastes may not be the same.'
*ahem*

America's not a democracy

*ahem*

America's not a democracy
It sells it self as one, the truth an America in a sentance is an invitation to you use the word Oxymoron.

Also you dictate the game. Is democracy the best system for ther culture? Is there a system that has worked better for longer? Just because is nearly works for you does not make it the best for every one else.


Democracy has/is proving time and again to be the best System for ALL Governments, in some manner or another...

Ours is a Democratic Republic, after all.

Just look at History if you wish to see which "System" has produced the Greatest Military might this World has ever seen.

While at the same time producing enough Wealth to make its citizens the most GIVING PEOPLE on the face of the Earth, BAR NONE!

Now YOU show ME ANY other "System" that can boast ANYTHING close to that!

I'll wait here...

Regards,
Gaar

Uhhh, because it PROVES that Iraq DID have ties to Terrorist Groups, and points out that even without "ties" many groups were doing as they pleased because there was no one that was going to stop them.

Al Queda had a "Chem shop" that they were running in one of the Northern Provinces. No link to Saddam but it was there none the less.

I am just refuting the LIE that people are trying to say that there were no Terrorists in Iraq before we went to War with them...

Do you have a problem with me doing that?

Regards,
Gaar

No one stated there were no terrorists in iraq before the war, as you agreed every country has them.

But thier are more attacks in Iraq since the war/occupation.

So now thats out of the way, any other points?

Democracy has/is proving time and again to be the best System for ALL Governments, in some manner or another...

Ours is a Democratic Republic, after all.

Just look at History if you wish to see which "System" has produced the Greatest Military might this World has ever seen.

While at the same time producing enough Wealth to make its citizens the most GIVING PEOPLE on the face of the Earth, BAR NONE!

Now YOU show ME ANY other "System" that can boast ANYTHING close to that!

I'll wait here...

Regards,
Gaar
First look at how much per head was donated by UK citizens, the US is a long way from being the most generous.
The dictatorship that is the Roman Catholic church comes close and not only do they run a country but a world wide organisation.
The greatest military tha world has ever seen? What has the british empire to do with current history?

No one stated there were no terrorists in iraq before the war, as you agreed every country has them.

But thier are more attacks in Iraq since the war/occupation.

So now thats out of the way, any other points?

Yes there are, and that is likely because they can't stand Democracy and here we are starting one right in the middle of "their turf"...

You don't think they are going to try and do everything they can to stop that?

Regards,
Gaar

First look at how much per head was donated by UK citizens, the US is a long way from being the most generous.
The dictatorship that is the Roman Catholic church comes close and not only do they run a country but a world wide organisation.
The greatest military tha world has ever seen? What has the british empire to do with current history?

Really?!?!

Again, perhaps you might like to be just a BIT informed BEFORE you go talking out yer A$$ like that...

America's Tsunami of Giving

by Larry Elder
Posted Jan 7, 2005

Last year, American government provided 35 percent of worldwide relief aid. In private contributions, American individuals, estates, foundations and corporations gave over $240 billion to charitable causes in 2003, according to Giving USA Foundation. Privately, Americans give at least $34 billion overseas.

Josette Shiner, former Empower America president, points out that more than 80 percent of Americans belong to a "voluntary association," and 75 percent of households report charitable contributions. Shiner wrote in 1999, "Americans look even better compared to other leading nations. Accons.

According to recent surveys, 73 percent of Americans made a charitable contribution in the previous 12 months, as compared to 44 percent of Germans, and 43 percent of French citizens. The average sum of donations over 12 months was $851 for Americans, $120 for Germans, and $96 for the French. In addition, 49 percent of Americans volunteered over the previous 12 months, as compared to 13 percent of Germans and 19 percent of the French."

Of the 184 subscriber nations of the World Bank -- which provides financial assistance and debt relief to developing countries for particular sectors or projects with low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants -- contributions paid in by America make up over 17 percent. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) focuses on providing financing for general support of a country's balance of payments and international reserves. Again, of the IMF's 184 nations, the U.S. does the heavy lifting, providing 17.5 percent of contributions.

What about debt forgiveness? The United States forgave about $14 billion in foreign debt from the late '80s through 1995. Since 1994, the U.S. has worked with the Paris Club -- an informal forum of creditor countries -- to review, negotiate and adopt debt relief programs for poor countries, recently badgering France and Germany into agreeing to forgive 80 percent of the $39 billion owed by Iraq.

America twice assisted Europe in World Wars I and II. America took the lead in defeating the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and continues to provide troops and military assistance to European nations and Southeast Asia.

United Nations' Egeland brags about his native Norway, which, in giving, he says, "is No. 1 in the world." Norway gives 0.92 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to foreign aid development, versus 0.14 percent in this country. " . . . We have . . . no country up to the 1 percent . . . line of foreign assistance in general," says Egeland, "and we have, I think, three . . . Scandinavians that have exceeded -- and Holland -- the 0.7 percent line of gross national income for assistance." Yes, Holland gave $12.2 billion in foreign aid in 2003, but that was following two years in which it received more aid than it gave.

Besides, these numbers overlook Americans' private contributions, which equal 2.2 percent of our GDP. Add the value of volunteer time contributed, and -- even when calculated at minimum wage -- that gives you another $100 billion.

Add in the amount of money spent to protect other (often wealthy) countries -- military spending is 3.3 percent of our GDP, versus Sweden's 1.7 percent, Denmark's 1.6 percent, Norway's 1.9 percent, and Holland's 1.6 percent -- and, as Ronald Reagan might have put it, not bad. Not bad at all.

As to the tragedy in southern Asia, consider other actions taken by the United States so far: providing aircraft carriers, transport planes, helicopters, military support, logistical support, ships carrying food supplies, reconnaissance planes and warships, sending disaster assistance teams, shuttling supplies and advance teams to Sumatra's northwest coast and sending cargo planes carrying Marines and water purification equipment to Sri Lanka.


Two types of charity:
1. What your government gives.
2. What your people give through private philanthropy.

The US government provides a tremendous amount of aid money, but if you figure on a per capita basis, it might not appear to be as much as other nations whose governments give money.

Americans are more philanthropic than anyone else.

An upcoming study, to be published in full in spring 2005 by the San Francisco-based Institute for Jewish & Community Research, finds that the top 6% of annual American charitable contributions exceeds the combined efforts of all other nations to aid victims of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami.

The study, Mega-Gifts in American Philanthropy, Volume II: 2001, by Gary A. Tobin, Alexander C. Karp, and Aryeh K. Weinberg, shows that in 2001 American individuals, corporations, and foundations donated nearly $13 billion in mega-gifts (donations over $1 million) without the impetus of a major disaster, including the attacks of September 11. The total for all tsunami relief, both private and governmental, stands to date at approximately $10 billion.

According to the study, the wealthiest Americans annually donate to charitable causes at levels that other peoples and nations barely reach even in the face of a major crisis such as the tsunami.

"Americans are so generous that every year, a number of single donors give gifts that dwarf the aid offered by other countries to those affected by the tsunami," said Gary Tobin, one of the authors of the study. "Americans give at emergency levels every day. When the rest of the world has forgotten about this crisis, Americans will keep giving generously to this and thousands of other causes."

According to Giving USA, published by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, Americans donated approximately $241 billion in 2003. The next most generous nation, the United Kingdom, donated 7 billion pounds sterling, or approximately $70 billion when adjusted for population differences. France ($20 billion adjusted average 1995-2000) and Germany ($12.25 billion adjusted average 1995-2000) also lag far behind the United States in charitable donations.

Contrary to the tradition of governmental support, which is more pronounced in much of the rest of the developed world, the size and volume of American mega-gifts often creates trends that the American government then follows, according to the Institute's report. When the news of the tsunami reached American households, individuals, foundations, and corporations donated more than $300 million. The United States government then pledged $350 million.

The report also shows that mega-givers open up entirely new areas of philanthropy, encouraging social awareness and action for previously underrepresented needs. Bill and Melinda Gates donated over $350 million in funding for AIDS research in Africa; the American government followed suit with a multi-billion dollar aid package.

The study shows that Americans also demand accountability for their gifts, especially those sent abroad. According to the report, "financial scandals that have plagued global efforts, including the oil for food scandal of the United Nations and the bloated personal bank account of the likes of Yasser Arafat create great skepticism and caution among donors who want to know that the monies they give will actually go for the intended purposes when they donate internationally."

According to the report, the recent debate over American generosity points out "a fundamental difference between Americans and the rest of the world regarding the faith that Americans place in individual choice and the resulting moral vision as expressed through philanthropy."

These findings are based on research conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, San Francisco, an independent, non-partisan think tank, which provides innovative research and pragmatic policy analyses to Jewish and other communities around the world. For more information, see "American Mega-Giving: A Comparison to Global Disaster Relief."

Really?!?!

Again, perhaps you might like to be just a BIT informed BEFORE you go talking out yer A$$ like that...

America's Tsunami of Giving

by Larry Elder
Posted Jan 7, 2005

Last year, American government provided 35 percent of worldwide relief aid. In private contributions, American individuals, estates, foundations and corporations gave over $240 billion to charitable causes in 2003, according to Giving USA Foundation. Privately, Americans give at least $34 billion overseas.

Josette Shiner, former Empower America president, points out that more than 80 percent of Americans belong to a "voluntary association," and 75 percent of households report charitable contributions. Shiner wrote in 1999, "Americans look even better compared to other leading nations. Accons.

According to recent surveys, 73 percent of Americans made a charitable contribution in the previous 12 months, as compared to 44 percent of Germans, and 43 percent of French citizens. The average sum of donations over 12 months was $851 for Americans, $120 for Germans, and $96 for the French. In addition, 49 percent of Americans volunteered over the previous 12 months, as compared to 13 percent of Germans and 19 percent of the French."

Of the 184 subscriber nations of the World Bank -- which provides financial assistance and debt relief to developing countries for particular sectors or projects with low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants -- contributions paid in by America make up over 17 percent. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) focuses on providing financing for general support of a country's balance of payments and international reserves. Again, of the IMF's 184 nations, the U.S. does the heavy lifting, providing 17.5 percent of contributions.

What about debt forgiveness? The United States forgave about $14 billion in foreign debt from the late '80s through 1995. Since 1994, the U.S. has worked with the Paris Club -- an informal forum of creditor countries -- to review, negotiate and adopt debt relief programs for poor countries, recently badgering France and Germany into agreeing to forgive 80 percent of the $39 billion owed by Iraq.

America twice assisted Europe in World Wars I and II. America took the lead in defeating the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and continues to provide troops and military assistance to European nations and Southeast Asia.

United Nations' Egeland brags about his native Norway, which, in giving, he says, "is No. 1 in the world." Norway gives 0.92 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to foreign aid development, versus 0.14 percent in this country. " . . . We have . . . no country up to the 1 percent . . . line of foreign assistance in general," says Egeland, "and we have, I think, three . . . Scandinavians that have exceeded -- and Holland -- the 0.7 percent line of gross national income for assistance." Yes, Holland gave $12.2 billion in foreign aid in 2003, but that was following two years in which it received more aid than it gave.

Besides, these numbers overlook Americans' private contributions, which equal 2.2 percent of our GDP. Add the value of volunteer time contributed, and -- even when calculated at minimum wage -- that gives you another $100 billion.

Add in the amount of money spent to protect other (often wealthy) countries -- military spending is 3.3 percent of our GDP, versus Sweden's 1.7 percent, Denmark's 1.6 percent, Norway's 1.9 percent, and Holland's 1.6 percent -- and, as Ronald Reagan might have put it, not bad. Not bad at all.

As to the tragedy in southern Asia, consider other actions taken by the United States so far: providing aircraft carriers, transport planes, helicopters, military support, logistical support, ships carrying food supplies, reconnaissance planes and warships, sending disaster assistance teams, shuttling supplies and advance teams to Sumatra's northwest coast and sending cargo planes carrying Marines and water purification equipment to Sri Lanka.


Two types of charity:
1. What your government gives.
2. What your people give through private philanthropy.

The US government provides a tremendous amount of aid money, but if you figure on a per capita basis, it might not appear to be as much as other nations whose governments give money.

Americans are more philanthropic than anyone else.

An upcoming study, to be published in full in spring 2005 by the San Francisco-based Institute for Jewish & Community Research, finds that the top 6% of annual American charitable contributions exceeds the combined efforts of all other nations to aid victims of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami.

The study, Mega-Gifts in American Philanthropy, Volume II: 2001, by Gary A. Tobin, Alexander C. Karp, and Aryeh K. Weinberg, shows that in 2001 American individuals, corporations, and foundations donated nearly $13 billion in mega-gifts (donations over $1 million) without the impetus of a major disaster, including the attacks of September 11. The total for all tsunami relief, both private and governmental, stands to date at approximately $10 billion.

According to the study, the wealthiest Americans annually donate to charitable causes at levels that other peoples and nations barely reach even in the face of a major crisis such as the tsunami.

"Americans are so generous that every year, a number of single donors give gifts that dwarf the aid offered by other countries to those affected by the tsunami," said Gary Tobin, one of the authors of the study. "Americans give at emergency levels every day. When the rest of the world has forgotten about this crisis, Americans will keep giving generously to this and thousands of other causes."

According to Giving USA, published by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, Americans donated approximately $241 billion in 2003. The next most generous nation, the United Kingdom, donated 7 billion pounds sterling, or approximately $70 billion when adjusted for population differences. France ($20 billion adjusted average 1995-2000) and Germany ($12.25 billion adjusted average 1995-2000) also lag far behind the United States in charitable donations.

Contrary to the tradition of governmental support, which is more pronounced in much of the rest of the developed world, the size and volume of American mega-gifts often creates trends that the American government then follows, according to the Institute's report. When the news of the tsunami reached American households, individuals, foundations, and corporations donated more than $300 million. The United States government then pledged $350 million.

The report also shows that mega-givers open up entirely new areas of philanthropy, encouraging social awareness and action for previously underrepresented needs. Bill and Melinda Gates donated over $350 million in funding for AIDS research in Africa; the American government followed suit with a multi-billion dollar aid package.

The study shows that Americans also demand accountability for their gifts, especially those sent abroad. According to the report, "financial scandals that have plagued global efforts, including the oil for food scandal of the United Nations and the bloated personal bank account of the likes of Yasser Arafat create great skepticism and caution among donors who want to know that the monies they give will actually go for the intended purposes when they donate internationally."

According to the report, the recent debate over American generosity points out "a fundamental difference between Americans and the rest of the world regarding the faith that Americans place in individual choice and the resulting moral vision as expressed through philanthropy."

These findings are based on research conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, San Francisco, an independent, non-partisan think tank, which provides innovative research and pragmatic policy analyses to Jewish and other communities around the world. For more information, see "American Mega-Giving: A Comparison to Global Disaster Relief."
Not even going to give your arse trumpeting the time to read. As soon as we seen the tripe about two world wars, figure quoted without reference to GNP and average wages etc I know I'm dealing with the standard angry american or american clone.
See you when you've grown up.

Democracy has/is proving time and again to be the best System for ALL Governments, in some manner or another...

Ours is a Democratic Republic, after all.

Just look at History if you wish to see which "System" has produced the Greatest Military might this World has ever seen.

While at the same time producing enough Wealth to make its citizens the most GIVING PEOPLE on the face of the Earth, BAR NONE!

Now YOU show ME ANY other "System" that can boast ANYTHING close to that!

I'll wait here...

Regards,
Gaar


Military strenght doesn't show how good "system" the country has
(Germany in the early WWII, Soviet Union 50's, 60's and 70's)

Most giving people on the face of earth??? :confused:

Military strenght doesn't show how good "system" the country has
(Germany in the early WWII, Soviet Union 50's, 60's and 70's)

Most giving people on the face of earth??? :confused:

Something about INDIVIDUALS in the U.S. DONATING 2.2% of the entire GDP that YOU don't get? And may I remind YOU that the U.S. GDP Dwarfs All other Individual Nations!

THAT IS WITHOUT what OUR GOVERNMENT DOES!

Regards,
Gaar

Is that we ARE that Charitable and people bad mouth us ALL THE TIME for not being more giving!?!?!

How does that work?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Not even going to give your arse trumpeting the time to read. As soon as we seen the tripe about two world wars, figure quoted without reference to GNP and average wages etc I know I'm dealing with the standard angry american or american clone.
See you when you've grown up.

Understood.

I wouldn't want to continue to be shown to be as ignorant as you have shown here either...

Regards,
Gaar

Something about INDIVIDUALS in the U.S. DONATING 2.2% of the entire GDP that YOU don't get? And may I remind YOU that the U.S. GDP Dwarfs All other Individual Nations!

THAT IS WITHOUT what OUR GOVERNMENT DOES!

Regards,
Gaar

But I beleive 'poor man giving everything' gives more than 'rich man giving a little'

Anyway I admit 2,2% is alot. But I'm compairing it to Finland. Our foreign policy is economical issue.

But I beleive 'poor man giving everything' gives more than 'rich man giving a little'

Anyway I admit 2,2% is alot. But I'm compairing it to Finland. Our foreign policy is economical issue.

That 2.2% is just the INDIVIDUAL U.S. citizen... When added to what the U.S. Government also gives it is quite a bit more.

And what is "Our foreign policy is economical issue" supposed to mean?

Regards,
Gaar

What MOST people don't get is you can't just declare war on an abstract concept and wow, it goes away. That shit doesn't work, it's just political rhetoric, but people eat it up like it was magic juice and they were magic people.

Terrorism is a method, not a nation. Has anything happened anywhere to indicate to potential terrorists that terrorism is an ineffective tactic? No. You can bomb all the terrorists you want. Terrorists are already aware that people can bomb others they don't like (I believe it's actually their tactic, too!). It doesn't stop them, knowing that, so I don't know why people think the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan was a deterrant to terrorist activity. Has Israel's hardline military stance against 'terrorists' in their occupied lands ever prevented a bus or restaraunt bombing? Maybe... I doubt it.

If I was a Palestinian, I'd be inclined to bomb those Israeli bastards. Especially if my family had already been killed, with no repercussions, by their tanks and you know, they were occupying my homeland and you know, forcing me to live in their theocratic militant racist state.

Yeah, I don't think I'd say "Gosh! Bush has declared war on terrorists! Instead of bombing people today, I'll sit meekly, afraid for my life."

Furthermore the legal justifications for "those who harbor them" are sketchy at best. I am 100% positive that if the USA was a small mostly helpless middle eastern nation on the wrong side of some superpower with a cowboy president, it would have been invaded because of Timothy McVeigh. And few would think twice about that. I mean if a nation produces one terrorist, it stands to reason they'll produce - harbor, even - more, yes? Yes it does.

The war on terror - so to speak - makes as much sense as a war on guerilla tactics, or a war on air power, or a war on naval doctrine, or a war on war itself.

Really?

Then perhaps you can explain how the Terrorists keep calling for attacks in the U.S., but we have still yet to see any?!?!
The threat is grossly exagerated. Only through the miracle of criminal negligence did they ever succeed at killing more than a handful of Americans.

And what is "Our foreign policy is economical issue" supposed to mean?

Regards,
Gaar

It doesn't have anything to do with this thread. I'm just saying Our (Finland)
every decision about our foreign policy is economical decision at the same time. Do you remember Jolo (hostage)? We bought our two hostages out there. Against everybodys wishes

Psh. I don't like Reagan either.

*pops over to the last page to see how hot it's gotten*

Again, the FACT that, despite their best efforts, they are unable to commit more acts of Terror on U.S. Soil is a good sign that what we are doing is working...

Again, as many have already pointed out, they just didn't "do it" once...

And that they haven't done it again SINCE we decided to "take the fight to them" points to some type of results, does it not?...

Yes, and I am not saying they won't, just that they HAVEN'T since 9/11, and that is a good sign that what we are doing just may be working...

Something about that you don't get?

Again, I already asked this once, but here goes again: You are hoping Bush doctrine will make the world a safer place. That's all good and fine. Let's hope so. While we are waiting for this to happen, could you please provide us with some proof that there is a trend towards the world becoming a safer place (terrorism-wise)?

Why not use the Department of State series " Patterns of Global Terrorism". Start from the Clinton era (or earlier), and show us how Bush has made the world (or USA) safer. I bet you can't even find a trend in terrorist attacks. They vary greatly from year to year. And I believe that has nothing to do with who is the president.

I hope you're noy arguing it's working cos there haven't been any attacks since 9/11? It has only been 4 years after that took place. When was the last 'major' attack in merican soil before that? 1993? That's like 8 year cycle. Plenty of time to see if the Bush doctrine really made USA safer.

SOMETHING you DIDN'T get THE first TIME?

What MOST people don't get is you can't just declare war on an abstract concept and wow, it goes away. That shit doesn't work, it's just political rhetoric, but people eat it up like it was magic juice and they were magic people.

Who said it went away because we declared War on it?

Terrorism is a method, not a nation. Has anything happened anywhere to indicate to potential terrorists that terrorism is an ineffective tactic? No.

Uhhh, yeah...

They used to have these Countries called Afghanistan and Iraq where they could pretty much do whatever they pleased, training, plotting, killing... Now it seems those two Countries are becoming Democracies and are trying to stop such things from happening in their Society.

Where have YOU been for the last couple of years? You think these guys enjoy running for their lives and having all of their assets frozen and have over 2/3 of their Leadership caught or killed?

You can bomb all the terrorists you want. Terrorists are already aware that people can bomb others they don't like (I believe it's actually their tactic, too!). It doesn't stop them, knowing that, so I don't know why people think the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan was a deterrant to terrorist activity. Has Israel's hardline military stance against 'terrorists' in their occupied lands ever prevented a bus or restaraunt bombing? Maybe... I doubt it.

Who said it was a deterrent? I am just glad that WE are choosing where the Battle happens and not them! I also like that they are engaging Soldiers we have trained to DEAL with such threats instead of whoever they like, wherever they like.

If I was a Palestinian, I'd be inclined to bomb those Israeli bastards. Especially if my family had already been killed, with no repercussions, by their tanks and you know, they were occupying my homeland and you know, forcing me to live in their theocratic militant racist state.

Yeah, and your people (Palestinian) haven't ALREADY been doing that very thing themselves, have they?

Yeah, I don't think I'd say "Gosh! Bush has declared war on terrorists! Instead of bombing people today, I'll sit meekly, afraid for my life."

Maybe not...

But you might like to be watching out for that U.S. Marine that's about to kick your door in!

Furthermore the legal justifications for "those who harbor them" are sketchy at best. I am 100% positive that if the USA was a small mostly helpless middle eastern nation on the wrong side of some superpower with a cowboy president, it would have been invaded because of Timothy McVeigh. And few would think twice about that. I mean if a nation produces one terrorist, it stands to reason they'll produce - harbor, even - more, yes? Yes it does.

The war on terror - so to speak - makes as much sense as a war on guerilla tactics, or a war on air power, or a war on naval doctrine, or a war on war itself.

If Terrorists act within their OWN Borders and are not bent on trying to do another Nation harm; why would we concern ourselves with that? It is when Terrorists traverse National Borders to try and influence Nations other than their own that we become involved. Perhaps that is because the threat has now come to OUR shores, and if these other Nations aren't going to do something about it, then we will.

And the U.S. is NEVER going to ask "Permission" to do what is in the National Security Interest of not only the U.S., but for the entire World.

Regards,
Gaar

Again, I already asked this once, but here goes again: You are hoping Bush doctrine will make the world a safer place. That's all good and fine. Let's hope so. While we are waiting for this to happen, could you please provide us with some proof that there is a trend towards the world becoming a safer place (terrorism-wise)?

No, because I would assume that, since we have "taken the fight to them", as it were, that you would likely get a period of time where things got very "hairy" and not any more "secure" because we are "forcing their hand".

Is that so hard to understand? Did you not hear Bush when he said it wasn't going to be easy and we weren't going to get there overnight? He has never said things would improve immediately, why would YOU expect them to?


Why not use the Department of State series " Patterns of Global Terrorism". Start from the Clinton era (or earlier), and show us how Bush has made the world (or USA) safer. I bet you can't even find a trend in terrorist attacks. They vary greatly from year to year. And I believe that has nothing to do with who is the president.

I hope you're noy arguing it's working cos there haven't been any attacks since 9/11? It has only been 4 years after that took place. When was the last 'major' attack in merican soil before that? 1993? That's like 8 year cycle. Plenty of time to see if the Bush doctrine really made USA safer.

SOMETHING you DIDN'T get THE first TIME?

I'm NOT arguing that, and am left to wonder why you would suggest I was?

I AM saying that I don't believe this War is a major recruitment tool for the Terrorists. Perhaps it is a slight tool for them, but I would argue that MANY MORE are seeing Freedom and Democracy for the first time and that is recruiting MANY MORE to that cause than the Terrorist cause, but that is merely my opinion, just like the other is yours.

Regards,
Gaar

If a little child in Iraq hear the new words democracy and freedom, at the same time his father get shot and there is no pure water and the only thing left of his house is one of the walls. Do you think democracy and freedom will be good words for that child? I think he/she felt it was better before.

Who said it went away because we declared War on it?



Delcaring, waging. Either way, you've got a war against an abstract that can never be defeated.

They used to have these Countries called Afghanistan and Iraq where they could pretty much do whatever they pleased, training, plotting, killing... Now it seems those two Countries are becoming Democracies and are trying to stop such things from happening in their Society.

What about having a shattered government, civil conflict, political strife and foreign invasion makes it LESS easy to do things like... kill? Invasion to prevent killing? Occupation to prevent killing? Democracy to prevent plotting? Those are practically oxymorons. Democratic freedom preserves the right to "plot" and military activity promotes killing by it's very nature. So I'm not sure what the big improvement is... the loss of "training" facilities? It doesn't take much training.

Where have YOU been for the last couple of years? You think these guys enjoy running for their lives and having all of their assets frozen and have over 2/3 of their Leadership caught or killed?

1 What does where I have been have anything to do with anything?
2 What guys, you mean anyone living in a nation we're occupying? If I was a terrorist I could care less about having my assets frozen, and I wouldn't be doing anything for the "enjoyment" factor so that's just another straw man.


Who said it was a deterrent?

People who support it. Evidently, you agree that what we do incourages, not deters, terrorism?

Yeah, and your people (Palestinian) haven't ALREADY been doing that very thing themselves, have they?

Not sure where you're going here. You're saying Palestinian people had ALREADY been fighting to protect their homeland and families against Israeli occupation? True... :shrug: Of course I'm sure you have lots of records about Palestinian terrorist activity against Israelis that predate the formation of the state of Israel?


Maybe not...

But you might like to be watching out for that U.S. Marine that's about to kick your door in!

HOOAH! Yes, you AND your family get US Marines kicking your door in! And you'll be thanking democracy all the while, and you won't ever take revenge.

If Terrorists act within their OWN Borders and are not bent on trying to do another Nation harm; why would we concern ourselves with that? It is when Terrorists traverse National Borders to try and influence Nations other than their own that we become involved. Perhaps that is because the threat has now come to OUR shores, and if these other Nations aren't going to do something about it, then we will.

Interesting. So we didn't concern ourselves with Timothy McVeigh? He was after all homegrown and not traversing national borders?

And maybe you can tell me, would invading the US to "do something about" Tim McVeigh have been justifiable? Hypothetically let's assume he was wanted by some foreign government for terrorism against THEM as well. Let's also assume our authorities were unable to find him. How about then, is all that cause for invasion? I'm inclined to think you would never, ever, accept the justifications if you were a citizen of the target country, because it's all good and well for you to advocate wars that take place out of your sight and mind, but once it's kicking down your front door you might have a different perspective about the value of invading countries on the basis of rhetorical bullshit.

And the U.S. is NEVER going to ask "Permission" to do what is in the National Security Interest of not only the U.S., but for the entire World.

Regards,
Gaar

True but once again a straw man, I never mentioned the US asking "permission." All you're doing is reiterating the flimsy justification - used by pretty much every invading force in history - that foreign invasions and occupation is a defensive measure.

Regards.

I'm NOT arguing that, and am left to wonder why you would suggest I was?

I could have sworn you implied that in post #121. Maybe I JUST have difficulties READING you.

I could have sworn you implied that in post #121. Maybe I JUST have difficulties READING you.

I believe I have said it "will" not "has", but I may be wrong...

And if I am wrong I mis-spoke and that wouldn't be what I meant to say.

But the closest I seem to come is saying what we are doing may be working, but that is in reference to bombings in the U.S., not the state of the entire World.

Regards,
Gaar

Since when did you know the difference between the U.S. and the world?

*gets out popcorn*
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/ernaehrung/food-smiley-007.gif

I believe I have said it "will" not "has", but I may be wrong...

And if I am wrong I mis-spoke and that wouldn't be what I meant to say.

But the closest I seem to come is saying what we are doing may be working, but that is in reference to bombings in the U.S., not the state of the entire World.

Regards,
Gaar
Right, OK, so the world hasn't become any safer, and it's debatable if USA has either (I have not seen any proof it has, 9/11 really was an one-off event)? Like you said in your first post, we just have to trust it MIGHT become safer. It's a good thing you said we don't have to thank Bush just YET.

Delcaring, waging. Either way, you've got a war against an abstract that can never be defeated.

Yeah, so we shouldn't try...

We should just let them have their way because, after all, we can never get them all!?!?

What about having a shattered government, civil conflict, political strife and foreign invasion makes it LESS easy to do things like... kill? Invasion to prevent killing? Occupation to prevent killing? Democracy to prevent plotting? Those are practically oxymorons. Democratic freedom preserves the right to "plot" and military activity promotes killing by it's very nature. So I'm not sure what the big improvement is... the loss of "training" facilities? It doesn't take much training.

Something about US choosing the Battle ground YOU don't get?

Something about Soldiers trained to deal with such threats YOU don't get?

Something about their having to run for their LIVES YOU don't get?

1 What does where I have been have anything to do with anything?

well, it seems you MISSED BOTH Afghanistan and now Iraq and I'm wondering where one would have to have gone to completely miss them.

2 What guys, you mean anyone living in a nation we're occupying? If I was a terrorist I could care less about having my assets frozen, and I wouldn't be doing anything for the "enjoyment" factor so that's just another straw man.

Yeah, well you may NEED those assets to SUPPORT yourself while your planning those attacks. Or to travel, or buy resources to make your Bombs or buy your ammo...

Maybe you could sharpen a stick and poke out everyone’s eyes?

People who support it. Evidently, you agree that what we do incourages, not deters, terrorism?

No, but I can see how an argument can be made that we may be "encouraging it" with some groups, although I myself don't feel it is a big recruitment tool.

Not sure where you're going here. You're saying Palestinian people had ALREADY been fighting to protect their homeland and families against Israeli occupation? True... :shrug: Of course I'm sure you have lots of records about Palestinian terrorist activity against Israelis that predate the formation of the state of Israel?

I'm saying that, when Israel BECAME a Country, Palestine was one of many of their neighbors who were threatening to "drive them into the Sea", and they got what they asked for... Their ASSES KICKED and they have been whining about it ever since! Israel DEFEATED Palestine and occupied them, when Palestine was the aggressor!

If you want to make Peace with Israel, might I suggest you quit BLOWING THEM UP!

So maybe Palestinians should look at their OWN Ancestors and blame them for their current plight! Israel was DEFENDING itself from being wiped off the face of the Earth. YOU may have preferred that they were, but I believe they have a RIGHT to defend themselves and they BEAT Palestine and now they want to whine about it... I say get OVER IT, YOU LOST!


HOOAH! Yes, you AND your family get US Marines kicking your door in! And you'll be thanking democracy all the while, and you won't ever take revenge.

What???


Interesting. So we didn't concern ourselves with Timothy McVeigh? He was after all homegrown and not traversing national borders?

And maybe you can tell me, would invading the US to "do something about" Tim McVeigh have been justifiable? Hypothetically let's assume he was wanted by some foreign government for terrorism against THEM as well. Let's also assume our authorities were unable to find him. How about then, is all that cause for invasion? I'm inclined to think you would never, ever, accept the justifications if you were a citizen of the target country, because it's all good and well for you to advocate wars that take place out of your sight and mind, but once it's kicking down your front door you might have a different perspective about the value of invading countries on the basis of rhetorical bullshit.

Again, WHT THE HELL?!?!

Of course we would, he IS OUR problem?!?! What about that don't YOU get?

True but once again a straw man, I never mentioned the US asking "permission." All you're doing is reiterating the flimsy justification - used by pretty much every invading force in history - that foreign invasions and occupation is a defensive measure.

No, but you did mention it "being Illegal", which assumes you were talking about the UN... Which brings me back to not asking for permission, especially from a group that HAD ALREADY stated that action needed to be taken but wouldn't sign a Resolution to do just that.

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, so we shouldn't try...

We should just let them have their way because, after all, we can never get them all!?!?


No, but you could drop the whole "war on terror" nonsense. You never CAN get them all, anymore than you can stop all crime, so having a war you can never win is STUPID. War on crime = stupid. War on drugs = stupid. War on terror = stupid. War on abstract concepts = stupid.

Something about US choosing the Battle ground YOU don't get?

Something about Soldiers trained to deal with such threats YOU don't get?

Something about their having to run for their LIVES YOU don't get?

Something about an irrelevant battlefield carrying on a pointless war you don't get?

Something about the fact that not everyone running for their LIVES is a terrorist you don't get?

Soldiers are trained to deal with threats, yes. You do have a point there; you can support the war because it involves more fighting for soldiers and less for you. That's understandable.

well, it seems you MISSED BOTH Afghanistan and now Iraq and I'm wondering where one would have to have gone to completely miss them.

Oh, is this the part where I go "Oh, you invaded a COUNTRY! My bad. I now see that that is an effective and justified response to 'terrorism.'"

Oddly enough, I knew the US invaded two nations, I suppose that's why I mentioned invasion now isn't it?

Yeah, well you may NEED those assets to SUPPORT yourself while your planning those attacks. Or to travel, or buy resources to make your Bombs or buy your ammo...

Maybe you could sharpen a stick and poke out everyone’s eyes?

Maybe you could get a knife and hijack a plane and crash it into a tower or two....

Maybe US airport security is 100% perfect now and that'll never happen. Maybe there are no more knives in Afghanistan or Iraq!

No, but I can see how an argument can be made that we may be "encouraging it" with some groups, although I myself don't feel it is a big recruitment tool.

It's human nature. You bomb my family, I hurt you any way I can.

Especially if there's religious fundamentalism on both sides, which there is.

I'm saying that, when Israel BECAME a Country, Palestine was one of many of their neighbors who were threatening to "drive them into the Sea", and they got what they asked for... Their ASSES KICKED and they have been whining about it ever since! Israel DEFEATED Palestine and occupied them, when Palestine was the aggressor!

Palestine was a country robbed of it's own existence by the presence of Israel, and this holds especially true now. And what, it's "whining" to have lost a war and not been at peace with it? If the USA gets invaded tomorrow and occupied, I'd bet you'd be 'whining' too. You're quick to degrade, dehumanize and mock "the enemy," whoever it is.

If you want to make Peace with Israel, might I suggest you quit BLOWING THEM UP!

If you want to make peace with Palestine, might I suggest you quit RUNNING THEM OVER WITH FUCKING TANKS.

Oddly enough, both our suggestions HAVE been thought of before. And tried and failed. Same with the whole, "might makes right" use of force to suppress 'outbreaks' of terrorism. That hasn't worked too well either for Israel. I guess maybe they just need a few more hundred billion dollars from US taxpayers, eh?

And for the record I am American, not Palestinian or Israeli.

So maybe Palestinians should look at their OWN Ancestors and blame them for their current plight! Israel was DEFENDING itself from being wiped off the face of the Earth. YOU may have preferred that they were, but I believe they have a RIGHT to defend themselves and they BEAT Palestine and now they want to whine about it... I say get OVER IT, YOU LOST!

Israel was wiping itself ONTO the face of the Earth. At the cost of Palestine. Palestine objected. You would have too if you lived there.

But I guess you'd have gotten OVER it... let bygones be bygones, and nations fall into dust at the hands of military occupation.



What???

Basic english....

My point was people seem to expect happy compliance from people in countries we invade, and then seem to think it's okay to bomb, imprison, harass or demonize them when they aren't as happy or compliant about it. And my point was you wouldn't be happy or compliant about it either, but you seem to be unable to empathize with them, as if YOU *would* go quiety, peacefully - not whining - not bombing or being violent, as your country and community is destroyed and overrun by a people who think it is their God-given right to do so.



Again, WHT THE HELL?!?!

Of course we would, he IS OUR problem?!?! What about that don't YOU get?


You know, since you didn't even understand what I was saying there I'm not going to bother. Clearly analogies are not within your grasp.


No, but you did mention it "being Illegal", which assumes you were talking about the UN... Which brings me back to not asking for permission, especially from a group that HAD ALREADY stated that action needed to be taken but wouldn't sign a Resolution to do just that.

I mentioned illegality? Oh well. I could care less about it, since laws are generally written to serve the lawmakers.

And as a side note, I'm not sure, but what was the UN's position as far taking action like... invading and occupying? First it was all about Saddam... then we got Saddam, but now it's all about Iraq. Somewhere along the way we got shafted into supporting a "rise of democracy" in Iraq, including armed occupation for years, at a slow but steady cost in US lives and resources. The US may enjoy subverting governments and setting up failed puppet states, but I'm not sure that was what the UN prescribed.

Maybe you could get a knife and hijack a plane and crash it into a tower or two....

Maybe US airport security is 100% perfect now and that'll never happen. Maybe there are no more knives in Afghanistan or Iraq!

I'm pretty sure you need to BUY a TICKET to Board that Plane.

You know, since you didn't even understand what I was saying there I'm not going to bother. Clearly analogies are not within your grasp.

Why would another Country need to invade us if we take care of the problem ourselves?

It is that other Countries can't or won't take care of problems within their own Borders that we have had to invade, but Libya took care of their problems themselves so that action wouldn't be taken against them, did they not?

Something about that you don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

Israel was wiping itself ONTO the face of the Earth. At the cost of Palestine. Palestine objected. You would have too if you lived there.

But I guess you'd have gotten OVER it... let bygones be bygones, and nations fall into dust at the hands of military occupation.

It was sanctioned by the UN, was it not? Funny how you like UN decisions when they back YOUR position.

And Jews were there BEFORE then too, they just didn't have a Country there until 1948.

Regards,
Gaar

I've never seen such a simple black-white picture of the world in any human being older than 10 years.
Ether this is the best representation of black humor I've ever seen or you are just mentally retarded... :p
But at last this must be a very simple an happy life in such a small world.

Not too long ago I saw this Puppet-movie "Team america" (from those South Park Guys..) I thought the characters where just some kind of parody...until today :p

I've never seen such a simple black-white picture of the world in any human being older than 10 years.
Ether this is the best representation of black humor I've ever seen or you are just mentally retarded... :p
But at last this must be a very simple an happy life in such a small world.

Not too long ago I saw this Puppet-movie "Team america" (from those South Park Guys..) I thought the characters where just some kind of parody...until today :p

Not sure which side you are talking about, since all your post did was insult and ridicule...

If you have a point to make, please make it. Otherwise, I believe all else is spam.

Please feel free to insult as you see fit, just as long as you make SOME point while doing it.

Regards,
Gaar

Why would another Country need to invade us if we take care of the problem ourselves?

It is that other Countries can't or won't take care of problems within their own Borders that we have had to invade, but Libya took care of their problems themselves so that action wouldn't be taken against them, did they not?

Something about that you don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar
Yes just like the US stopped the IRA from raising and keeping money within it's borders, just like the way they previously invited terrorist to the White house on St Patrick's day. Yes they really do have a record of keeping thier own house in order.
Feel free to fly in with the insults like the last time.

Yes just like the US stopped the IRA from raising and keeping money within it's borders, just like the way they previously invited terrorist to the White house on St Patrick's day. Yes they really do have a record of keeping thier own house in order.
Feel free to fly in with the insults like the last time.

And just like we RECOGNIZE BOTH SIDES in the DISPUTE in Israel.

As long as the "Terror" is not EXPORTED from that Nation, why would WE become involved?!?!

And YES! There are TWO SIDES to that dispute they are having in the UK, are there not?

If the IRA were to attack U.S. interests to try and get us to take some sort of action in the dispute, then you bet yer ass we would become "involved".

Something about the distinction between the two YOU don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

And to those who don't think the U.S. War on Terror is keeping it from our own shores here in the U.S., perhaps we should examine some evidence to suggest otherwise...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150474,00.html

NEW YORK — U.S. authorities charged 18 people in an alleged scheme to smuggle grenade launchers, shoulder-fired missiles and other Russian military weapons (search) into the United States.

The arrests resulted from a yearlong investigation in which an FBI informant posed as an arms buyer who claimed to have ties to Al Qaeda (search).

And just like we RECOGNIZE BOTH SIDES in the DISPUTE in Israel.

As long as the "Terror" is not EXPORTED from that Nation, why would WE become involved?!?!

And YES! There are TWO SIDES to that dispute they are having in the UK, are there not?

If the IRA were to attack U.S. interests to try and get us to take some sort of action in the dispute, then you bet yer ass we would become "involved".

Something about the distinction between the two YOU don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar
So IRA terrorist train and arm themselves in the US, raise funds in the US then go and kill men women and children in the UK, how is that diferent from Afganistan? So you would not expect Afganistan or any other country to do anything about terrorist within thier borders as long as they did nothing to that country. Interesting. So you would then be happy for UK special forces to kill those responsible for fund raising for the IRA evenif they were US citizens?
In every conflict there are two sides (at Least) so what has that got to do with the perpetuation of violence and terror?

*gets out popcorn*

You'll need more than a tub of popcorn...

*fires up the barbecue grill *

I shall disagree. Bushs war on terrorism isn't working. I don't think him sending troops all over world will harm anyone but civilians and that is one thing what increases terrorism. So I'm in a fear of another 9/11 more and more everyday.

I'm not well informed about Reagan and his work, but I strongly doubt that world is safer place because of him.


Another misguided person. Read up on Reagan. He changed the world my friend. Did they not teach you about the end of the cold war in school?

So IRA terrorist train and arm themselves in the US, raise funds in the US then go and kill men women and children in the UK, how is that diferent from Afganistan? So you would not expect Afganistan or any other country to do anything about terrorist within thier borders as long as they did nothing to that country. Interesting. So you would then be happy for UK special forces to kill those responsible for fund raising for the IRA evenif they were US citizens?
In every conflict there are two sides (at Least) so what has that got to do with the perpetuation of violence and terror?

You wouldn't mind providing a link to some actual PROOF of some of these "accusations" of yours, would you?

Or do you just expect me to accept YOUR WORD as though it were FACT?

And if YOU have some PROOF of such things, might I suggest taking it to the U.S. Authorities BEFORE YOU ASSUME we will do nothing about it ourselves?!?!

Thanks,
Gaar

You'll need more than a tub of popcorn...

*fires up the barbecue grill *who needs the grill... the flame wars are heating up...

[pokes skewer through weiner and holds it up to the thread]

*Bump*

So people don't have to look hard to find my opinion on the Iraq War...

And I'm fairly sure I wrote most of this myself. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Really?

Then perhaps you can explain how the Terrorists keep calling for attacks in the U.S., but we have still yet to see any?!?!

All indications are that their abilities are diminishing, not increasing!

Regards,
Gaar
Tell me how long it was between 9/11 and the previous FOREIGN terrorist attack then go stand in the corner

I'm pretty sure you need to BUY a TICKET to Board that Plane.

I think it's funny if you're counting on bureacracy to prevent another 9/11 type thing from ever occurring again. Well, bureacracy plus war.


Why would another Country need to invade us if we take care of the problem ourselves?

It is that other Countries can't or won't take care of problems within their own Borders that we have had to invade, but Libya took care of their problems themselves so that action wouldn't be taken against them, did they not?

Something about that you don't understand?

No you STILL don't understand.

(And why are you capitalizing "country?" Nevermind.)

It was an analogy. Let's pretend the US was Iraq and the Iraq was the US. Let's pretend you were the one getting invaded. Nevermind, I've already explained this twice and you still haven't gotten it, and I doubt you'll understand anything just by repetition. Forget it.

It was sanctioned by the UN, was it not? Funny how you like UN decisions when they back YOUR position.

And Jews were there BEFORE then too, they just didn't have a Country there until 1948.

Who says I like UN decisions at all or not? That's pretty irrelevant.

Sure it was UN sanctioned, just like Saddam's rule was US sanctioned, and just like Hitler's election was sanctioned by democracy.

But as I said these are my final words on the matter, so don't beat your little head up trying to reply to these, cuz I won't read it. ;)

I think it's funny if you're counting on bureacracy to prevent another 9/11 type thing from ever occurring again. Well, bureacracy plus war.

When did I say that?

And why didn't YOU address the question?

No you STILL don't understand.

(And why are you capitalizing "country?" Nevermind.)

It was an analogy. Let's pretend the US was Iraq and the Iraq was the US. Let's pretend you were the one getting invaded. Nevermind, I've already explained this twice and you still haven't gotten it, and I doubt you'll understand anything just by repetition. Forget it.

And the fact that your analogy doesn't hold up under scrutiny means it was a bad analogy, does it not?


Who says I like UN decisions at all or not? That's pretty irrelevant.

Yes, just as many of the answers YOU provide are.

Sure it was UN sanctioned, just like Saddam's rule was US sanctioned, and just like Hitler's election was sanctioned by democracy.

But as I said these are my final words on the matter, so don't beat your little head up trying to reply to these, cuz I won't read it. ;)

What makes you believe I answer your posts simply for YOU to read?

I am allowed to respond to your posts "in kind" so that others may judge for themselves, right?

So whether or not YOU will "answer" or even "read" my reply isn't my purpose for posting a reply, although you may feel free to do it, or not...

Regards,
Gaar

You wouldn't mind providing a link to some actual PROOF of some of these "accusations" of yours, would you?

Or do you just expect me to accept YOUR WORD as though it were FACT?

And if YOU have some PROOF of such things, might I suggest taking it to the U.S. Authorities BEFORE YOU ASSUME we will do nothing about it ourselves?!?!

Thanks,
Gaar

What is to take, when your congressmen have been explicitly supporting the IRA for two decades. Meet Peter King (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/14/113758.shtml)

Tell me how long it was between 9/11 and the previous FOREIGN terrorist attack then go stand in the corner

Successful ones or unsuccessful ones?

Because they arrested someone crossing the Boarder from Canada to the U.S. who was supposedly planning a New Years attack on the Space Needle here in Seattle, but the plan failed...

http://archives.cnn.com/1999/US/12/22/border.arrest.02/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/1999/12/

There are a BUNCH of Intelligence findings at that site from 1999, none that seem to have come to fruition, as it were...

Regards,
Gaar

What is to take, when your congressmen have been explicitly supporting the IRA for two decades. Meet Peter King (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/14/113758.shtml)

Hmmmm....

Peter King supports Sinn Fein... And THIS IS a QUOTE from the Article YOU referenced on the matter!

Rep. Peter King to Irish Republican Army: Disband
NewsMax.com Wires
Monday, March 14, 2005
DUBLIN, Ireland -- One of Sinn Fein's leading supporters in the U.S. Congress called Sunday for the Irish Republican Army to disband because it was standing in the way of peace in Northern Ireland.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/14/113758.shtml

And...

Sinn Fein's Adams Seeks Distance from IRA

Morning Edition, March 17, 2005 · Gerry Adams, head of the Irish political party Sinn Fein, outlines prospects for peace in Northern Ireland in light of a recent renewal of violence there. Addressing the group's close and controversial association with the Irish Republican Army, Adams tells Renee Montagne that Sinn Fein is a separate organization.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4538584
____________________________________

Care to try again?

Regards,
Gaar

Anyone have some soda? That popcorn was great, but with all the fires, its making me thirsty.
Well, my dad says you should try spinach juice instead. He also says that wasn't all disproportionate flexor muscles on Popeye, it was gout.

Something about "And the Country's that Harbor them" you don't understand?
Okay, i'll bite. Your logic means we attack Saudi Arabia. Note where the attackers were from. So there aren't any more being harbored in Saudi Arabia? The intelligence is reliable on that one, right, like Chalabi's was? Right? The runner up in the election, right?
*munsch*

3) Bush simply disagrees with you. It doesn't make him an idiot. It means he sees things from a different perspective. And in the absence of a higher power telling us right from wrong, there can only be Human opinions.
.
Well, not knowing the guy, in itself, would preclude that i don't know if he's an idiot. Nor does the rest of the world as a fact, only the people who personally know him know that. As well as what he agrees or disagrees to. Now if myself and the rest of the world have to hear his flawed premises on almost everything he introduces as the "president" then the ample evidence would cause reasonable faith that he is, indeed, an idiot ... also, he could agree with many people and still be an idiot - he could agree with me and still be a functioning idiot. He may even choose the title "idiot" as a preference instead of what i think he is. Case in point, his "misunderestimat"-ion of the english (supposedly his first and only) language .... by way of comparison:

IDIOT (WEBSTER): A retarded person mentally equal or INFERIOR TO a child 2 years old .... a very foolish or stupid person

IDIOT (OED): Stupid person ... mentally deficient person INCAPABLE OF RATIONAL CONDUCT ......
So it's fairly obvious how many, many people would perceive him as an "idiot" and it really isn't about whether they share his perspective so much as they simply observe his actions and his baffling rationale.
And frankly, he has a singular perspective of being referred to as "the leader of the free world", as the president of the united states. Just how many people are supposed to share that perspective?

*yawns*

Oh, no! I was going to sit back and help myself to popcorn and enjoy the flame wars, and then the subject of GWB's intelligence came up.

I formerly thought he was fully cognizant of his actions and just didn't care about the outcome of his actions -- you know, a jerk. Then he said this, "You can't have a legitimate election under foreign military occupation"

After all the time he and his stooges in the US gov't and corporate media promoting the Iraqi election he goes and says "You can't have a legitimate election under foreign military occupation"

What a moron.

*helps himself to some popcorn, cracks a beer*

And I am not suggesting there ever was.

Something about his other actions for well over a decade that you missed?

I think you should READ the 9/11 Commission Report, then we can talk.

Regards,
Gaar
So did you read all the blacked out parts too, the ones that conflicted with "security issues" that the administration pointed out as too "unstable" or "sensitive" to be released to the public? You know, where the commission itself was being coached on what to ask and what not to ask by the Bush administration cronies? You know, the same commission that Bush himself didn't have the balls or integrity to answer on his own merit so he had to have Cheney there to answer for him? That one?
Maybe you knew, or not, that there was very recently solid information that pointed out that CONTRARY to Condi Rice's assertion, there wasn't just 1 but 52 reports concerning attacks between April and September 11th by Al-Qaida and/or related imminence of the nature that occurred? And that means she lied under oath, under the tutelage of this brilliant f*cking administration.
?

Oh, no! I was going to sit back and help myself to popcorn and enjoy the flame wars, and then the subject of GWB's intelligence came up.

I formerly thought he was fully cognizant of his actions and just didn't care about the outcome of his actions -- you know, a jerk. Then he said this, "You can't have a legitimate election under foreign military occupation"

After all the time he and his stooges in the US gov't and corporate media promoting the Iraqi election he goes and says "You can't have a legitimate election under foreign military occupation"

What a moron.

*helps himself to some popcorn, cracks a beer*
Heh, I noticed that too. Oh the irony.

Oh, no! I was going to sit back and help myself to popcorn and enjoy the flame wars, and then the subject of GWB's intelligence came up.

I formerly thought he was fully cognizant of his actions and just didn't care about the outcome of his actions -- you know, a jerk. Then he said this, "You can't have a legitimate election under foreign military occupation"

After all the time he and his stooges in the US gov't and corporate media promoting the Iraqi election he goes and says "You can't have a legitimate election under foreign military occupation"

What a moron.

*helps himself to some popcorn, cracks a beer*
See, this is a case where the actions of Dubya have been interpreted as idiocy. Understandably so. Dubya's statement is ironic, and at the same time, quite apparently ignorant of the current state of affairs for which Dubya bears a LARGE, LARGE responsibility. But to be fair:

MORON (WEBSTER'S): An adult mentally equal to a child between 8 and 12 years old ... an obsolescent term ..... very foolish or stupid person.

MORON (OED): Very stupid person ..... adult with a mental age of about 8 - 12.

Now if i weighed the two terms, idiot and moron, i'd have to more specifically go with Afghregastan here, since i've witnessed presumably undoctored video footage of Dubya driving a car at around a highway speed. Not an easily dexterous feat for an idiot, but presumably more possible for a moron. I haven't seen any footage of Dubya dressing himself but i hear he doesn't handle pretzels or Segways very well, and he has an extremely poor handle on speaking english or even some of his own thoughts.

Successful ones or unsuccessful ones?

Because they arrested someone crossing the Boarder from Canada to the U.S. who was supposedly planning a New Years attack on the Space Needle here in Seattle, but the plan failed...

http://archives.cnn.com/1999/US/12/22/border.arrest.02/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/1999/12/

There are a BUNCH of Intelligence findings at that site from 1999, none that seem to have come to fruition, as it were...

Regards,
Gaar

By your logic then Clinton did a kickass job defending against terrorism, because we didn't have a major terror attack during his administration. Conversely by your logic Bush did a bad job because we have a really big terror attack while he was in office.

Is that so hard to understand? Did you not hear Bush when he said it wasn't going to be easy and we weren't going to get there overnight? He has never said things would improve immediately, why would YOU expect them to?

Regards,
Gaar
Did you hear Bush when he said in one of his interviews with a prominent media influence that he didn't think the war on terror could be won ....
and then right after noting the response, overnight, he went a complete 180 and said not only would we fight but we would win? And then went on to embellish, with that fellating smirk shining only barely distracting an onlooker from his oft-vacuous eye? Not too dissimilar from Cheney, in that sense.

Integrity again lost in the test.

MORON (WEBSTER'S): An adult mentally equal to a child between 8 and 12 years old ... an obsolescent term ..... very foolish or stupid person.

MORON (OED): Very stupid person ..... adult with a mental age of about 8 - 12.

Now if i weighed the two terms, idiot and moron, i'd have to more specifically go with Afghregastan here.....


I'm glad to see that you understand and appreciate the distinction between a moron and an idiot. Reviewing my own (thankfully departed) teenage years I don't think we need a term referring to those with intelligences of a person between the ages 13-19.

Oh, no! I was going to sit back and help myself to popcorn and enjoy the flame wars, and then the subject of GWB's intelligence came up.

I formerly thought he was fully cognizant of his actions and just didn't care about the outcome of his actions -- you know, a jerk. Then he said this, "You can't have a legitimate election under foreign military occupation"

After all the time he and his stooges in the US gov't and corporate media promoting the Iraqi election he goes and says "You can't have a legitimate election under foreign military occupation"

What a moron.

*helps himself to some popcorn, cracks a beer*

That's Bush all over. Classic, man, fucking classic.

Since when did you know the difference between the U.S. and the world?
Since he watches FOX, and they're "Fair and Balanced", they SAY so, heck, even Cheney says so! So whatever they say MUST be that way! Integrity all the way! :rolleyes:

I'm glad to see that you understand and appreciate the distinction between a moron and an idiot. Reviewing my own (thankfully departed) teenage years I don't think we need a term referring to those with intelligences of a person between the ages 13-19.
Righto, and though Bush may at times seem more mature than others, i would have to thank your post to making me think more along the lines that he's a moron than an idiot.
Actually, i don't know many one-term references to that age group other than adolescent - and that isn't so much mental as emo/psych/physical.
;)

Righto, and though Bush may at times seem more mature than others, i would have to thank your post to making me think more along the lines that he's a moron than an idiot.
Actually, i don't know many one-term references to that age group other than adolescent - and that isn't so much mental as emo/psych/physical.
;)


Indeed, regarding my monumental misjudgements in those dark grim days, I think it wasn't lack of intellectual capacity but rather the vile stew of out of control hormones, lack of experience and lack of foresight that lead to some of my more Olympic screw ups. However the sum of the effects needs a pithy one word term to define it. I'm sure one of the neo-cons on the board will be able to provide one, they're good with pithy phrase and terms. So good in fact that they think pith constitutes an intellectually defensible argument, when in fact it's only ruffage.

(cheap shot, I know)

Indeed, regarding my monumental misjudgements in those dark grim days, I think it wasn't lack of intellectual capacity but rather the vile stew of out of control hormones, lack of experience and lack of foresight that lead to some of my more Olympic screw ups. However the sum of the effects needs a pithy one word term to define it. I'm sure one of the neo-cons on the board will be able to provide one, they're good with pithy phrase and terms. So good in fact that they think pith constitutes an intellectually defensible argument, when in fact it's only ruffage.

(cheap shot, I know)
Agreed. *bows* They tend to lose it so quickly in the ad hominem and such that they have to move on to changing the name by a letter or two for connotative value and then act like that less-than-clever act would distract a discerning eye from the actual lack of content in their presentation.

Supposedly, it was a cheap stone that felled Goliath ....
maybe a neocon would like that analogy.
You rock!

Agreed. *bows* They tend to lose it so quickly in the ad hominem and such that they have to move on to changing the name by a letter or two for connotative value and then act like that less-than-clever act would distract a discerning eye from the actual lack of content in their presentation.

Supposedly, it was a cheap stone that felled Goliath ....
maybe a neocon would like that analogy.
You rock!


I think the reason why I get trapped into arguments with them so easily is out of compassion. When confronted with such monumental ignorance as neo-cons display I'm compelled out of pity to help try to help. Then I run into the hair splitting and vile, filthy straw man arguments and innevitably run away, weeping with frustration and cursing the day that his parents mated in a sinister debased ritual resulting in their evil spawn polluting our planet.

And just like we RECOGNIZE BOTH SIDES in the DISPUTE in Israel.

As long as the "Terror" is not EXPORTED from that Nation, why would WE become involved?!?!

And YES! There are TWO SIDES to that dispute they are having in the UK, are there not?

If the IRA were to attack U.S. interests to try and get us to take some sort of action in the dispute, then you bet yer ass we would become "involved".

Something about the distinction between the two YOU don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

Woah, woah, now we are only invading when it serves our interests? I could have sworn that Iraq had an evil dictator who, while not harming us, was a bad person, so it was ok to invade. But the IRA, who are (from what I gather) also bad, but terrorists rather than just dictators over their own people, are ok, because they aren't harmful to us?

Woah, woah, now we are only invading when it serves our interests? I could have sworn that Iraq had an evil dictator who, while not harming us, was a bad person, so it was ok. But the IRA, who are (from what I gather) also bad, but terrorists rather than just dictators over their own people, are ok, because they aren't harmful to us?

When did I say they were, ok? Why would YOU NEED to put such words in my mouth?

I SAID they weren't OUR problem because they weren't "exporting" Terror and we will let the UK take care of its OWN problem, unless they ask us to help in some manner... Just as "Homegrown" Terrorists here in the U.S. are OUR OWN problem.

Something about that you don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

First of all - do you do that sporadic capitalization just to irritate people? Because, regardless of what you may believe, if you do it that often, it ceases toreally add emphasis.

But yes, there is something about that I do not understand - where "Not our problem" is fundamentally different from "it is ok". But that aside, weren't you the one who presented that story about the man beating up his neighbors and such, and the kid's reaction? Wasn't the whole point of that "It may not be your problem now, but solve it before it is, and it gets too big for you to handle alone"?

Could you at least try to answer my argument, instead of trying to weasel out on a minor difference in phrasing? Had I posted the message using your phrasing, would it really make a difference?

But yes, there is something about that I do not understand - where "Not our problem" is fundamentally different from "it is ok". But that aside, weren't you the one who presented that story about the man beating up his neighbors and such, and the kid's reaction? Wasn't the whole point of that "It may not be your problem now, but solve it before it is, and it gets too big for you to handle alone"?

Could you at least try to answer my argument, instead of trying to weasel out on a minor difference in phrasing? Had I posted the message using your phrasing, would it really make a difference?

Certainly will...

The POINT to the analogy you cite is that it IS your problem... Even if others are trying to convince you it is not and ignore your PLEAS for HELP!

Is that any clearer for you?

Regards,
Gaar

Explain how Sadam was more of my problem than the IRA is.

Explain how Sadam was more of my problem than the IRA is.

How can I? I have NO IDEA what Country you are from, so how would I know whether one was more of a threat to YOU than the other?

If You are asking how Sadam was more of a threat to the U.S. than the IRA, I would say that is pretty evident all on its own but I will elaborate since you don't seem to understand the difference...

The IRA has never done anything to "another" Country, other than their OWN, that they have a direct dispute with that has been spelled out quite clearly. The IRA doesn't target "other" Countries interests or Harbor others that do...

Sadam HAS done all of those things I have cited that the IRA does not, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Did you hear Bush when he said in one of his interviews with a prominent media influence that he didn't think the war on terror could be won ....
and then right after noting the response, overnight, he went a complete 180 and said not only would we fight but we would win? And then went on to embellish, with that fellating smirk shining only barely distracting an onlooker from his oft-vacuous eye? Not too dissimilar from Cheney, in that sense.

Integrity again lost in the test.

Actually, it seems you missed the "explanation" of what was meant by "we couldn't win"...

But then again, you likely didn't and just need to omit it in order to make SOME point here...

Regards,
Gaar