NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, let me start off by mentioning that I am a SSG (Staff Seargant) in the US Army stationed over in Baghdad, Iraq. I have been here for 11 months and I am returning home next home.

I have seen the best and worst of what men can do here. There are plenty of evil and seek people in this world (in every country) and there are alot more good people (once again in every country).

I am truly sick and tired of all the BS that people post on this site about America does this and America does that. Guantanomo this and Guantanomo that. Iraq this and Iraq that. I have been to almost half of the countries on this great thing called Earth (mostly by vacations) and every country has bad things and problems as well. Is America perfect? Hell no, but let me tell you straight up, its a hell of lot better than most countries.

I have been all over Europe. It is beautiful. I love Germany but they have issues that you never hear about. France is gorgeous, but will never be a team player with anyone. England has wonderful people, but once again they have their own termoil with the government.

I have been to Asia. Korea is phenomanal country with such potential to be a powerhouse of a country if they quit whining about us being over there helping them and worry about "brother North Korea" instead. Japan, oh pretty Japan, I wont even go there.

I have been to South America and Central America. You think your country has problems? Visit any country in this area of the world. Pretty forests, people and cities dont make up for all the crime, terrorism, drugs that come from there. You think Iran is next or maybe China? You people have no idea how many terrorists are in Colombia compared to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. There is a terrorist cell there that has been around 10 times longer than Al Qaeda has been around and they fight in the jungles protecting and spreading their drugs.

Everyone is allowed their opinion and I respect that. I support peace probably more than most anyone else. But I raise my gun to defend myself to help the great country of Iraq to get back on its feet again and let the people run the country. Ninety percent of the people here are happy to have us here helping them. Yes, there are some who dont want us here and frankly I dont blame them. But I have been thanked by so many Iraqis in the streets that I cant possibly explain the gratitiude I get for being here. I want nothing more than Iraq and for that matter ever country to live in peace.

No one or no country is perfect. I am sure this post will be blasted to no end and your allowed to. There are plenty of atangonists (however you spell it) who do nothing more than bitch and whine about everything just for sport and get under people's skin.

However, understand this much please. The media is full of crap about almost everything they report on here. I went home on leave after 6 months here and almost lost my mind the BS the media reports about here. They only report what sells apparently. We are busting our butts for freedom and doing our best to help others. Now, does President Bush have a different agenda overall? Not for me to say or care. I know what I am doing is right and a very good thing.

If your an American and you have a problem with what I am saying, dont let the door hit you on the way out. Support your troops at least and wish them home safely. Remember this much: no one in the military started a war, only their bosses that wear suits did.

Below is a awesome article by Charlie Daniels. He is a music entertainer that has played music for over 30 or 40 years now. His most famous song is Devil Went Down to Georgia. Most of you dont know who is or really care for that matter I am sure. He did come see us over here in Iraq. He could have played and left right after the concert and I would have though nothing else. Instead, he stayed after the concert and talked with every single one of us to see how everything was and if he could do anything else to help. Wonderful man in my eyes.

If you got a problem with my country, bring it! If you need help for your country, we will bring it!

Here it is:

Once again Charlie Daniels speaks his feelings and once again he is right
on the money. Charlie needs to be writing for a major news magazine.

The Straight Scoop from Charlie Daniels

I've just returned from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Naval Air Station base where
we did three shows for the troops and toured several locations around the
post visiting with some of the finest military personnel on planet earth.
The kids seemed to really enjoy the shows and especially liked "This Ain't
No Rag, It's A Flag" and "In America". We had a great time with them.

We saw Camp X-Ray, where the Taliban detainees are being held only from a
distance, but I picked up a lot of what's going on there from talking with
a lot of different people.

The truth of the matter is that this operation is under a microscope. The
Red Cross has an on site presence there and watches everything that goes on very closely. The media is not telling you the whole truth about what's
going on over there. The truth is that these scum bags are not only being
treated humanely, but they are probably better off healthwise and medically
than they've ever been in their lives. They are fed well, able to take
showers and receive state of the art medical care. And have their own
Moslem chaplain. I saw several of them in a field hospital ward where they
were being treated in a state of the art medical facility.

Now let's talk about the way they treat our people. First of all, they
have to be watched constantly. These people are committed and wanton
murderers who are willing to die just to kill someone else. One of the
doctors told me that when they had Taliban in the hospital the staff had to
really be careful with needles, pens and anything else which could possibly
be used as a weapon. They also throw their excrement and urine on the
troops who are guarding them. And our guys and gals have shown great
restraint in not retaliating. We are spending over a million dollars a day
maintaining and guarding these nasty killers and anyone who wants to see
them brought to the U.S.A. for trial is either out of their heads or a
lawyer looking for money and notoriety. Or both.

I wish that the media and the Red Cross and all the rest of the people
who are so worried about these criminals would realize that this is not a
troop of errant Boy Scouts. These are killers of the worst kind. They don't
need protection from us, we need protection from them. If you don't get
anything else out of this soapbox, please try to realize that when you see
news coverage much of the time you're not getting the whole story, but an
account filtered through a liberal mindset with an agenda.

We have two fights on our hands, the war against terror and the one
against the loudmouthed lawyers and left wing media who would sap the
strength from the American public by making us believe that we're losing
the war or doing something wrong in fighting it. Remember these are the
same people who told us that Saddam Hussein's Republican guard was going to be an all but invincible enemy and that our smart bombs and other weapons were not really as good as the military said that they were.

They also took up for Bill Clinton while he was cavorting around the Oval
office with Monica Lewinsky while the terrorists were gaining strength and
bombing our Embassies and dragging the bodies of dead American heroes
around the dusty streets of Somalia. It's a shame that we can't have an
unbiased media who would just report the truth and let us make up our own
minds.
Here I must commend Fox News for presenting both sides much better than
the other networks. They are leaving the other cable networks in the dust.
People like being told the truth.

Our military not only needs but deserves our support. Let's give it to
them. Walk in my shoes before you critize my job. I dont critize your job.

The next time you read a media account about the bad treatment of the
Taliban in Cuba, remember what I told you. Been there done that.

Footnote: I got an e-mail from a rather irate first cousin of mine the
other day who has a daughter who's a lawyer and she seemed to think that I
was painting all lawyers with the same brush. Please understand that I'm
not doing that at all. That would be like saying that all musicians were
drug addicts. There are a lot of good and honest attorneys out there. I
happen to have one of them. But it seems that they never get any airtime.
It's always the radicals who get their opinions heard, who fight the idea
of the military tribunals and cite The Constitution and the integrity of
America as their source of jus tifying ir opinions. Well, first of all The
Constitution says "We the people of the United States", it doesn't mention
any other country.

And secondly as far as integrity is concerned, I don't think some of
these folks would know integrity if it bit them in the posterior.

What do you think? God Bless America.
Charlie Daniels

P.S. send this to everyone you can...the truth needs to be told. THE
REASON A DOG HAS SO MANY FRIENDS IS THAT HE WAGS HIS TAIL - NOT HIS TONGUE


Peace and love for all (except for the bad guys)!

Peace and love for all (except for the bad guys)!

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, but please realize that you don't have to leave the bad guys out of the peace and love deal. I wish they could have peace and love too because they would no longer be "the bad guys" if they had it, and that would solve much of the problem we face.

To quote Abraham Lincoln: "We destroy our enemies when we befriend them."

Shh, you might upset American-haters and Lord knows we don't need another hissy-fit from them again.

First of all, let me start off by mentioning that I am a SSG (Staff Seargant) in the US Army stationed over in Baghdad, Iraq. I have been here for 11 months and I am returning home next home.

Peace and love for all (except for the bad guys)!
Hold on ... this might take a moment.

[ Stands, pulls self into position of attention ... salutes ]

From one veteran to another. Good job, bro. Damned ... good ... job! :)

Sorry - what's to be proud of again?

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially about other nations (I live in Germany and I know what's going on here). But none of these play the role the US does and that makes the US all the more accountable for any wrongdoings it might do.
As for the media, I believe both sides are interested in selling the story. Makes me glad to live in a country that provides state-funded (not state-controled) media. It makes the news a bit more reliable when they don't have to worry about ratings.
I disagree with the article on the account that it certainly is stained with bias. I'm not saying the article puts forth valid points, but the thing is, there's no real transparency concerning the reasons for individuals being held there. The idea behind the trials is that we let the taxi driver that accidentally got arrested loose instead of keeping him for a year or more. And if this is actually being properly taken care of, it needs to be publicized properly, and not with some "They're being treated better than Cubans" rhetoric.
Even if you disagree with me, I wish you a safe trip home.

Sorry - what's to be proud of again?

Making a sacrifice to improve the lives of some people on the other side of the world - regardless of the crap that gets put in the papers, and regardless of the smartass remarks by some people who have never sacrificed a moment in their own lives.

If your an American and you have a problem with what I am saying, dont let the door hit you on the way out. Support your troops at least and wish them home safely. Remember this much: no one in the military started a war, only their bosses that wear suits did.



On the first sentance: Surely in the 'land of the free' people who hate the military should be allowed to live there like everybody else?

On the rest: I agree, I hate the bosses not the troops. I try my best to avoid saying 'America is shit' and instead say 'The American leaders are shit, but they people, if slightly inwards looking are generally nice people.'

Thanks- I am proud to be an American and dont get caught up in all the appology and excuse bullshit. We'll always have people spouting their mouths against us. No other country has young as ours has ever enjoyed the most freedom and prosperity in the world as we have.
We can expect to continue to enjoy our way of life, largely in thanks to men like you and the people that support them.

Again-thank you.

On the first sentance: Surely in the 'land of the free' people who hate the military should be allowed to live there like everybody else?

On the rest: I agree, I hate the bosses not the troops. I try my best to avoid saying 'America is shit' and instead say 'The American leaders are shit, but they people, if slightly inwards looking are generally nice people.'

That's what a lot of the international students at my university have come to realize. They like Americans for the most part, but think our elected officials seem to be crazy bastards.

Blah, blah, blah.

Eleven months!? Christ, that's a big chunk of life. I wouldn't want to be anywhere for that long, let alone Iraq. Is that normal procedure? In the British Army tours of duty are usually about six months.

Making a sacrifice to improve the lives of some people on the other side of the world - regardless of the crap that gets put in the papers, and regardless of the smartass remarks by some people who have never sacrificed a moment in their own lives.


And have no faith in anything-including themselves. Self loathing, immature malcontents that just find fault with every aspect of existance and see wild conspiracy theories in every move good people make.
Just talking-never doing as they dont believe in anything.

SOC

Thanks for your service. Rest assured that some of us in here are able to peel back the liberal bias and get to the key facts:

a)The vast majority of Iraqis are happy to be free and are at least somewhat thankful for what America (et al) have done for them.

b)The media in America are generally anti-Bush and (hence) only want to show the bad parts in Iraq; world-wide media are generally anti-American. All news should be chewed before being swallowed. Needless to say, most media around the world are not reporting all the good will and things being done in Iraq.

c)There's about as much "torture" going on at Gitmo as there is snow in hell. If the yellow left want to call receiving four-star meals and medical care torture... then lmao... that's just baseless. If anyone thinks that asking questions is a form of torture, they need to get in a fight (or get injured in some other manner) and find out what real pain is. I'm calling it the Yellow Left for a reason. Bunch of f***ing pussies, imo... at least on the definition of torture.

And have no faith in anything-including themselves. Self loathing, immature malcontents that just find fault with every aspect of existance and see wild conspiracy theories in every move good people make.
Just talking-never doing as they dont believe in anything.
What if someone doesn't want to learn how to kill people? Does that make them qualify for this too?

Congratulations on making a thread for Legs, Corneliu and Lickers to re-affirm themselves.

We know no-one's perfect but if you want to fix the world like the US claims to but don't want world scrutiny you are screwed.

I have to agree with you, SOC. I am anti-war, but I definitely appreciate the way you and your comrades have sacrificed to liberate the people of Iraq from somebody so oppressive. God bless you all! :)

Sorry - what's to be proud of again?
Obviously not you.

What if someone doesn't want to learn how to kill people? Does that make them qualify for this too?



I never said or implied people need to learn to kill people. I am talking about people that whine in their existance and do nothing to improve their own lives, or the lives of others. Sitting in here criticizing America and every thing its done is what I'm talking about.
You dont have to join the military to make a difference.

What if someone doesn't want to learn how to kill people? Does that make them qualify for this too?

You're of the grave misconception that every soldier over there is "killing people".

Pick up your misguided, misinformed, emotional baggage and walk this way.

Most US troops in Iraq have not fired a shot. At anyone.

Please memorize that. There are more support troops over there than combat troops. Helping to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. Water, sewer, power, building schools, etc.

Of course, that would conflict with your view of the war, so perhaps you should go back to your biased news feed.

Well, I can't speak for everyone not American, but often people find America's double-standards and helping dictatorships to be a little annoying… plus the arrogance America often displays about itself.

And no, I'm not anti-American or whatever. I'm merely pointing out the bad things about America. I could reel off a list of the good things, if you really wanted me to.

Well, I can't speak for everyone not American, but often people find America's double-standards and helping dictatorships to be a little annoying… plus the arrogance America often displays about itself.

And no, I'm not anti-American or whatever.

While in the past, creating dictatorships seems to have been official US policy, there seems to be a sea change.

We want democratically elected governments.

Congratulations on making a thread for Legs, Corneliu and Lickers to re-affirm themselves.

We know no-one's perfect but if you want to fix the world like the US claims to but don't want world scrutiny you are screwed.


I'm pretty happy with who and what I am. I dont need your approval or this thread to "re-affirm" myself. I'm just stating my opinions in responses to other people's comments and opinions.

Just like you. Does this thread allow you to re-affirm you opinion?

Well, I can't speak for everyone not American, but often people find America's double-standards and helping dictatorships to be a little annoying… plus the arrogance America often displays about itself.

And no, I'm not anti-American or whatever.

Part of the problem with inconsistency in America foreign policy is that we have a different guy running it every 4-8 years. It's hard to be consistent even when there's one individual making the calls for twenty-five years, but when there are three or four of those people doing it at different times it becomes nearly impossible.

And yes, the arrogance is there, and it's annoying, but it's not a problem with just America. Everybody needs to climb down from their high horses and work together.

b)The media in America are generally anti-Bush and (hence) only want to show the bad parts in Iraq; world-wide media are generally anti-American. All news should be chewed before being swallowed. Needless to say, most media around the world are not reporting all the good will and things being done in Iraq.
God Damn IT! Why does this myth of the liberal media persist? I don't understand it! The majority of Americans listen to right wing radio (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity), watch right wing television (Fox News, Bill O'Reilly), and then complain about the liberal media bias. It makes literally zero sense.
This is coming from someone who supported the Iraq war. It's not going well now. That's the the truth. We screwed up the occupation bad, and deserve to know that's what's going down. The massive amount of suicide bombings that occur every day aren't even on the front page of newspapers any more. They're consigned to the arcane portions that most people don't read. So don't complain about the liberal media bias. There's zero evidence to support that claim.

c)There's about as much "torture" going on at Gitmo as there is snow in hell. If the yellow left want to call receiving four-star meals and medical care torture... then lmao... that's just baseless. If anyone thinks that asking questions is a form of torture, they need to get in a fight (or get injured in some other manner) and find out what real pain is. I'm calling it the Yellow Left for a reason. Bunch of f***ing pussies, imo... at least on the definition of torture.
Have you been to Guantanamo? Have you witnessed interrogations? If so, are you bound to confidentiality? If the answers to the first to are no, or the answer to the third is yes, then you have no basis for your claims. In fact, most factual news reports (not editorials) claim that there's really bad shit going down at Guantanamo.

While in the past, creating dictatorships seems to have been official US policy, there seems to be a sea change.

We want democratically elected governments.

and preferably pro-American. ;)

You're of the grave misconception that every soldier over there is "killing people".

Pick up your misguided, misinformed, emotional baggage and walk this way.

Most US troops in Iraq have not fired a shot. At anyone.

Please memorize that. There are more support troops over there than combat troops. Helping to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. Water, sewer, power, building schools, etc.

Of course, that would conflict with your view of the war, so perhaps you should go back to your biased news feed.
You misinterpreted my reply. I said "learn" to kill people, which is what I feel the army is about. I saw a report on boot camp where one instructor was criticizing the new recruits that thought they were doing it for the money for college. He said they didn't understand that they were being trained to kill people and that it was a shock for them.
My point is that that's why I don't join the military. I don't want to learn how to kill people. I'm not trying to put down anyone in Iraq, I just don't like my comments being declared moot because I don't a) feel like and b) have what it takes to put my life on the line the way some others do.

Ha! That'll teach all those sub human unamericans living in their inferior countries.

I largely agree with the original poster's post, or rather accept his opinion on the base that I don't really know enough to discard it. However, I think the article he included (the one written by that musician, I have a bad memory for names, sorry) is pretty disturbing.
Now maybe I'm overreacting, cause here in Germany we get coached to never accept such things as arrest without a trial or the keeping of people in Cages (reason being the past crimes of our nation, obviously). But really, that guy can't be seriously saying that acclaimed "terrorists" should be taken from their everyday lives and put in prison without even ever seing a court. This is just asking to put innocent people in prison, and can never be justified by the "protection" of innocents, cause it's not.

Besides, while the Iraqi people might be happy to have "freedom", they're propably not that happy about having their hospitals bombed to the groud.
I'm not Anti-american. I'm just strongly Anti-War. In my opinion, killing people (possibly excepting proven criminals) is wrong, no matter what the circumstances.

You misinterpreted my reply. I said "learn" to kill people, which is what I feel the army is about. I saw a report on boot camp where one instructor was criticizing the new recruits that thought they were doing it for the money for college. He said they didn't understand that they were being trained to kill people and that it was a shock for them.
My point is that that's why I don't join the military. I don't want to learn how to kill people. I'm not trying to put down anyone in Iraq, I just don't like my comments being declared moot because I don't a) feel like and b) have what it takes to put my life on the line the way some others do.

Pick a cause and get on with sacrificing then. There is not a "have what it takes" mark. It's only a personal decision.

Do you have what it takes to help out at a domestic violence shelter?
Do you have what it takes to help out at a homeless shelter?
Do you have what it takes to stand 14 hours in 90 degree heat and humidity to protest the killing of baby seals outside of a Red Lobster (saw that this weekend)?

I have enormous respect for people who "have what it takes". The problem is realizing that EVERYONE can "have what it takes" if they decide to do so.

I never said or implied people need to learn to kill people. I am talking about people that whine in their existance and do nothing to improve their own lives, or the lives of others. Sitting in here criticizing America and every thing its done is what I'm talking about.
You dont have to join the military to make a difference.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, offering an alternative to the overly patriotic system of the US is a form of patriotism on its own. I criticize the US for the things it's done in the past because the repurcussions are felt today, and I'm disgusted at how recent history is being ignored. If everyone that criticizes the US gets lumped into the "whiney corner", then you're missing an important part of the argument.

England has wonderful people, but once again they have their own termoil with the government.

When was the last time you went to the UK? Considering that every government since 1979 has had a huge majority, there is hardly any "turmoil" in our government.

Pick a cause and get on with sacrificing then. There is not a "have what it takes" mark. It's only a personal decision.

Do you have what it takes to help out at a domestic violence shelter?
Do you have what it takes to help out at a homeless shelter?
Do you have what it takes to stand 14 hours in 90 degree heat and humidity to protest the killing of baby seals outside of a Red Lobster (saw that this weekend)?

I have enormous respect for people who "have what it takes". The problem is realizing that EVERYONE can "have what it takes" if they decide to do so.
Um... I don't have what it takes to be a soldier, according to the German military. They ranked me in the worst of five categories when they tried to draft me, meaning they consider me completely unsuitable.
This means I didn't have to do any social service either, which is an option for concientius objecters. I did something like that anyway. I've done a volontary social year, where I basically got crap pay to work in a Children's and Youth Center in Munich in a part of the city with a lot of immigrants. I nearly got into a fight once and I'm proud to say that I didn't raise a hand against the little piece of crap that hit me, and if I had, I would have had a sentence or worse.

When was the last time you went to the UK? Considering that every government since 1979 has had a huge majority, there is hardly any "turmoil" in our government.

For most Americans, just watching Question Time gives the non-UK person the idea that there is extreme turmoil.

I usually watch it because the insults are so well executed.

Um... I don't have what it takes to be a soldier, according to the German military. They ranked me in the worst of five categories when they tried to draft me, meaning they consider me completely unsuitable.
This means I didn't have to do any social service either, which is an option for concientius objecters. I did something like that anyway. I've done a volontary social year, where I basically got crap pay to work in a Children's and Youth Center in Munich in a part of the city with a lot of immigrants. I nearly got into a fight once and I'm proud to say that I didn't raise a hand against the little piece of crap that hit me, and if I had, I would have had a sentence or worse.
Germany still has a draft? Germany?? :eek:

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, offering an alternative to the overly patriotic system of the US is a form of patriotism on its own. I criticize the US for the things it's done in the past because the repurcussions are felt today, and I'm disgusted at how recent history is being ignored. If everyone that criticizes the US gets lumped into the "whiney corner", then you're missing an important part of the argument.

Agreed. Even whiney people can have valid complaints. :D

(Not meant to imply that you're whiney, by the way.)

Making a sacrifice to improve the lives of some people on the other side of the world - regardless of the crap that gets put in the papers, and regardless of the smartass remarks by some people who have never sacrificed a moment in their own lives.

Yes, of course - because unlike my work collegues who were deployed to Siera Leonne to peace keep and did so sucessfully, Americans in Iraq are trying to 'improve the lives of some people on the other side of the world' by killing 100,000 people and locking 14 year olds up in Cuba, completely unsucessfully. Dang, my mistake. My employers in the Royal Navy should look how you guys do it!

Remind me - what have you guys got to be proud of? 'We oppress more than any other'? 'Our overdraft is bigger than yours'? 'We put more drug patents into force and kill mroe AIDS victims than Europe'? 'We pollute more per capita than anyone else in the world and put out 25% of all the world's pollution'?

Yes, that would make me really proud. No, really it would.

Of course, that would conflict with your view of the war, so perhaps you should go back to your biased news feed.
Yaaaawn, thats been done. Left says media is rightist, right says media is leftist.

There are plenty of atangonists (however you spell it) who do nothing more than bitch and whine about everything just for sport and get under people's skin.
Yes, its called debating. If you just want people to agree with you on everything, then join this (http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum5/) forum for example. NS is not the place to find yes men/women. People here debate, posting something here is like putting it up for debate.

Ook ook ook! Eeek oook! *hurls feces*.
Your only further proving your own point.

For most Americans, just watching Question Time gives the non-UK person the idea that there is extreme turmoil.

I usually watch it because the insults are so well executed.

So because people question the government in the UK there is turmoil? Lol, I feel sorry for any person who thinks that.

Germany still has a draft? Germany?? :eek:
The German social system would break apart if we didn't... It forces a lot of young men to go and do something for the needy in order to avoid it. (Pays a lot better 'n what I did too)

When was the last time you went to the UK? Considering that every government since 1979 has had a huge majority, there is hardly any "turmoil" in our government. 37% (which stupidly becomes 60% of seats) is a huge majority?

It forces a lot of young men to go and do something for the needy in order to avoid it.

Yup. Social year ought to be compulsory for everyone (not just the males). However, I don't see where we need a military.

This is cute (http://sinfest.net/d/20030219.html)

Your only further proving your own point.

That would be 'You're' not 'Your'. Obviously you are from one of those god awful liberal countries with their inferior education systems.

Yes, of course - because unlike my work collegues who were deployed to Siera Leonne to peace keep and did so sucessfully, Americans in Iraq are trying to 'improve the lives of some people on the other side of the world' by killing 100,000 people and locking 14 year olds up in Cuba, completely unsucessfully. Dang, my mistake. My employers in the Royal Navy should look how you guys do it!

Remind me - what have you guys got to be proud of? 'We oppress more than any other'? 'Our overdraft is bigger than yours'? 'We put more drug patents into force and kill mroe AIDS victims than Europe'? 'We pollute more per capita than anyone else in the world and put out 25% of all the world's pollution'?

Yes, that would make me really proud. No, really it would.

Yes, the UK is part of the Iraq policy, too. And official figures, even independent ones, are nowhere near 100,000 people - let's try to use accurate figures when we discuss things.

And how do you get "we oppress more than any other". Please cite specific evidence. Kill more AIDS victims? Hey, even when we give AZT to South Africa for FREE, they refuse to use it because they believe that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS!

Yeah, I'm proud. The interesting combination of Sierra Leone and Liberia are only artifices on the map - the situation is stable for a while, and then it destabilizes and the refugees run from one place to the other. Both "countries" would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

Let your peacekeepers leave, and inside of six months, they'll be killing each other again. Ah, you don't have the magic spell that brings true peace either!

Yup. Social year ought to be compulsory for everyone (not just the males). However, I don't see where we need a military.

This is cute (http://sinfest.net/d/20030219.html)
The volontary social year is pretty much dominated by girls who agree. Our seminar group from the organization that paid me had about 25% males and that was a new record.

SOC

Thanks for your service. Rest assured that some of us in here are able to peel back the liberal bias and get to the key facts:

a)The vast majority of Iraqis are happy to be free and are at least somewhat thankful for what America (et al) have done for them.

b)The media in America are generally anti-Bush and (hence) only want to show the bad parts in Iraq; world-wide media are generally anti-American. All news should be chewed before being swallowed. Needless to say, most media around the world are not reporting all the good will and things being done in Iraq.

c)There's about as much "torture" going on at Gitmo as there is snow in hell. If the yellow left want to call receiving four-star meals and medical care torture... then lmao... that's just baseless. If anyone thinks that asking questions is a form of torture, they need to get in a fight (or get injured in some other manner) and find out what real pain is. I'm calling it the Yellow Left for a reason. Bunch of f***ing pussies, imo... at least on the definition of torture.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

http://img300.echo.cx/img300/4611/dhimmicrats2vf.jpg

That would be 'You're' not 'Your'. Obviously you are from one of those god awful liberal countries with their inferior education systems.
Ahhh, blame the typo. An old NS tradition, I know, Ive been around for it for some time.
My spelling and/or grammer doesnt change the fact that your attacking somebody for being proud of their country. Last I checked, that wasnt a crime. Although on NS people dont like people from the US being proud of their country, we're not supposed to care, like the rest of the world.

The volontary social year is pretty much dominated by girls who agree. Our seminar group from the organization that paid me had about 25% males and that was a new record.

You're propably right, but if almost 100% of the males are either in the military or Zivildienstleistende then the few who remain won't be as many as the girls in voluntary social year, even though those make up only a small portion of the female population.
Anyway, we shouldn't be discussing Germany here ^^ .

37% (which stupidly becomes 60% of seats) is a huge majority?

Shows what you know. That's roughly a majority of 60 seats which means even if all the opposition parties combine, the government can still beat them by 66 votes.

Do you have what it takes to stand 14 hours in 90 degree heat and humidity to protest the killing of baby seals outside of a Red Lobster (saw that this weekend)?

red lobster kills baby seals??

and you found this protest inspiring???

red lobster kills baby seals??

and you found this protest inspiring???

In Manassas, Virginia, some people held up signs saying "Boycott Canadian Seafood, Save the Baby Seals".

They didn't want us to eat in Red Lobster, because somehow, they felt it would save a baby seal. Ok, I see their loose, intricate, and perhaps specious logic, but I am impressed.

I ate there anyway.

I am always impressed by people willing to make a sacrifice for what they believe in. It was fucking hot out there - like a steam bath - and they were there from sunup to sundown.

"Do you have what it takes to stand 14 hours in 90 degree heat and humidity to protest the killing of baby seals outside of a Red Lobster (saw that this weekend)?"

Well, I don't see what protecting the environment has to do with being proud of your country, or what either thing has to do with bombing third world countries and treating people like animals.

Ahhh, blame the typo. An old NS tradition, I know, Ive been around for it for some time.
My spelling and/or grammer doesnt change the fact that your attacking somebody for being proud of their country. Last I checked, that wasnt a crime. Although on NS people dont like people from the US being proud of their country, we're not supposed to care, like the rest of the world.

Another 'Your' in place of 'You're' there. The very least you could do is try harder next time.

Loving your country is one thing, stating that it is objectively better than others, which is what the poster did, is quite another.

Germany still has a draft? Germany?? :eek:
It was brought back in 1957, not only backed by, but actively pushed by the western allied forces, especially America (As far as I know France was against it). ... but I degress ;)

...Americans in Iraq are trying to 'improve the lives of some people on the other side of the world' by killing 100,000 people and locking 14 year olds up in Cuba...
Remind me - what have you guys got to be proud of? 'We oppress more than any other'? 'Our overdraft is bigger than yours'? 'We put more drug patents into force and kill mroe AIDS victims than Europe'? 'We pollute more per capita than anyone else in the world and put out 25% of all the world's pollution'? ...

100,000? i call bullshit. 14 yo's? you make it sound like every detainee there is 14. Again, i call bullshit. We opress more than any other? uh... South Africa anyone? (bullshit), overdraft? overdraft of what? Drug patents... of course we put out more, but it's also more difficult to get a drug approved here in the US. We kill more AIDS victims than Europe? What about Africa, do they also kill more? (i'm calling bullshit on this one too just because of the 100k # earlier). And as far as the polution # goes, w/o some statistic backing you up, i won't believe it considering your other embellishments.

"Do you have what it takes to stand 14 hours in 90 degree heat and humidity to protest the killing of baby seals outside of a Red Lobster (saw that this weekend)?"

Well, I don't see what protecting the environment has to do with being proud of your country, or what either thing has to do with bombing third world countries and treating people like animals.

I guess you don't bother to read threads. I mean, who's got the time.

I'll sum up - I don't have any respect for the opinions of people who are unwilling to make any sacrifice for their cause. Regardless of what that cause may be, or how much I disagree with it - if they are sacrificing, it impresses me. And I'm more likely to at least give their opinion some consideration.

I'll sum up - I don't have any respect for the opinions of people who are unwilling to make any sacrifice for their cause. Regardless of what that cause may be, or how much I disagree with it - if they are sacrificing, it impresses me. And I'm more likely to at least give their opinion some consideration.

Yeah. So you're impressed by muslim fondamentalist suicide attackers? Regardless of what the cause may be, dearest gods :headbang:

Yeah. So you're impressed by muslim fondamentalist suicide attackers? Regardless of what the cause may be, dearest gods :headbang:

Yes. More impressed than I am by people who sit on their ass at home and have never done ANYTHING who preach that the war in Iraq is wrong.

What do you think?

You/Charlie lost a lot of credibility here:

Here I must commend Fox News for presenting both sides much better than
the other networks. They are leaving the other cable networks in the dust.
People like being told the truth.

Yes. More impressed than I am by people who sit on their ass at home and have never done ANYTHING who preach that the war in Iraq is wrong.

I think 11/9 was incredibly impressive from a planning and logistics point of view.

Another 'Your' in place of 'You're' there. The very least you could do is try harder next time.

Loving your country is one thing, stating that it is objectively better than others, which is what the poster did, is quite another.
And you continue to attack my spelling, as if that has any relation to the point at hand.

So? He has an opinion. There isnt a law against that either, except in a few countries out there, but I think we can agree that the US is 'objectivly better' than. Unless you think North Korea is better than the US.

I don't see where we need a military.
Holy Mother of God! Another shining example of the sort of mindlessness that passes for education in the left-leaning ivory towers of academia. Sigh. :headbang:

Holy Mother of God! Another shining example of the sort of mindlessness that passes for education in the left-leaning ivory towers of academia. Sigh. :headbang:
Oh, but if we dont have a military, nobody will attack us because that wouldnt be fair! [/sarcasm]

Oh, but if we dont have a military, nobody will attack us because that wouldnt be fair! [/sarcasm]

I'm an idealist, I'll admit that. But if we wouldn't have a military, and no-one else would, either, then nobody would attack us.
Also, you do realize that we are a member of the UN and therefore would be defended by a number of other nations, including the US whose military skills you seem to be so proud of.

So? He has an opinion. There isnt a law against that either, except in a few countries out there, but I think we can agree that the US is 'objectivly better' than. Unless you think North Korea is better than the US.

Exactly - he has an opinion which I disagree with - thus I am entitled to "attack" him for it. He says that America may not be perfect but it is better than most countries and goes on to criticise European countries, which I think you can't say are better or worse than America - it is a matter of opinion. 'My country is better than others' can easily lead to 'My countries people are better than others' and can finally come to the conclusion 'It is justifiable for my countries people to eliminate other countries people on the assumption that they will gain from the elimination'.

Also, you do realize that we are a member of the UN and therefore would be defended by a number of other nations, including the US whose military skills you seem to be so proud of.

Yes, that's what a lot of people in Rwanda thought. And a lot of people in Kosovo. Yes, that UN. Always there to prevent the innocent from being killed wholesale... :rolleyes:

God Damn IT! Why does this myth of the liberal media persist? I don't understand it! The majority of Americans listen to right wing radio (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity), watch right wing television (Fox News, Bill O'Reilly), and then complain about the liberal media bias. It makes literally zero sense.
This is coming from someone who supported the Iraq war. It's not going well now. That's the the truth. We screwed up the occupation bad, and deserve to know that's what's going down. The massive amount of suicide bombings that occur every day aren't even on the front page of newspapers any more. They're consigned to the arcane portions that most people don't read. So don't complain about the liberal media bias. There's zero evidence to support that claim.


Have you been to Guantanamo? Have you witnessed interrogations? If so, are you bound to confidentiality? If the answers to the first to are no, or the answer to the third is yes, then you have no basis for your claims. In fact, most factual news reports (not editorials) claim that there's really bad shit going down at Guantanamo.

i'm talking about television media outlets and their biases, man.... not who watches what, but what is offered by the networks.

CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN lean left. That is well-established and has been so for years (and in the case of CNN, since its existence -- the moniker Clinton News Network ring a bell?)

Radio might lean right, actually... but the left has TV and newspapers... the majority of TV networks and the majority of major newspapers.

In Manassas, Virginia, some people held up signs saying "Boycott Canadian Seafood, Save the Baby Seals".

They didn't want us to eat in Red Lobster, because somehow, they felt it would save a baby seal. Ok, I see their loose, intricate, and perhaps specious logic, but I am impressed.

I ate there anyway.

I am always impressed by people willing to make a sacrifice for what they believe in. It was fucking hot out there - like a steam bath - and they were there from sunup to sundown.
im only impressed when its not stupid.

Yes, that's what a lot of people in Rwanda thought. And a lot of people in Kosovo. Yes, that UN. Always there to prevent the innocent from being killed wholesale... :rolleyes:

ahhh, the squashing of another person's belief in the military solvency of the UN.

hehe

im only impressed when its not stupid.

It can be as stupid as can be - it's OK with me as long as they are putting something on the line for it - their dignity, or facing the sweltering heat. They probably think I was stupid for being in the Army.

I do not appreciate commentary from people who have never stepped up to any plate. Once they demonstrate some willingness to sacrifice for their beliefs, I can at least listen. Until then, I would rather put my boot in their face.

i'm talking about television media outlets and their biases, man.... not who watches what, but what is offered by the networks.

CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN lean left. That is well-established and has been so for years (and in the case of CNN, since its existence -- the moniker Clinton News Network ring a bell?)

Radio might lean right, actually... but the left has TV and newspapers... the majority of TV networks and the majority of major newspapers.

wow! do you watch the same TV and read the same newspapers?

Yes, that's what a lot of people in Rwanda thought. And a lot of people in Kosovo. Yes, that UN. Always there to prevent the innocent from being killed wholesale... :rolleyes:

I can see where that'd be a reason to be proud.

I can see where that'd be a reason to be proud.

Do you know how many millions of people died in Rwanda believing that the UN would save them?

How many people were shot into open pits in Kosovo, thinking the UN would save them?

Does that make you proud, to know that the UN has been indirectly involved in most of the massacres in modern times?

Exactly - he has an opinion which I disagree with - thus I am entitled to "attack" him for it. He says that America may not be perfect but it is better than most countries and goes on to criticise European countries, which I think you can't say are better or worse than America - it is a matter of opinion. 'My country is better than others' can easily lead to 'My countries people are better than others' and can finally come to the conclusion 'It is justifiable for my countries people to eliminate other countries people on the assumption that they will gain from the elimination'.
Your entitled to dissagree, not attack. Attacking generaly envolves flaming, which is not allowed regardless of your opinion. So if your going to attack somebodies opinion, you have to be at least moderatly polite about it :)
And people who live in Europe never criticise America? Come on. Every other post on this forum is a European attacking Bush or America, generaly comparing it to their country, or to Europe in genreal, and saying how much better their country is.
Of course, Europeans never said 'My countries people are better than others'.

I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I use to be free! :p

Do you know how many millions of people died in Rwanda believing that the UN would save them?

How many people were shot into open pits in Kosovo, thinking the UN would save them?

Does that make you proud, to know that the UN has been indirectly involved in most of the massacres in modern times?

It. Was. Sarcasm.

Besides, no country has any reason to attack Germany. Besides, this thread is not called "Why countries need a military or don't". Besides, you're the one who's proud of America, a member of the UN who failed to do anything about several genocides in Africa while attacking a relatively harmless dictatorship for economic reasons.

I'm an idealist, I'll admit that. But if we wouldn't have a military, and no-one else would, either, then nobody would attack us.
Also, you do realize that we are a member of the UN and therefore would be defended by a number of other nations, including the US whose military skills you seem to be so proud of.

but if nobody had a military, how would the UN defend us?

200 multiplied by 0 is still 0 (or is it undefined? i forget. at any rate, if 200 countries without militaries comprised the UN, how could the UN protect its states?)

meanwhile, try telling the Middle East, North Korea, etc. to put down their weapons.

we can't give up our militaries because of them.

In fact, most factual news reports (not editorials) claim that there's really bad shit going down at Guantanamo.

Most factual new reports, huh? Good. You should have no problem supporting that claim. Can you list the number of people who have died as a result of torture in Gitmo? What percentage of the prisoners does that represent? If this occurred were the perpetrators punished? Can you list the number of injuries or abuses that have occurred at Gitmo? What were the injuries and abuses and what were their causes? If it was abuse were the perpetrators punished? Again, what percentage does this represent? Answers to these questions would be fact. Anything else is speculation. Most people who have visited Gitmo say that in general the prisoners are treated well. Are there abuses? YES. Absolutely. No question about it. Just like there are abuses in every prison everywhere in the world. Does that mean that it's a general and widespread problem? No, not really. Generally, abuse occurs in those situations for the same reason they do in a war, the two sides are protagonists and sometimes that gets to soldiers or guards or anyone else in that situation. Bad individuals guards do not make for a bad prison. Most guards at Gitmo have committed no abuses and are guilty of no crimes. I assume this because it is my philosophy to assume innocence unless I see evidence of a crime. Can you show me evidence of a crime? Where is your evidence of this "really bad shit"?

And people who live in Europe never criticise America? Come on. Every other post on this forum is a European attacking Bush or America, generaly comparing it to their country, or to Europe in genreal, and saying how much better their country is.
Of course, Europeans never said 'My countries people are better than others'.

I dislike anyone saying that a first world country they live in is better than another. It's just that Americans tend to do it more than Europeans in my experience, as a whole (Except France. Both countries are overnationalistic, probably one of the reasons they hate each others guts). Believe me, if someone came on here and posted why Britain was better than America i'd probably rant at them even more, since they are making my country look bad.

It. Was. Sarcasm.

Besides, no country has any reason to attack Germany. Besides, this thread is not called "Why countries need a military or don't". Besides, you're the one who's proud of America, a member of the UN who failed to do anything about several genocides in Africa while attacking a relatively harmless dictatorship for economic reasons.

We're not the UN, if you'll care to notice.

If the UN is so great, then it should have no problem at all dealing with the world's problems without any help at all from the US.

I dislike anyone saying that a first world country they live in is better than another. It's just that Americans tend to do it more than Europeans in my experience, as a whole (Except France. Both countries are overnationalistic, probably one of the reasons they hate each others guts). Believe me, if someone came on here and posted why Britain was better than America i'd probably rant at them even more, since they are making my country look bad.
Well, as long as you do it in every single over-nationalist topic, Ill be happy ;)

Most factual new reports, huh? Good. You should have no problem supporting that claim. Can you list the number of people who have died as a result of torture in Gitmo? What percentage of the prisoners does that represent? If this occurred were the perpetrators punished? Can you list the number of injuries or abuses that have occurred at Gitmo? What were the injuries and abuses and what were their causes? If it was abuse were the perpetrators punished? Again, what percentage does this represent? Answers to these questions would be fact. Anything else is speculation. Most people who have visited Gitmo say that in general the prisoners are treated well. Are there abuses? YES. Absolutely. No question about it. Just like there are abuses in every prison everywhere in the world. Does that mean that it's a general and widespread problem? No, not really. Generally, abuse occurs in those situations for the same reason they do in a war, the two sides are protagonists and sometimes that gets to soldiers or guards or anyone else in that situation. Bad individuals guards do not make for a bad prison. Most guards at Gitmo have committed no abuses and are guilty of no crimes. I assume this because it is my philosophy to assume innocence unless I see evidence of a crime. Can you show me evidence of a crime? Where is your evidence of this "really bad shit"?

ahh, but Jocabia, Amnesty International and other weak-stomached groups declare that all terrorists/insurgents should be handled with kid gloves, fed excellent cuisine three times a day, given fine wine and/or clean drinking water (hehe), etc.

We're giving them two out of three... and two out of three ain't bad. We'd use kid gloves but the slaughter of the goats would piss off PETA, another freakish left-wing group.

If the UN is so great, then it should have no problem at all dealing with the world's problems without any help at all from the US.

See, this is one of the most misunderstood things about the UN I see people make over and over and over again. The UN itself is just a name, a building. The UN is a collection of countries. The UN is only as strong or weak as it's signatory members. The UN itself doesn't have a mandate to do anything. It's the countries that belong to the UN who do. The only mandate the UN really has is to promote peace in the world. It's up to the signatory member states to come up with solutions to problems around the globe. The UN is simply a venue to discuss and resolve problems of member states. That's it! Why do people keep acting like the UN has it's own agenda and or army all the time?

Of course the UN has been quite successful in humanitarian causes.

First of all, let me start off by mentioning that I am a SSG (Staff Seargant) in the US Army stationed over in Baghdad, Iraq. I have been here for 11 months and I am returning home next home.

I am truly sick and tired of all the BS that people post on this site about America does this and America does that. Guantanomo this and Guantanomo that. Iraq this and Iraq that. I have been to almost half of the countries on this great thing called Earth (mostly by vacations) and every country has bad things and problems as well. Is America perfect? Hell no, but let me tell you straight up, its a hell of lot better than most countries.

Well, I don't know if you notice but we are still messing with Iraq and Guatanomo...maybe if we leave both peopple would stop talking about it. Just a thought.

We have two fights on our hands, the war against terror and the one
against the loudmouthed lawyers and left wing media who would sap the
strength from the American public by making us believe that we're losing
the war or doing something wrong in fighting it. Remember these are the
same people who told us that Saddam Hussein's Republican guard was going to be an all but invincible enemy and that our smart bombs and other weapons were not really as good as the military said that they were.

Our military not only needs but deserves our support. Let's give it to
them. Walk in my shoes before you critize my job. I dont critize your job.

Actually if I was part of media (I'm not but eh) than you just criticized my job. War against Terror is unweinnable. Just like War against hope is unwinnable. War against happiness/sadness/tiredness all unwinnable. You can't beat feelings and ideals. They are intangible, that means untouchable.

If you meant war against Al Queda or Iraq than you have a chance.

Footnote: I got an e-mail from a rather irate first cousin of mine the
other day who has a daughter who's a lawyer and she seemed to think that I
was painting all lawyers with the same brush. Please understand that I'm
not doing that at all. That would be like saying that all musicians were
drug addicts. There are a lot of good and honest attorneys out there. I
happen to have one of them. But it seems that they never get any airtime.
It's always the radicals who get their opinions heard, who fight the idea
of the military tribunals and cite The Constitution and the integrity of
America as their source of jus tifying ir opinions. Well, first of all The
Constitution says "We the people of the United States", it doesn't mention
any other country.

"We are Endowed by our Creator, certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life , Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness."
Sorry, Charlie, but the that applies to all people. No matter the Country, Liberty is mentioned. That means te freedom of a fair trial by a jury of their peers. Not a Military Tribunal with no lawyer.

Peace and love for all (except for the bad guys)!
If the bad guys had love and peace you wouldn't be fighting, so not by not sayin them you must love war.

But anyway, I'm proud to be an American of the US also.

See, this is one of the most misunderstood things about the UN I see people make over and over and over again. The UN itself is just a name, a building. The UN is a collection of countries. The UN is only as strong or weak as it's signatory members. The UN itself doesn't have a mandate to do anything. It's the countries that belong to the UN who do. The only mandate the UN really has is to promote peace in the world. It's up to the signatory member states to come up with solutions to problems around the globe. The UN is simply a venue to discuss and resolve problem of member states. That's it! Why do people keep acting like the UN has it's own agenda and or army all the time?

Of course the UN has been quite successful in humanitarian causes.

Xanaz, I say these things because so many people who bash the US for acting unilaterally hold up the UN as some great thing.

It isn't. And saying it's as good as its members is not a good thing to say.

For all those who criticize the US, and who think that the UN would be a better way to do things, then I assume that, without the US, the UN (and its members) can work the miracles that the US cannot. The UN can induce a bad dictator to step down without a shot being fired. His government can be immediately replaced by a democratically elected government, in two weeks time. No one in that country will fight amongst themselves, because the UN will be there. All infrastructure items such as power, water, and food will be restored completely to Western standards in 24 hours. And there will never be an insurgency, because the UN will always have perfect intelligence and know where all the insurgents are (who won't want to fight the UN anyway).

Yes, the UN is great, and all-knowing, and we all know it has a perfect record. So that's why everyone who belongs to it can criticize the US.

We're not the UN, if you'll care to notice.

If the UN is so great, then it should have no problem at all dealing with the world's problems without any help at all from the US.

You're not the UN. But you're a member of the UN. You don't have to "help" the UN. You're part of it.
But I never meant to become a defender of the UN. I'm not that big a fan of it myself. Note that the "UN defends us"-scenario was an alternative to, not a consequence of the "no-one has a military" scenario. I know that the second is extremely unlikely - propably impossible. I'm just saying it'd be best.

Returning to topic, it's completely unnecessary to be "proud" of one's country. You might like your country, love it if you will, but be proud? Why? Even if your country achieved great things in the past, what exactly does that have to do with you? Even if you had a part in it, you can be proud of yourself, but of your country?
I can't get into that concept.

I can both agree with that statement and see why the vikings were so violent to their mainland cousins.

The only thing they have going for them is their sweets, malt vinegar potatoe chips, y olive oil cookery. That's basically it for the entire western coast of Europe.

There is a very good reason why Europe has boudieres.

Even if you had a part in it, you can be proud of yourself, but of your country?
I can't get into that concept.

That's too bad, because the world and the events in it hold no special thrill for you if you can't find yourself at a time and place where you can be a part of history.

Ditto, SSG. Ditto all the way. I stopped watching the news for the most part about three or four months ago. It's pointless, they never tell you the truth. I've been to five other countries myself - lived in Argentina for about seven years - yeah, I know what it's like too. I really appreciate your spirit for our country.
I didn't know any better than to watch the news and believe what it vomited out to the public until I started talking to my boyfriend about the war. He's lived in the middle east for about a year or so and told me how it really is over there. He said the media makes it worse. For example: He accidentally walked down the wrong street one day with some friends and ran right into the middle of two of his city's smaller terrorist groups having it out. They crouched behind some buildings and waited for the argument to end and the people to leave. They were just yelling. They were just HOLDING, not THROWING rocks. Until the media came. As soon as that van came into view the guns came out. It was all a big show. They weren't even AIMING. Just shooting randomly in the general direction of the other party.
If the media would let it all alone - no more cameras, that's what they WANT. Publicity - then lots of this fighting would end. By trying to televise "the truth" they are distorting reality. Turn the t.v.'s off, turn the radio's off, cancel your subscription to the newspaper, and take a trip. Leave all your political and baised views and feelings at home, and take a trip to a different country... and watch as "facts" give way to reality.

For all those who criticize the US, and who think that the UN would be a better way to do things, then I assume that, without the US, the UN (and its members) can work the miracles that the US cannot. The UN can induce a bad dictator to step down without a shot being fired. His government can be immediately replaced by a democratically elected government, in two weeks time. No one in that country will fight amongst themselves, because the UN will be there. All infrastructure items such as power, water, and food will be restored completely to Western standards in 24 hours. And there will never be an insurgency, because the UN will always have perfect intelligence and know where all the insurgents are (who won't want to fight the UN anyway).

Why exactly do you think that it is the right (or duty) of the western world to impose it's moral standards (such as democracy) on every other country in the world? Even if the western standards were ideal, which is not exactly proven (though it's likely they're ideal - at least for us), why should the peoples of the world not be allowed to discover them for themselves?

Medical and technological aid is a different story. We should try to help the people in 3rd world countries in every way possible. Just leave their politics alone (as long as they don't expand to genocide and the like).

I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I use to be free! :p
Oh. You mean like you "use" to be free to post things like the post I quote here? Hmm.

Congratulations on making a thread for Legs, Corneliu and Lickers to re-affirm themselves.


LOL

again,

LOL

Very well put. Couldn't agree more.

and again,

LOL

Yes, the UN is great, and all-knowing, and we all know it has a perfect record. So that's why everyone who belongs to it can criticize the US.

Well I wouldn't go that far, but I think what most countries that are members of the UN complain about is that we Americans are not team players and that is not all together untrue. We love the UN when it agrees with us and hate it when it doesn't. It's like we've become the spoiled brat on the block who takes a tantrum every time we don't get our own way. At least that is how the world at large views the US.

Oh. You mean like you "use" to be free to post things like the post I quote here? Hmm.

Testing, testing, 1,2,3.. yup it worked! :D

That's worth 1,000 dead US soldiers and god knows how many dead Iraqis. Don't bother questioning the real motives as to why you are there, that might give you a moral dilemma.

Why exactly do you think that it is the right (or duty) of the western world to impose it's moral standards (such as democracy) on every other country in the world?
Hmm. Strange ... I was under the impression that democracy was the most effective form of government for giving people some control over their own country, not a "moral standard." Perhaps that's just me, eh? :headbang:

That's worth 1,000 dead US soldiers and god knows how many dead Iraqis. Don't bother questioning the real motives as to why you are there, that might give you a moral dilemma.

Who says anyone questions the real motives?

Who says anyone questions the real motives?

Are you trying to imply people don't?

Well I wouldn't go that far, but I think what most countries that are members of the UN complain about is that we Americans are not team players and that is not all together untrue. We love the UN when it agrees with us and hate it when it doesn't. It's like we've become the spoiled brat on the block who takes a tantrum every time we don't get our own way. At least that is how the world at large views the US.
And you've taken some sort of poll to discover this wonderment of information?

Who says anyone questions the real motives?

Exactly. Idiots like you support the killing of US soldiers for whatever reason.

And you've taken some sort of poll to discover this wonderment of information?

Not me personally. But if you read anything coming from "other" countries, you'll discover rather quickly that's exactly how they view us Americans. You certainly are not under the impression that we are liked very much at the moment around the world are you?

Well I wouldn't go that far, but I think what most countries that are members of the UN complain about is that we Americans are not team players and that is not all together untrue. We love the UN when it agrees with us and hate it when it doesn't. It's like we've become the spoiled brat on the block who takes a tantrum every time we don't get our own way. At least that is how the world at large views the US.

You just described every country in the UN. In fact, the UN was built to allow tantrums, except they called them vetoes. So a country like France can complain that we want to call Darfur genocide and veto action there. And I'm sure if I looked I could come up with a dozen examples of every country with veto power there acting in their own self-interest instead of being team players.

Hmm. Strange ... I was under the impression that democracy was the most effective form of government for giving people some control over their own country, not a "moral standard." Perhaps that's just me, eh? :headbang:

Democracy can be effective.
Look at Germany, where almost half of the population refuses to go to to the votes, and of the rest, some are swayed to vote for populistic right-wing parties just because they're pissed about the necessary economic steps being undertaken by the government. They're even going to vote for a party that will cut even further into their social rights, because their anger blinded them.
Or imagine a country where most of the population lives in remote rural areas without possibility (or interest) in going to the votes. They'd be ruled by capitalist city folk, don't you think so?
Imagine a country where the public is prone to propaganda and basically listens to the guy with the loudest voice. This shouldn't be too hard.

Democracy can be effective. Still, it's one effective system of many, just more adapted to our moral standards and circumstances in the western world. See?

You just described every country in the UN. In fact, the UN was built to allow tantrums, except they called them vetoes. So a country like France can complain that we want to call Darfur genocide and veto action there. And I'm sure if I looked I could come up with a dozen examples of every country with veto power there acting in their own self-interest instead of being team players.

While I can really argue with that, you're probably correct. Unlike other countries we take action anyway where as they tend not to unless it's agreed upon. Also, I don't think any other country has used it's veto power as many times as the US has. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we hold the record there!

Exactly. Idiots like you support the killing of US soldiers for whatever reason.

No, that's idiots like me. Idiots like Legs support the killing of other countries' soldiers (by US soldiers) for whatever reason.

Did you not get the memo?

-Dobbs.

Damn fine thread, soldier, damn fine thread.



For Irden: I feel very sorry for you since you can't seem to feel the emotion of pride for other people. Just because, as you say, someone isn't directly apart of something, is no justification for not feeling pride. I am proud of my grandfather who was a marine during WWII and an all-star athlete, did I help him? No. But I am proud to have his blood running through my veins. I am proud of many of those who I share a common bond with, be it family, religion, or country. That includes several military or ex-military users who have posted today on this thread.

Making a sacrifice to improve the lives of some people on the other side of the world
Why should I have to give my goddam tax dollars to free some lazy Iraqi bums halfway 'round the world :D

Sorry, your remark sounded just like a typical leftist pro-welfare "compassion" appeal.

Just talking-never doing as they dont believe in anything.
So all critics of the Bush admin are people who don't believe in anything and do nothing? Like the Red Cross?

b)The media in America are generally anti-Bush and (hence) only want to show the bad parts in Iraq; world-wide media are generally anti-American. All news should be chewed before being swallowed. Needless to say, most media around the world are not reporting all the good will and things being done in Iraq.

c)There's about as much "torture" going on at Gitmo as there is snow in hell. If the yellow left want to call receiving four-star meals and medical care torture... then lmao... that's just baseless.
b) http://www.lp.org/article_144.shtml

c) I don't really care that Americans flush Korans down the toilet. That's not torture. I do care that Americans strip prisoners naked and attack them with bloodthirsty dogs. That's not acceptable prison conduct. I also have a problem with the fact that the US just hauls people into G'tmo Bay from anywhere in the world, without a trial, without even charging them and holds them for years. It's not right.

God Damn IT! Why does this myth of the liberal media persist? I don't understand it! The majority of Americans listen to right wing radio (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity), watch right wing television (Fox News, Bill O'Reilly), and then complain about the liberal media bias. It makes literally zero sense.
This is coming from someone who supported the Iraq war. It's not going well now. That's the the truth. We screwed up the occupation bad, and deserve to know that's what's going down. The massive amount of suicide bombings that occur every day aren't even on the front page of newspapers any more. They're consigned to the arcane portions that most people don't read. So don't complain about the liberal media bias. There's zero evidence to support that claim.


Have you been to Guantanamo? Have you witnessed interrogations? If so, are you bound to confidentiality? If the answers to the first to are no, or the answer to the third is yes, then you have no basis for your claims. In fact, most factual news reports (not editorials) claim that there's really bad shit going down at Guantanamo.

I am not going to argue whether or not the news has a liberal bias but I will argue viewership. The first link below refers to the networks vs. fox news progam. The headline below makes clear the results. The second link is a statisticians dream site. :). If you scroll down to the overall stats on the presidential debates and election you will see that Fox is in numerical oblivion. There are stats specific to Fox itself only. Ex: overwhelming it is watched by Republicans. Though this only accounts for fox viewers not overall viewership which is the more significant stat. Fox is growing but is still dwarfed by the big three. Those are just the facts. Thank you for your time. :)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3403149/

Tim Russert NBC program tops CBS by 56%, ABC by 73% and FOX by 199%

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_networktv_audience.asp?cat=3&media=4

ahh, but Jocabia, Amnesty International and other weak-stomached groups declare that all terrorists/insurgents should be handled with kid gloves, fed excellent cuisine three times a day, given fine wine and/or clean drinking water (hehe), etc.
Source please!

That's too bad, because the world and the events in it hold no special thrill for you if you can't find yourself at a time and place where you can be a part of history.
Why does one have to be a nationalist to take part in or care about world affairs?

I have to agree with you, SOC. I am anti-war, but I definitely appreciate the way you and your comrades have sacrificed to liberate the people of Iraq from somebody so oppressive. God bless you all! :)
Oh right, you're one of those "well it's good that there is no Saddam left but I wish he was still there" - which would be the case if there was no war.

Oh right, you're one of those "well it's good that there is no Saddam left but I wish he was still there" - which would be the case if there was no war.

Or maybe they are one of those, "I don't agree with war in almost any scenario, but since all the wishing in the universe won't change the fact the war occurred I might as well be happy for the good effects it has had." You appear to be one of those, "I'm going to try and warp what everyone says to make it sound like they said something else because it's easier for me to dispute their points that way even if they aren't really their points but more something I just made up"

I'm glad we've got everyone classified now.

Why does one have to be a nationalist to take part in or care about world affairs?

You don't have to be a nationalist - but you do need a cause. Even a revolutionary has a cause.

What's the deal with all the people on this thread making the fine distinction between absolutely despising the US government yet not hating Americans in general? It was Voltaire, I think, who said that people get the government they deserve. I hate to break it to y'all, but the US government is reflective of, and drawn from, the citizens of the United States. Myself, I have no problem with either one. How do you rationalize it?

Or maybe they are one of those, "I don't agree with war in almost any scenario, but since all the wishing in the universe won't change the fact the war occurred I might as well be happy for the good effects it has had." You appear to be one of those, "I'm going to try and warp what everyone says to make it sound like they said something else because it's easier for me to dispute their points that way even if they aren't really their points but more something I just made up"

I'm glad we've got everyone classified now.


Thank You! I was wondering when someone was going to put him in his place. Very well done. :D

For Irden: I feel very sorry for you since you can't seem to feel the emotion of pride for other people. Just because, as you say, someone isn't directly apart of something, is no justification for not feeling pride. I am proud of my grandfather who was a marine during WWII and an all-star athlete, did I help him? No. But I am proud to have his blood running through my veins. I am proud of many of those who I share a common bond with, be it family, religion, or country. That includes several military or ex-military users who have posted today on this thread.
You are aware that someone who isn't proud of being American feels sorry for you? Patriotism is like medicine, it can make you stronger and make you better. But if it's applied at the wrong time or dosage, it can be dangerous...

While I can really argue with that, you're probably correct. Unlike other countries we take action anyway where as they tend not to unless it's agreed upon. Also, I don't think any other country has used it's veto power as many times as the US has. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we hold the record there!

I haven't backtracked the source adequately but if the site information is valid this is how everyone stacks up. Note only five nations have true veto power. They comprise the security council.

In the United Nations Security Council, the five permanent members (the United States, Russia, People's Republic of China, France and the United Kingdom) have veto power. If any of these countries votes against a proposal it is rejected, even if all of the other member countries vote in favor.

Role of members and non-members

Decisions in the 15-member Security Council on all substantive matters—for example, a decision calling for direct measures related to the settlement of a dispute—require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote—a veto—by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes. Abstention is not regarded as a veto. Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used 5 vetoes; France, 18; Russia/USSR, 122; the United Kingdom, 32; and the United States, 79. The majority of the USSR vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence, and the numbers since 1984 have been: China, 2; France, 3; Russia, 4; the United Kingdom, 10; and the United States, 42.

A state that is a member of the UN, but not of the Security Council, may participate in Security Council discussions in which the Council agrees that the country's interests are particularly affected. In recent years, the Council has interpreted this loosely, enabling many countries to take part in its discussions. Non-members routinely are invited to take part when they are parties to disputes being considered by the Council.

http://www.arthistoryclub.com/art_history/UN_Security_Council

So eventhough the United States has in recent history had the most vetoes. Russia/USSR holds the total overall record.

Sorry - what's to be proud of again?
That the USA made torture and kidnapping legitimate tools of freedom and democracy.

On the rest: I agree, I hate the bosses not the troops. I try my best to avoid saying 'America is shit' and instead say 'The American leaders are shit, but they people, if slightly inwards looking are generally nice people.'

I try to put forward this view in the Uk. i get my head bitten off (well, of course not literally...)

Well Americans arent bad really (most of them) but i've never heard of an American president that I've respected besides good old Bill. While we heard of all the peace Bill makes, today we hear about how Bush is messing it all up again. If he starts the cold war.... :sniper:

Well Americans arent bad really (most of them) but i've never heard of an American president that I've respected besides good old Bill. While we heard of all the peace Bill makes, today we hear about how Bush is messing it all up again. If he starts the cold war.... :sniper:

Peace? I must have missed it. I thought he got us involved in Somalia and Kosovo, etc. I must have missed all that peace he brought. Maybe you could enlighten me.

Peace? I must have missed it. I thought he got us involved in Somalia and Kosovo, etc. I must have missed all that peace he brought. Maybe you could enlighten me.

That my friend was necessary, Iraq was not. Bush has been treading fine lines with Iraq, China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea....Bill may have gone to war but it was neither his fault nor unnecessary.

That my friend was necessary, Iraq was not. Bush has been treading fine lines with Iraq, China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea....Bill may have gone to war but it was neither his fault nor unnecessary.

Matter of opinion. My friends who have gone to Iraq both times, Kosovo and Somalia would disagree with you. I suspect there are military personnel that would agree with you. It's not black and white. That's for sure. For example, in the necessary Somalia conflict, what exactly did we accomplish? A better argument for the "peace" President would be the president who presided over the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war and was involved in only one conflict where he thrashed an agressor nation that had just invaded a neighbor at the behest of the UN and then when it was felt the agressor nation could no longer be aggressive, left. Personally, I don't think there has been a "Peace" president since Carter, but since you want to make these kinds of statement expect to be challenged on them.

Matter of opinion. My friends who have gone to Iraq both times, Kosovo and Somalia would disagree with you. I suspect there are military personnel that would agree with you. It's not black and white. That's for sure. For example, in the necessary Somalia conflict, what exactly did we accomplish? A better argument for the "peace" President would be the president who presided over the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war and was involved in only one conflict where he thrashed an agressor nation that had just invaded a neighbor at the behest of the UN and then when it was felt the agressor nation could no longer be aggressive, left. Personally, I don't think there has been a "Peace" president since Carter, but since you want to make these kinds of statement expect to be challenged on them.

I dont really know much about Carter but I think its fair to say it was Gorbachevs efforts that ended the cold war, hence the peace prize. Anyway I stand by it. I said Clintons the only one ive ever respected, not that he is infallible. Maybe Ill put some of my uni study time to Carter. Considering I'm taking the USSR 1917-1991 I might have to.

....snip*
I don't think some of
these folks would know integrity if it bit them in the posterior.

What do you think? God Bless America.
Charlie Daniels

P.S. send this to everyone you can...the truth needs to be told. THE
REASON A DOG HAS SO MANY FRIENDS IS THAT HE WAGS HIS TAIL - NOT HIS TONGUE


Peace and love for all (except for the bad guys)!LOL.. did he say "bad guys"?

What a moron thing to say !!!

rated 100% Moron !!!

SOC, thank you for serving. I too am proud to be an American and will be doing NROTC next year and hope to become a Naval officer.

LOL.. did he say "bad guys"?

What a moron thing to say !!!

rated 100% Moron !!!
Ocean Drive, STFU. If that is all you can say, then you are the true moron. I mean you actually believe the Iranian elections were legitimate. That tells me you are a very narrow minded sorry person.

Ocean Drive, STFU. If that is all you can say, then you are the true moron. I mean you actually believe the Iranian elections were legitimate. That tells me you are a very narrow minded sorry person.
Just because they elected someone else then the US wanted them to elect doesn't make them any less valid.

Just because they elected someone else then the US wanted them to elect doesn't make them any less valid.

Well, when you have a Shia hardliner from Tehran carrying rural Sunni provinces with 95% voter turnout that have very little knowledge of the candidate, it's hard to believe these electons were totally legitimate.

Just because they elected someone else then the US wanted them to elect doesn't make them any less valid.

True. What makes them less valid is that generally elections are supposed to be free. The mullahs must not have gotten the memo.

That my friend was necessary, Iraq was not. Bush has been treading fine lines with Iraq, China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea....Bill may have gone to war but it was neither his fault nor unnecessary.

*Cough* double standards! *Cough*

True. What makes them less valid is that generally elections are supposed to be free. The mullahs must not have gotten the memo.
Believe it or not. But not all countries believe in the whole seperation of church and state thing. *shock* Just in case you didn't know. Iran is not a state of the US. Therefor the elections are valid by Iranian standards.

Believe it or not. But not all countries believe in the whole seperation of church and state thing. *shock* Just in case you didn't know. Iran is not a state of the US. Therefor the elections are valid by Iranian standards.

Holy #@$%#$!!! Iran isn't a State? You don't say?

The elections were a sham, by anyone's standards. They were rigged, doctored and falsified ten times over.

LOL.. did he say "bad guys"?

What a moron thing to say !!!

rated 100% Moron !!!

this is flaming if i've ever seen it. i'd suggest you edit/delete this post.

Well, when you have a Shia hardliner from Tehran carrying rural Sunni provinces with 95% voter turnout that have very little knowledge of the candidate, it's hard to believe these electons were totally legitimate.
Since the Shia's make up roughly 90% of the population I think the number of 95% Sunni provinces is extremly limited.

Since the Shia's make up roughly 90% of the population I think the number of 95% Sunni provinces is extremly limited.

Does that make it better somehow that the elections were total bullshit?

Does that make it better somehow that the elections were total bullshit?
They were only bullshit and rigged, doctored etc... to those that are now pissed that they didn't elect the other more pro-American candidate.
Instead of a potential puppet they now have a hardliner that doesn't cater to Washingtons every whim.

*Cough* double standards! *Cough*
I think you are claiming Im giving standards different for one than the other, if so I'm too tired to argue about Bush, I do it too much. Hes a warmongerer and an idiot, Bill was neither. Thats all im awake enough to say on that issue

this is flaming if i've ever seen it. i'd suggest you edit/delete this post.its your opinion.

and if you read it properly im not really calling him Moron...even if he fully deserves it.

I think you are claiming Im giving standards different for one than the other, if so I'm too tired to argue about Bush, I do it too much. Hes a warmongerer and an idiot, Bill was neither. Thats all im awake enough to say on that issue

Ok then, go to sleep. I'm claiming precisely that. Bush is neither an idiot, nor a warmonger. Bill Clinton's little wars weren't forced upon him, they were by choice. Don't bless Kosovo and condemn Iraq merely because one was started by a liberal and the other by a conservative.

They were only bullshit and rigged, doctored etc... to those that are now pissed that they didn't elect the other more pro-American candidate.
Instead of a potential puppet they now have a hardliner that doesn't cater to Washingtons every whim.

Now that's a novel statement. Tell me, how many lackeys has America had in Iran before this election? If Iran was scarcely more than a puppet of the US, they sure fooled me.

And isn't it a good thing that they're rejecting all the potential reformers, and embracing those who want to continue the current regime, in all its fucked-up glory? I know I'm happy for them.

Now that's a novel statement. Tell me, how many lackeys has America had in Iran before this election? If Iran was scarcely more than a puppet of the US, they sure fooled me.
Where did I say they had one before? :rolleyes:

And isn't it a good thing that they're rejecting all the potential reformers, and embracing those who want to continue the current regime, in all its fucked-up glory? I know I'm happy for them.
It's better then to become another US vassal.

Ocean Drive, STFU. If that is all you can say, then you are the true moron. I mean you actually believe the Iranian elections were legitimate. That tells me you are a very narrow minded sorry person.So far I have no complains about the iranian elections.

Where did I say they had one before? :rolleyes:


It's better then to become another US vassal.

Have the Iranians given you any indication of being susceptible to US domination? No? Then they probably won't start now.

If it meant that their people would be free, have guaranteed rights and vote in fair elections, I say that becoming a US vassal would be well worth the price.

Have the Iranians given you any indication of being susceptible to US domination? No? Then they probably won't start now.
Because they didn't elect the more pro-American candidate.

If it meant that their people would be free, have guaranteed rights and vote in fair elections, I say that becoming a US vassal would be well worth the price.
Nothing is worth that price.

Because they didn't elect the more pro-American candidate.


Nothing is worth that price.

You know, "pro-American" by Iranian standards isn't all that great a thing. Heck, if you don't call them the Great Satan, that seems to be all you need to qualify.

Security, prosperity and democracy aren't worth that price? Then I can truly say you have no heart, and very little brain besides. I bid you farewell. May your destiny keep you warm.

its your opinion.

and if you read it properly im not really calling him Moron...even if he fully deserves it.

I would say you have quibbled.

If it meant that their people would be free, have guaranteed rights and vote in fair elections, I say that becoming a US vassal would be well worth the price.
a) The conservative candidate ran a better campaign, not about religion, but about the social misstandings and economic problems Iran is having right now. When he says "back to the ideals of the revolution", then that means the reasons people revolted in the first place: To get their country back from foreign puppets and to establish a nation based on the ideals of Islam, not Islam itself (although that kinda happened too). And those Ideals are just the same as the Christian ideals. One could say he is campaigning the same thing many US conservatives are.
b) The reformist candidate had been president before. People obviously didn't think he did good enough a job to warrant him being elected again. Nonetheless, he wasn't a US vassal and wasn't about to become one.
c) In the end, US comments that these elections are somehow rigged are not only false, but also destructive. Because the US continues to threaten Iran, Nationalism there continues to go strong. And that leads to people voting for hardliners, who they think less likely to compromise their interests.
But one thing is clear: They had a choice between one reformer and one hardliner. What happened in the lead-up to that second round isn't important. They had the choice, and they chose the conservatives.
It's what the people wanted.

You know, "pro-American" by Iranian standards isn't all that great a thing. Heck, if you don't call them the Great Satan, that seems to be all you need to qualify.


Security, prosperity and democracy aren't worth that price? Then I can truly say you have no heart, and very little brain besides.
Oh now security and prosperty are trades exclusivly found in American style democracy?
Your the one with the molecular sized brain. Since you obviously are under the illusion that the destruction of the indiginouse culture in favor of the US is a worthy cause. Americans apparently truly are the enemy of all people around the globe.

Because they didn't elect the more pro-American candidate.


[B]Nothing is worth that price.[/B}

And here we see the reason to dismiss your arguments on the face. Ending suffering is not worth the chance that a country might agree with the US. Good, we're clear as to how you feel. From my end, I certainly hope that if you're ever suffering people put your safety ahead of politics.

And here we see the reason to dismiss your arguments on the face. Ending suffering is not worth the chance that a country might agree with the US. Good, we're clear as to how you feel. From my end, I certainly hope that if you're ever suffering people put your safety ahead of politics.
I wasn't aware that the Iranians were suffering in any way. Other then not beeing flooded with pro-American propaganda.

So far I have no complains about the iranian elections.in fact ... every Iranian election since the revolution (they liberated from the bloody US puppet) have been called by the people of Iran...there was no voter fraud...no Florida Gate...

The iranian elections are cleaner than most in the World...only venezuela president has a clearer mandate.

we are far from Florida

Oh now security and prosperty are trades exclusivly found in American style democracy?
Your the one with the molecular sized brain. Since you obviously are under the illusion that the destruction of the indiginouse culture in favor of the US is a worthy cause. Americans apparently truly are the enemy of all people around the globe.

He didn't say that an American style democracy was the only way to acheive this. He said they don't have security or prosperity now. You said that those things are not worth the price. You would rather they suffer. They current regime is not indiginous. It is the result of a revolution that occurred a few decades ago that the majority of Persians I've met don't support (yes, they go by Persians because they don't want to associated with the current Iranian regime).

The bolded statement is a reasoned and well-thought out analysis of the facts with no bias whatsoever. You are a gentleman and a scholar. I certainly hope you contribute more reasoned arguements to the thread about the size of people's brains and the evil Americans.

I wasn't aware that the Iranians were suffering in any way. Other then not beeing flooded with pro-American propaganda.

Funny how Iranians don't seem to agree with you. Perhaps you should ask some.

in fact there every election since the revolution (they liberated from the bloody US puppet) have been called by the people of Iran...there was no voter fraud...no Florida Gate...

The iranian election are cleaner than most in the World...only venezuela president has a clearer mandate.

we are far from Florida

Again, perhaps you might find a different side to this if you spoke to the Persian refugees. I think they might disagree that these are free elections or that there is no suffering in Iran.

Funny how Iranians don't seem to agree with you. Perhaps you should ask some.
It's funny how they don't seem to agree with then and still vote for a patriot.

He didn't say that an American style democracy was the only way to acheive this.
Not in so many words. But it's pretty clear he was thinking it.
He said they don't have security or prosperity now.
Because according to him those things cannot exist outside of an American style government.
They current regime is not indiginous.
It's more indigeniouse then the fast food culture with which the US would flood them if they ever would fall under their jack boot.

The bolded statement is a reasoned and well-thought out analysis of the facts with no bias whatsoever. You are a gentleman and a scholar. I certainly hope you contribute more reasoned arguements to the thread about the size of people's brains and the evil Americans.
Don't worry. I will.

...(yes, they go by Persians because they don't want to associated with the current Iranian regime)...
Actually, according to my sources their going by Persians is a nationalistic thing, to link them directly with the mighty empires of the past. As you see right now in the country, they don't seem to mind conservative rulers that much.
You might have to ask people who are not exiles for political reasons. Those always have an agenda, as we have seen in Iraq.

I'm not proud to be american, and its not because I think America sucks, or is worse than other countries or because I'm communist, or islamic, or a democrat, or any of the reasons people normally hate America. I hate America because it no longer lives up to its promise, America was once a land where people could do anything they wanted, as long as nobody got hurt then what ever you wanted was fine, Gays, Islamics, Communists, Flag Burners, anything you wanted to believe in you could. And I don't blame the failure of that promise on Bush, He's not doing as good a job as he could be but he inherited a broken country. Muck racking Press, the Mcarthy trials and countless other incidents and movements have bbroken the dream that began this country and I'm sick of it.


I also Hate America Because I hate everbody.

I'm not proud to be american, and its not because I think America sucks, or is worse than other countries or because I'm communist, or islamic, or a democrat, or any of the reasons people normally hate America. I hate America because it no longer lives up to its promise, America was once a land where people could do anything they wanted, as long as nobody got hurt then what ever you wanted was fine, Gays, Islamics, Communists, Flag Burners, anything you wanted to believe in you could. And I don't blame the failure of that promise on Bush, He's not doing as good a job as he could be but he inherited a broken country. Muck racking Press, the Mcarthy trials and countless other incidents and movements have bbroken the dream that began this country and I'm sick of it.

You know, I reckon Whispering Legs would tell you to stop whining and start making a difference to get America onto the track you believe it should be on. Reckon I'd have to agree with him wholeheartedly if he did, too.

For my part, may I say that the servicepeople in Iraq - and all the servicepeople of the West who have helped foreign nations despite the risk and difficulty, and despite the insults and hatred they get even in their own homes - have my utmost respect and gratitude. I can only hope that if I am ever in a situation where I am in danger, that people such as you are the ones who are trying to help me out of it. Thank you.

-snip-
Aha, finally someone sane enough to look at the facts.
The America all these people are defending doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for a long time. Freedom has become less and less (for reasons of morals), and nobody can actually become rich with hard work (although I'm tempted to think they never could).
Just ignore that "I hate everybody" bit, and we have a very good point on our hands.

can you blame latin america for being shitty when its run by US-backed dictators who supress the proletariat by slaughtering entire villages?

It's funny how they don't seem to agree with then and still vote for a patriot.

They believe the elections are not free. Much like I don't. I don't know for sure, but I think that since most that I know left Iran in the last ten years I would assume they have more information on the topic than I.

Not in so many words. But it's pretty clear he was thinking it.

Because according to him those things cannot exist outside of an American style government.

It's more indigeniouse then the fast food culture with which the US would flood them if they ever would fall under their jack boot.


Don't worry. I will.

This is so sad, I'm not going to bother with a full reply. He said no such thing. You have changed his argument in an effort to make it easier to argue against. And you still can pull together an argument other than I hate the USA.

Actually, according to my sources their going by Persians is a nationalistic thing, to link them directly with the mighty empires of the past. As you see right now in the country, they don't seem to mind conservative rulers that much.
You might have to ask people who are not exiles for political reasons. Those always have an agenda, as we have seen in Iraq.

I don't know any political exiles. Every Iranian I know goes by Persian and I have often asked why. They seem to disagree with you about the reasons. Forgive me, if I believe them. As I can see right now, they have a conservative ruler. This tells me nothing about what the people want.

They believe the elections are not free. Much like I don't..
Why don't you check out the Iran threads if you wanna talk about Iran. (eg http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428176) This was about the US, and there has been a very valid point posted just then - that America is not what it was a long time ago, and that maybe the reasons many people are proud of the US are no longer valid (I'm not saying you can't be proud of your country).
So, could you post a list of reasons why you are proud of the USA, and then we can go through the points together, and see whether we can find common ground on what is good and what is bad about it.

Aha, finally someone sane enough to look at the facts.
The America all these people are defending doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for a long time. Freedom has become less and less (for reasons of morals), and nobody can actually become rich with hard work (although I'm tempted to think they never could).
Just ignore that "I hate everybody" bit, and we have a very good point on our hands.

I think there are many, many people who would disagree with you. I came from poverty and my salary is in six figures. My sister's boyfriend who is black, had a single mother who has never made over 25,000/year and only has a high-school education made 70,000 last year. Now, not everyone manages this, but many do. Somehow your nobody can actually become rich from hard work statement doesn't seem to hold water.

I'm not proud to be american, and its not because I think America sucks, or is worse than other countries or because I'm communist, or islamic, or a democrat, or any of the reasons people normally hate America. I hate America because it no longer lives up to its promise, America was once a land where people could do anything they wanted, as long as nobody got hurt then what ever you wanted was fine, Gays, Islamics, Communists, Flag Burners, anything you wanted to believe in you could. And I don't blame the failure of that promise on Bush, He's not doing as good a job as he could be but he inherited a broken country. Muck racking Press, the Mcarthy trials and countless other incidents and movements have bbroken the dream that began this country and I'm sick of it.


I also Hate America Because I hate everbody.

Somehow I think Native Americans, women and black people might disagree that we are less free now than upon the founding of the country. Gays, Islamics and communists generally are more protected now than upon the founding of the country (hint: read the amendments).

... Somehow your nobody can actually become rich from hard work statement doesn't seem to hold water.
Well, one would have to know what the exact conditions were in which you became "rich". Poverty doesn't mean that your parents didn't give you a trust fund, it means that you are like Oliver Twist - actually poor.
And "nobody" is of course a hyperbole, but I hope you get it. The "American Dream" is just that: a dream. Especially these days, when poor immigrants are simply turned away because they might "steal" good American jobs.

Why don't you check out the Iran threads if you wanna talk about Iran. (eg http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428176) This was about the US, and there has been a very valid point posted just then - that America is not what it was a long time ago, and that maybe the reasons many people are proud of the US are no longer valid (I'm not saying you can't be proud of your country).
So, could you post a list of reasons why you are proud of the USA, and then we can go through the points together, and see whether we can find common ground on what is good and what is bad about it.

I don't remember bringing up Iran to you. It seems you brought it up to me. You're welcome to not reply.

I don't remember bringing up Iran to you. It seems you brought it up to me. You're welcome to not reply.
You didn't. What I mean is this: We have Iran threads. The reason you are proud of the US cannot possibly be that they might have it bad in Iran.
I don't know who brought Iran up, but it distracts from the actual topic.

Well, one would have to know what the exact conditions were in which you became "rich". Poverty doesn't mean that your parents didn't give you a trust fund, it means that you are like Oliver Twist - actually poor.
And "nobody" is of course a hyperbole, but I hope you get it. The "American Dream" is just that: a dream. Especially these days, when poor immigrants are simply turned away because they might "steal" good American jobs.

No, I think poverty is when I avoid being home during a meal so my sisters will get enough to eat. Poverty is living in Chicago in the winter with no jacket and holes in your shoes. I'm not talking about 'not having a tv in every room and a car for every driver' poor. My sister became ill (actually she technically died several times) when I was ten and the insurance company refused to cover any of the expenses. The hospital continued to give her care, but by the time the cause was discovered after eight months of nearly constant hospitalization, my parents were hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. I got my first job when I was thirteen and all my earnings were turned over to my parents. You shouldn't make assumptions. We weren't homeless and I wasn't an orphan if that's what you're looking for, but certainly, I qualified as living in poverty. I came out of it by getting a scholarship to college and working hard.

-snip-
Fair enough then, if you say you lived in poverty, I will assume you did.
But: Does that mean the "American Dream" still exists? That one can realistically expect to make it big, only with hard work? Even an immigrant from Mexico?

Fair enough then, if you say you lived in poverty, I will assume you did.
But: Does that mean the "American Dream" still exists? That one can realistically expect to make it big, only with hard work? Even an immigrant from Mexico?

I was working as a cook in a kitchen at a TGI Friday's and I met a guy who came from Mexico about six years ago. He has never worked as anything other than a cook, but he moved into an apartment with five other guys (three bedrooms) and lived as sparsely as possible for the first four years. Since then he has purchased four rental properties. Does that work for you? The American dream isn't about everyone always getting rich, but certainly the economy and politics of America make the possibility of hard work resulting in relative financial security very good.

Even in the case of my parents, if not for an unusual illness that presented as a mental problem, we would have been relatively comfortable though my father has only a high school education and I have four siblings. My father started with nothing as well. He was homeless at the age of thirteen. My parents started with nothing. We live the absolute definition of the American Dream so fogive me if I can't get behind the idea that American Dream has died.

First of all, let me start off by mentioning that I am a SSG (Staff Seargant) in the US Army stationed over in Baghdad, Iraq. I have been here for 11 months and I am returning home next home.

<snip>

Peace and love for all (except for the bad guys)!
You rock, dude.

SOC Intelligence: You are a American, and you would be welcome in my home anyday.

From my chair in my room, I salute you. May you return home safely.

Ben La Belle

SOC Intelligence: You are a American, and you would be welcome in my home anyday.

From my chair in my room, I salute you. May you return home safely.

Ben La Belle
I a American too. I welcome in home anyday too. Seriously though, I don't feel like reading that entire rant at the beginning but I guess I get the gist of it. (Maybe). I support the men and women fighting in the war that was thrust upon them wholeheartedly, but what is truly disturbing is the claim that fox news delivers the truth better than other networks. ALL networks are biased. I'm not going to get into my FOX News is an anti-liberal propaganda channel because that's not the point. I do agree with at least one thing though, the truth does indeed need to be told. They sent you (SOC Intelligence and your friends) into harms way for at the very least, ambiguous reasons. The truth must be told. If you support the political motive to invade the soverign country of Iraq in the means that the U.S. military did, I am sorry.

Most of the rant dealt with the bias of the media, so I'll try to stay on that. You simple can't get all your information from one single source and think it's all true or not distorted. That is the problem with FOX News. It's become a petri dish cultivating hatred of the left and terrorists, and blurring the line between news and opinion on nearly every occasion. We hear all this rhetoric about Bush supporting the troops. Bull Shit. If he really did support them, he'd tell them the truth. Don't you what the full truth? So far we've been given fake reasons, excuses. I won't accept that. If there really was a "liberal media" it would be chewing up Bush more than it chewed up Clinton over a fucking blow job not handling him with kid gloves.

Today there seems to be an uncertainty to words and concepts. I guess we're just throwing out Oldspeak and adapting to Newspeak. Patriotism now means you follow your country through good or bad, never question authority and denounce pacifists. Dissent is treason. Being called "liberal" is now an insult. Alright, I guess that's the end of my rant now.

Nevermind, I read more of that fucking retard "article" and I know I'm late but I must point out the fallacies: The bastard presents fact as his opinion ("The truth of the matter is that this operation is under a microscope") Very common on FOX News. He rolls himself up in the flag so much you are almost forced to accept his views for fear of being exiled from the country on account of being a traitor. This guy has obviously seen too many gruesome insurgent videos pwning Americans and has gotten pissed off and now he is supporting a blind attack on everything, the "obliteration technique." I'm familiar with it. I watched that Frontline that showed clips of insurgent attacks, I've gotten pissed off at those assholes, but war is not the answer. You must look at their strategy and use it against them. They drag three burned carcasses of Americans through the streets, we drag six burned carcasses of insurgents through the streets. Wow, what the fuck? Alright, we are seriously screwed in Iraq and it's the belief that patriotism = blind following of country when really it's just the opposite. That issue was brought up earlier in the thread, that American ideals have gotten so twisted it's the very thing it was not supposed to become.

The thing that makes American propaganda so amazing is that the people don't know that what they are being told is propaganda, they think it's truth.

Wikipedia: Though Charlie Daniels promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq, he has never served in the military, causing some to label him a "chickenhawk".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_%28politics%29

ook, I'm proud to be an american. I try not to compare it to other countries How can I? There are so many things that goes into what makes a country, even comparing Canada and the U.S. is still like comparing apples and oranges. Every country is different and each one has different circumstances.
I'm proud to be part of my country because its part of who I am. It is my home. People may try to slander it, and some of the things they say about it is true. However, there are still so many great things about my home.

For Irden: I feel very sorry for you since you can't seem to feel the emotion of pride for other people. Just because, as you say, someone isn't directly apart of something, is no justification for not feeling pride.
Actually it is. You can and should only be proud of things you achieve yourself. To be proud by proxy is really silly. Because after all, you didn't decide to be born in a particular country to your parents, so why be proud of that. On the other hand you decided to become the person you are and I'm sure you can find lots of reasons to be proud of that.

I am proud of my grandfather who was a marine during WWII and an all-star athlete, did I help him? No. But I am proud to have his blood running through my veins.
As I wrote above that really is no reason to be proud. You might feel lucky to be born into such a distinguished family by accident, but to be proud?

This kind of proudness turns into national pride, which, if unchecked, turns into jingoism and that can lead to all kinds of trouble.

I am glad that I am a member of my family, some of my ancestors have been absolutely remarkable personalities. I admire them and hope to learn and follow from their example. But that they are my ancestors is coincidence and therefore nothing to be proud of.

Holy shit! Somebody NOT bashing America on these boards! Bravo!

For the record, My Grandfather has traced our roots back to a sergent in the 22nd Ohio Regiment during the Civil War. Another interesting tidbit is that I had a Great Great Grandfather fight for Austria-Hungary during WW1.

I have been all over Europe. It is beautiful. I love Germany but they have issues that you never hear about. France is gorgeous, but will never be a team player with anyone. England has wonderful people, but once again they have their own termoil with the government.
As you correctly found out - these are OUR problems. We deal with them on OUR turf. We don't bomb OTHER nations and we don't impose our worldview on them (at least not anymore ;)) If the U.S. would deal with its own problems on its own soil, nobody would cry foul. But since the U.S. rampages throughout the world with bombs and propaganda, we have a problem. Your letter is good for those here on the forum who think the U.S. are perfect and always doing everything right, which is entirely untrue! Deal with your own problems and leave the rest of the world alone. Help if asked to help in international missions and stop this unilateral crap. That's all.

Ok then, go to sleep. I'm claiming precisely that. Bush is neither an idiot, nor a warmonger. Bill Clinton's little wars weren't forced upon him, they were by choice. Don't bless Kosovo and condemn Iraq merely because one was started by a liberal and the other by a conservative.

As it happens I didnt know Clinton was a liberal, it has nothing to do with that. Now I think about it it makes sense but I didnt know, I was only about 13/14 at the time. And yes Bush is an idiot, he is officially the stupidest president ever in terms of IQ and he is a warmongerer, he has wanted a war ever since he came to power, started one and will inevitably start another.

<snip>And yes Bush is an idiot, he is officially the stupidest president ever in terms of IQ...

Really? Pray tell, where did you get this "official" data from?

Ein Deutscher']As you correctly found out - these are OUR problems. We deal with them on OUR turf. We don't bomb OTHER nations and we don't impose our worldview on them (at least not anymore ;)) If the U.S. would deal with its own problems on its own soil, nobody would cry foul. But since the U.S. rampages throughout the world with bombs and propaganda, we have a problem. Your letter is good for those here on the forum who think the U.S. are perfect and always doing everything right, which is entirely untrue! Deal with your own problems and leave the rest of the world alone. Help if asked to help in international missions and stop this unilateral crap. That's all.

Is there anyone out there who actually thinks the US is perfect? If there is such a person, he or she is probably currently residing in a mental ward. Why is it that people condemn the United States acting (unilaterally or not) on the world stage, but as soon as something bad happens, everyone automatically turns to none other than good old Uncle Sam to sort out the problem. As Exhibits A and B, I give you the Palestinian issue and the recent tsunami.

You know, lynchings were multilateral too ... just because it's got many people's (or nations) fingerprints all over it doesn't mean that "it," whatever that may be, is necessarily a good thing.

Really? Pray tell, where did you get this "official" data from?

I dont know, I've known it for years. However on looking through the internet I have found some stats.

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)

Second from bottom being his father as I remember

And while I'm on the topic, what's so great about multilateralism? If all Europe had agreed that Iraq was the right war in the right place, would that have made it any more legal? It certainly wouldn't have had any practical ramifications, since you couldn't have offered us any meaningful help anyway.

I dont know, I've known it for years. However on looking through the internet I have found some stats.

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)

Second from bottom being his father as I remember

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You've "known it for years," and then you compounded that by just going and looking up that old joke on the net. Wow. I haven't even needed to sell you the rope; you've gone and hanged yourself without any help from me.

In all seriousness, you need to think much more critically about all the crap that floats around on the internet.

And while I'm on the topic, what's so great about multilateralism? If all Europe had agreed that Iraq was the right war in the right place, would that have made it any more legal? It certainly wouldn't have had any practical ramifications, since you couldn't have offered us any meaningful help anyway.

Haha, you honestly think your troops are that good? An operation taken over by 12 SAS soldiers was failed by 100 american troops. Britain saved lives, America took them from us. Friendly Fire? Education deficit more like. Anyway the point was it was common opinion in Europe and the UN that the war was wrong. If i remember rightly didnt the president of the UN condemn it as criminal? Not that America has ever paid attention to war laws, for example while dropping Agent Orange on Vietnam. And Bush criticises Hussein for having chemical weapons???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You've "known it for years," and then you compounded that by just going and looking up that old joke on the net. Wow. I haven't even needed to sell you the rope; you've gone and hanged yourself without any help from me.

Damn indoctrinated fool. Has American government really got your head so far up its arse as Im gathering it has.

Haha, you honestly think your troops are that good? An operation taken over by 12 SAS soldiers was failed by 100 american troops. Britain saved lives, America took them from us. Friendly Fire? Education deficit more like. Anyway the point was it was common opinion in Europe and the UN that the war was wrong. If i remember rightly didnt the president of the UN condemn it as criminal? Not that America has ever paid attention to war laws, for example while dropping Agent Orange on Vietnam. And Bush criticises Hussein for having chemical weapons???

Umm, right. Why's friendly fire always such a big topic with you Brits?

Europe said the war was wrong. So what?
Kofi Annan said the war was wrong. What does he know?
Why should Americans credit these two with any kind of moral authority?

Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon, it was a defoliant. It took the leaves off of trees and bushes. Years later, they found out that it caused cancer. That's all.

Making a sacrifice to improve the lives of some people on the other side of the world - regardless of the crap that gets put in the papers, and regardless of the smartass remarks by some people who have never sacrificed a moment in their own lives.
hahahahhahahaha

Damn indoctrinated fool. Has American government really got your head so far up its arse as Im gathering it has.

Ah, the sound of the pot calling the kettle black.

Is there anyone out there who actually thinks the US is perfect? If there is such a person, he or she is probably currently residing in a mental ward. Why is it that people condemn the United States acting (unilaterally or not) on the world stage, but as soon as something bad happens, everyone automatically turns to none other than good old Uncle Sam to sort out the problem. As Exhibits A and B, I give you the Palestinian issue and the recent tsunami.

You know, lynchings were multilateral too ... just because it's got many people's (or nations) fingerprints all over it doesn't mean that "it," whatever that may be, is necessarily a good thing.
Actually, on the palestinian issue, the US plays a large role due to its support of Israel, primarily in the UN. I'm sure, if the US stopped the support for Israel, they would sort out this problem real quickly. And the tsunami was an international catastrophe. The US didn't shine partcularely in that time. Most money was donated from other nations (Australia, Japan, Germany), whereas the US helped a little by sending military - which is the least they could do. Overall, once again, nothing special and not at all proof of the world-police image the US gives itself to justify what it does. Nobody asks you to do the shit you do, so stop claiming it.

Europe said the war was wrong. So what?

Kofi Annan said the war was wrong. What does he know?


by the looks of it.... alot more then you...

by the looks of it.... alot more then you...

Oooooh, the fearsome personal attack. I'll let you in on a little secret. My ego is proof against your puny weapons. Don't even waste your breath trying to insult me.

Umm, right. Why's friendly fire always such a big topic with you Brits?

Because your troops killed more of ours than the bloody Iraqis did!!!! In the war, we lost 21 troops. Iraq killed 2. Thats why its such a big topic.

Europe said the war was wrong. So what?

We have a huge amount of democracies that argued with the crap America can do just because it knows no one will do anything about it. If we all say you are wrong, who is America to say otherwise?

Kofi Annan said the war was wrong. What does he know?

Oh I dont know, hes probably an idiot. He got to the position in the UN because of his looks...

Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon, it was a defoliant. It took the leaves off of trees and bushes. Years later, they found out that it caused cancer. That's all.
It didnt just cause cancer, if that agent landed on any person it burnt them to death, their flesh was burnt to the bone and they could not get rid of it. If they went in water to get it off, it got worse. Thats why its a chemical weapon. In fact it was challenged as such and America did not claim it not to be. They claimed they never signed the Geneva Convention. Damn stupid hypocrites.

wait wait wait wait wait wait.... before anyone says anything more.... just watch Team America World Police... hahahah best movie ever .... if u don't see the fun of it, i feel sorry for you.. :D

wait wait wait wait wait wait.... before anyone says anything more.... just watch Team America World Police... hahahah best movie ever .... if u don't see the fun of it, i feel sorry for you.. :D

A fantastic film, not very useful in political debate though :D

Because your troops killed more of ours than the bloody Iraqis did!!!! In the war, we lost 21 troops. Iraq killed 2. Thats why its such a big topic.

We have a huge amount of democracies that argued with the crap America can do just because it knows no one will do anything about it. If we all say you are wrong, who is America to say otherwise?

Oh I dont know, hes probably an idiot. He got to the position in the UN because of his looks...

It didnt just cause cancer, if that agent landed on any person it burnt them to death, their flesh was burnt to the bone and they could not get rid of it. If they went in water to get it off, it got worse. Thats why its a chemical weapon. In fact it was challenged as such and America did not claim it not to be. They claimed they never signed the Geneva Convention. Damn stupid hypocrites. couldn't have said it better... *applause*

I see we are busy building understanding between peoples again... Keep up the good work guys.

Ein Deutscher']Actually, on the palestinian issue, the US plays a large role due to its support of Israel, primarily in the UN. I'm sure, if the US stopped the support for Israel, they would sort out this problem real quickly. And the tsunami was an international catastrophe. The US didn't shine partcularely in that time. Most money was donated from other nations (Australia, Japan, Germany), whereas the US helped a little by sending military - which is the least they could do. Overall, once again, nothing special and not at all proof of the world-police image the US gives itself to justify what it does. Nobody asks you to do the shit you do, so stop claiming it.

You know, there was a period about two years back when Bush stopped commenting on the Israel-Palestine struggle altogether. Just let the two sides bloody each other without intervening. I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn that, within months, the Palestinians were screaming for America to come back and act as broker.

Sending military was "the least we could do"? I'll tell you the least we could have done: dick all. Zero. Nada. The amount of money contributed by the American government and the American people, not to mention the military aid, is far from chump change. Hundreds of millions of dollars, given out of pure philanthropy and concern for our fellow man. What did we get for our charity? Whining about how we weren't doing enough. It's okay for the US to spend its hard-earned cash on something that doesn't concern us, but the minute we decide to actually do something for our own sake, we're the epitome of evil.

I see we are busy building understanding between peoples again... Keep up the good work guys.

I think if I understood this guy my head would explode. He honestly thinks Americas actions are right...

I think if I understood this guy my head would explode. He honestly thinks Americas actions are right...
dont you seeee hes a patriot .... :P

I think if I understood this guy my head would explode. He honestly thinks Americas actions are right...

If I understood this guy, my head would explode. He honestly thinks America is in the wrong...

dont you seeee hes a patriot .... :P

Hahaha, yeah I love how patriotism blinds people. Its common in Americans, must be the environment

I think if I understood this guy my head would explode. He honestly thinks Americas actions are right...
Well, we all have our peculiar thoughts. Allow him his. Like I'm sure he will allow you to think Agent Orange was somekind of napalm/phosphorous weapon

If I understood this guy, my head would explode. He honestly thinks America is in the wrong...

Start understanding me and the rest of Britain fast then, do us a favour

Well, we all have our peculiar thoughts. Allow him his. Like I'm sure he will allow you to think Agent Orange was somekind of napalm/phosphorous weapon

It wasnt meant to be one but it sure as hell worked as one and that didnt stop them using it.

Well, we all have our peculiar thoughts. Allow him his. Like I'm sure he will allow you to think Agent Orange was somekind of napalm/phosphorous weapon
so you say it wasn't?

Because your troops killed more of ours than the bloody Iraqis did!!!! In the war, we lost 21 troops. Iraq killed 2. Thats why its such a big topic.

We have a huge amount of democracies that argued with the crap America can do just because it knows no one will do anything about it. If we all say you are wrong, who is America to say otherwise?

Oh I dont know, hes probably an idiot. He got to the position in the UN because of his looks...

It didnt just cause cancer, if that agent landed on any person it burnt them to death, their flesh was burnt to the bone and they could not get rid of it. If they went in water to get it off, it got worse. Thats why its a chemical weapon. In fact it was challenged as such and America did not claim it not to be. They claimed they never signed the Geneva Convention. Damn stupid hypocrites.

Of course Americans killed more of your troops than the Iraqis. We use better weaponry. You know what? Friendly fire incidents happen all the time. War is hell, get used to it.

If you all say America's wrong, who are we to say otherwise. Hmm. Just who the hell do you think you are? International relations aren't run like a reality show. The side with the most votes doesn't necessarily win, and isn't necessarily right.

Kofi didn't get to the UN because he's a sexy bitch. Nor is he Secretary-General (not president, the UN doesn't have one) because he is the smartest man on the planet. He was elected by the UN's members.

I've never heard of Agent Orange causing such effects, which sound more like napalm. Could you provide a link?

You know, there was a period about two years back when Bush stopped commenting on the Israel-Palestine struggle altogether. Just let the two sides bloody each other without intervening. I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn that, within months, the Palestinians were screaming for America to come back and act as broker.

Sending military was "the least we could do"? I'll tell you the least we could have done: dick all. Zero. Nada. The amount of money contributed by the American government and the American people, not to mention the military aid, is far from chump change. Hundreds of millions of dollars, given out of pure philanthropy and concern for our fellow man. What did we get for our charity? Whining about how we weren't doing enough. It's okay for the US to spend its hard-earned cash on something that doesn't concern us, but the minute we decide to actually do something for our own sake, we're the epitome of evil.
Rofl.. the world "whined" about the initial 35 million or so that Bush wanted to donate. Still the US - even as most powerful economy in the world - paled in comparison to what Japan, Australia and Germany donated out of pure philantrophy. Your claims for world-police are propaganda, nothing else. The issue with the US is that it ignores sovereignty of other countries and unilaterally does whatever it wants, even if that means war with the result that tens of thousands of innocents die an unnecessary death thanks to your bombs and GIs! "Liberating" Iraq was not entirely in the interest of the people and spreading the American model of corrupt democracy is a big mistake. There are a lot of other dictatorships in the world which pose a bigger thread to the US than Iraq ever did, yet nothing happens against those or they're even allies of the US in this "war on terror". Hypocrisy exponentiated by 10, that is what this is. But it's nothing new. The Americans have always acted like this, claiming to own freedom and democracy while ignoring the very pillars of these ideals at home and in the world. Just look at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and US interventionism in South America.

Start understanding me and the rest of Britain fast then, do us a favour

But then my head would explode, and I happen to like it all in one piece :p

What's wrong with patriotism? You use it like it's a dirty word.

Ladies, please.
Put the handbags away.

this message is just to check a thing... well just to be obcene: BUNNYRABBIT

so you say it wasn't?
Yes I am. It was a herbicide. The purpose was to deny an enemy cover and concealment in dense terrain by defoliating trees. I just found this a bit too much: It didnt just cause cancer, if that agent landed on any person it burnt them to death, their flesh was burnt to the bone and they could not get rid of it. If they went in water to get it off, it got worse.[/b]
Patently false.

Caused cancer, yes, but British Socialism's description fits phosphorous grenades/weapons, not Agent Orange. AO did cause cancer and abnormalities of all kinds, but it wasn't known at the time it was used in Vietnam.

Just wanted to set that straight, anal as I am.

Well, we all have our peculiar thoughts. Allow him his. Like I'm sure he will allow you to think Agent Orange was somekind of napalm/phosphorous weapon

Oopsies. Sorry, but I just questioned his beliefs on Agent Orange. My bad! ;)

But then my head would explode, and I happen to like it all in one piece :p

What's wrong with patriotism? You use it like it's a dirty word.

it is a dirty dirty dirty world... it gives stupid people somthing to kill and die for just like that song... and much much more ... i think it makes patriots to.. and in sweden thats the same thing as rasist.. wich suck... and i think patriots have a harder time looking from other perspectives then there own... and there own countries..

anal as I am. just to be an ass(hahah) anal u are young jedi ... :)

this message is just to check a thing... well just to be obcene: BUNNYRABBIT No. A BUNNYDUCK. As seen in my nation's proud flag.

But then my head would explode, and I happen to like it all in one piece :p

What's wrong with patriotism? You use it like it's a dirty word.

Its bad when it convinces people that their country is right. I seem to have got mixed up with the Agent Orange thing, must have come up in the same debate. It was things like napalm that were chemical weapons, I think Agent Orange just came up due to its effect. Still, doesnt change the fact they used chemical weapons without war crimes brought against them

No. A BUNNYDUCK. As seen in my nation's proud flag.
ok ok ok, dont shoot..

Ein Deutscher']Rofl.. the world "whined" about the initial 35 million or so that Bush wanted to donate. Still the US - even as most powerful economy in the world - paled in comparison to what Japan, Australia and Germany donated out of pure philantrophy. Your claims for world-police are propaganda, nothing else. The issue with the US is that it ignores sovereignty of other countries and unilaterally does whatever it wants, even if that means war with the result that tens of thousands of innocents die an unnecessary death thanks to your bombs and GIs! "Liberating" Iraq was not entirely in the interest of the people and spreading the American model of corrupt democracy is a big mistake. There are a lot of other dictatorships in the world which pose a bigger thread to the US than Iraq ever did, yet nothing happens against those or they're even allies of the US in this "war on terror". Hypocrisy exponentiated by 10, that is what this is. But it's nothing new. The Americans have always acted like this, claiming to own freedom and democracy while ignoring the very pillars of these ideals at home and in the world. Just look at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and US interventionism in South America.

So there may have been several motivations among the US leadership for invading Iraq. Do you deny that it has been good overall for the people of Iraq? I hope you're not one of those people who believes that Iraqis were better off under Saddam.

Yes, there are several other dictatorships which deserve regime change. Rome wasn't built in a day you know ... we'll deal with those other bastards in good time.

Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are proof of high-level government policy to mistreat detainees. Whoops, no that's not true. Citing those two places is something that I should be doing. The abuses in both prisons are isolated incidents, and the American authorities are vigorously investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators. Sounds like evidence of beneficence more than anything else.

i must reply to update the page ... the update button doesent cooperate.. so another message

It really does pain me to see that you all are generalising Americans by the actions of our Goverment. "The Americans have always..." "It seems common among Americans" I don't really like being treated as some exotic species.

"Lookie here, it's an American, I know them very well, they're all extremely right wing, and think it's their duty to interv...Holy Shit! He actually isn't acting like our Tabloid Websites say they do!"

I hate it.

As to your arguments about how we're always "Intervening in everything" Let's take a look back, shall we?

British Intervention in the Omani Civil War.

British Action in Sri Lanka.

British Action is Malaya.

British Action in Indonesia.

And there are probably many more covert operations. As you see, America isn't the only interventionalist nation out there.

-updater-

Having read this thread i noticed you guys hav quickly changed from the suffering of iraqi ppl to your own ideological squabbles. I am fericly anti-war, and am getting increasing anti-america(just the government, i love the ppl) and i really dont want to. I think america has done a lot of great things, mainly the fact that if it was not for the yanks and the russians together id be speakin in german. Also remeber korea? And sending a man into space? Im not denying they hav done some horrible deeds but so hav Britain and France and German and Holland etc. This argument seems to really hav gone now where, like the rest of the world in general everyone seems to be so concentrate on there differences rather than there similaritys. We all want a free iraq, a free zimbabwae, Burma, China etc. But heres the problem.
The USA is the only nation powerful enough to be a world policeman, which it should be, it has, like the nations of europe a moral responiblity, after we installed half of these ragimes and made these countrys poor. But who polices the policemen? The UN, not a hope. A Larger EU, dont think thats gonna happen. China!? got forbid. Now heres my new question, why arent we at war with israle, zimbabwae or china, they all hav appaling human rights abuses, they move ppl of land which is theres, they kill the very people they should be caring for. Do you want to be part of a generation that forced the prices of oil up to 50 dollars a barrel or do you want to bring democracy(not nesecarly thro war) to people who many hav the rite to live stripped from them anytime there leader is on a bad mood? I think we can all agree on that one. Of course, how to get there is a harder question, but remember world war two and a thing called the UN, it was designed to stop wars and bring peace to the world, infact since 1945 there hav been 250 wars. Now that is not what my granddad risked his life for and not what 50million ppl died for. So maybe instead of bitching about the media you like to stop watching it! And instead of pissing about the iraq war you could accept it has happend, we made a mess but now were are gonna make it better. Are you goning to be part of a people how were so generous as to move the cotton tariff to 21.3% or wotever. My lord children are dying, yes thats rite dying from desiese we can cure, yes cure, and all you can do is moan at each other, you are all as agrogant as eachother

I find that tsunami aid competition hilarious. After 6 months, only some 2.7 billion of the promised 6.7 has arrived in the catastrophy zone. We can blame many covernments, can't we?

*disclaimer; I may have those figures slightly wrong. But 4 billions are still missing from the people who need it.

it is a dirty dirty dirty world... it gives stupid people somthing to kill and die for just like that song... and much much more ... i think it makes patriots to.. and in sweden thats the same thing as rasist.. wich suck... and i think patriots have a harder time looking from other perspectives then there own... and there own countries..

Its bad when it convinces people that their country is right. I seem to have got mixed up with the Agent Orange thing, must have come up in the same debate. It was things like napalm that were chemical weapons, I think Agent Orange just came up due to its effect. Still, doesnt change the fact they used chemical weapons without war crimes brought against them

So, let me tally it up. We have patriots are racists, and patriots must never think that their country is right. Also, that napalm is a chemical weapon.

Mmkay. I'm a patriot. You might even say that I'm a *gasp* nationalist. However, I can assure you I'm no racist. I also have no trouble hearing different perspectives, as I think my presence here today shows.

In response to British Socialism, it would be a very foolish patriot indeed who doesn't think that his country is right at least some of the time. If you're loyal to a particular country, does it make sense to choose one that you think is wrong all the time? I'm a patriot because I believe in our Western values of democracy, pluralism, liberty and (most of the time) peace. I think that those ideals are embodied in the American state, and that America is worth fighting for, and even dying for. If you wouldn't die for your country, either you're living in a piss-poor excuse for a nation, or you will never understand the true soul of patriotism.

Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are proof of high-level government policy to mistreat detainees. Whoops, no that's not true. Citing those two places is something that I should be doing. The abuses in both prisons are isolated incidents, and the American authorities are vigorously investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators. Sounds like evidence of beneficence more than anything else.
Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were sanctioned by generals and known to the pentagon. That high-ranking officials like Rumsfeld are still in office after this or that Bush is still in office after deceiving the American public, while Clinton had an impeachment trial for a blowjob, is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. The US has turned into an aggressive empire, ever apologist of it's glaring failures. No, what's going on in the US military ("investigating" with military personnel, military tribunals for everything dealing with Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, etc.) is defiant of the rule of law. These courts are not impartial, they are biased in favour of the soldiers who did these crimes and they whitewash the government officials who, with memos and the like, sanctioned these activities. The lowly soldiers are pawns, easily sacrificed to protect the big names. That you fall for the propaganda is no surprise - you've shown the same ignorance on other issues here.

It really does pain me to see that you all are generalising Americans by the actions of our Goverment. "The Americans have always..." "It seems common among Americans" I don't really like being treated as some exotic species.

Yes. That must be annoying. Especially when there is hardly no other generalisations at all in this forum. I myself blame the Europeans for this. :D

[QUOTE=Inkana]It really does pain me to see that you all are generalising Americans by the actions of our Goverment. "The Americans have always..." "It seems common among Americans" I don't really like being treated as some exotic species.

"Lookie here, it's an American, I know them very well, they're all extremely right wing, and think it's their duty to interv...Holy Shit! He actually isn't acting like our Tabloid Websites say they do!"
[QUOTE]

i see youre point, but most people under stand that u cant judge a whole people just like that. nut when we talk about treating a people like a exotic species.. americans are not as abused as swedes ... seen little nicky that gorrila and the other shit moved to sweden where people "where more cool about sucj things" that was one i could remeber but i hear things like this on tv all the time...

Having read this thread i noticed you guys hav quickly changed from the suffering of iraqi ppl to your own ideological squabbles. I am fericly anti-war, and am getting increasing anti-america(just the government, i love the ppl) and i really dont want to.

My question for you: Voltaire said that people get the government they deserve. Abraham Lincoln said that the American government was "by the people, for the people, of the people."

In light of these statements, do you think that it's possible to make the distinction between the American people and the government they voted for (twice in the case of the President, three times for Congress since 2000)?

It really does pain me to see that you all are generalising Americans by the actions of our Goverment. "The Americans have always..." "It seems common among Americans" I don't really like being treated as some exotic species.

"Lookie here, it's an American, I know them very well, they're all extremely right wing, and think it's their duty to interv...Holy Shit! He actually isn't acting like our Tabloid Websites say they do!"

I hate it.


I dont generalise your actions on the basis of your government, your government is shit and always has been - I dont understand why you elected it. And I dont read tabloids, they arent newspapers, they are gossip columns. I happen to think that a lot of Americans have sense, I see loads who resent what your government does.

As to your arguments about how we're always "Intervening in everything" Let's take a look back, shall we?

British Intervention in the Omani Civil War.

British Action in Sri Lanka.

British Action is Malaya.

British Action in Indonesia.

And there are probably many more covert operations. As you see, America isn't the only interventionalist nation out there.

I never said interventionalism was wrong, as it happens I was supporting Clintons intervention earlier. I dislike declaration of war because you dont like the regime, Iraq for example and the inevitable conflicts with Iran, Syris, N.Korea etc if things continue

Yes. That must be annoying. Especially when there is hardly no other generalisations at all in this forum. I myself blame the Europeans for this. :D
I never said there were no other Generalisations, and don't let those snobby, tea-drinking brits tell you differently! :D

NOTE: I am just kidding, I love England, I am 50% English. Rule Britannia! *Waves Union Jack*

I find that tsunami aid competition hilarious. After 6 months, only some 2.7 billion of the promised 6.7 has arrived in the catastrophy zone. We can blame many covernments, can't we?

*disclaimer; I may have those figures slightly wrong. But 4 billions are still missing from the people who need it.
It's not a competition. It was in response to claims that the US was (once again hah!) THE nation everyone was waiting for to do something. Utterly laughable and I refuse to acknowledge such propaganda lies by leaving them here unchallenged. :mad:

So, let me tally it up. We have patriots are racists, and patriots must never think that their country is right. Also, that napalm is a chemical weapon.

Mmkay. I'm a patriot. You might even say that I'm a *gasp* nationalist. However, I can assure you I'm no racist. I also have no trouble hearing different perspectives, as I think my presence here today shows.

In response to British Socialism, it would be a very foolish patriot indeed who doesn't think that his country is right at least some of the time. If you're loyal to a particular country, does it make sense to choose one that you think is wrong all the time? I'm a patriot because I believe in our Western values of democracy, pluralism, liberty and (most of the time) peace. I think that those ideals are embodied in the American state, and that America is worth fighting for, and even dying for. If you wouldn't die for your country, either you're living in a piss-poor excuse for a nation, or you will never understand the true soul of patriotism. patriot is has become a word that sneak rasist use to call themselves (often whearing southie flags) i never said this was completly right.. im just saying it often makes bigger gaps among groups of people

My question for you: Voltaire said that people get the government they deserve. Abraham Lincoln said that the American government was "by the people, for the people, of the people."

In light of these statements, do you think that it's possible to make the distinction between the American people and the government they voted for (twice in the case of the President, three times for Congress since 2000)?
Not When 49% of the nation voted Kerry....Or are too young to vote, personally, I hated both canidates, but I can't vote, so no one cares.

My question for you: Voltaire said that people get the government they deserve. Abraham Lincoln said that the American government was "by the people, for the people, of the people."

In light of these statements, do you think that it's possible to make the distinction between the American people and the government they voted for (twice in the case of the President, three times for Congress since 2000)?

Yes, because there isnt a great amount of choice in US democracy so very few can elect exactly what they want. And if you wish to say that the government represents the people then I unfortuneately hate you all, but I thought the people were all right - are you telling me otherwise? Should I hate all Americans?

So, let me tally it up. We have patriots are racists, and patriots must never think that their country is right. Also, that napalm is a chemical weapon.

Mmkay. I'm a patriot. You might even say that I'm a *gasp* nationalist. However, I can assure you I'm no racist. I also have no trouble hearing different perspectives, as I think my presence here today shows.

In response to British Socialism, it would be a very foolish patriot indeed who doesn't think that his country is right at least some of the time. If you're loyal to a particular country, does it make sense to choose one that you think is wrong all the time? I'm a patriot because I believe in our Western values of democracy, pluralism, liberty and (most of the time) peace. I think that those ideals are embodied in the American state, and that America is worth fighting for, and even dying for. If you wouldn't die for your country, either you're living in a piss-poor excuse for a nation, or you will never understand the true soul of patriotism. die for america... this sentence will make that no one(hopefully) will respect your words ever ever ever again :P(if the ever did :P)

Yes i do think u can make the disticntion, considering only 34% of the voting population acctualy voted for him(Bush)

Ein Deutscher']It's not a competition. That's what i thought too. Its just that it seems like one, when comments such as "we donated more than...", "yeah, but only after..." are hurled in the heat of discussion.

Ein Deutscher']Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were sanctioned by generals and known to the pentagon. That high-ranking officials like Rumsfeld are still in office after this or that Bush is still in office after deceiving the American public, while Clinton had an impeachment trial for a blowjob, is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. The US has turned into an aggressive empire, ever apologist of it's glaring failures. No, what's going on in the US military ("investigating" with military personnel, military tribunals for everything dealing with Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, etc.) is defiant of the rule of law. These courts are not impartial, they are biased in favour of the soldiers who did these crimes and they whitewash the government officials who, with memos and the like, sanctioned these activities. The lowly soldiers are pawns, easily sacrificed to protect the big names. That you fall for the propaganda is no surprise - you've shown the same ignorance on other issues here.

If these offences were sanctioned by the upper leadership, I would have expected a much more strenuous cover-up effort, as well as a lot of heads rolling at the higher levels when the abuses were found out. There are bound to be many who are horrified by these abuses and seek to punish those responsible for them. If I'm giving far too much credit to the Administration and somehow they're all bastards, I would have expected a wave of firings anyway -- for being so incompetent at abusing prisoners without being discovered. Also, if the abuses were condoned by generals, I would have expected there to be a lot more of them.

Cinton was not impeached for a blowjob. If that were true, half of Congress would have to resign. No, he nearly lost his job for lying under oath. I don't care what country you're from, that's a serious crime.

You're saying a court-martial is a joke? You really don't know much about the military, do you?

Ein Deutscher']That you fall for the propaganda is no surprise - you've shown the same ignorance on other issues here.

Once again, you've chosen to point out the speck in my eye before removing the plank in your own. Congratulations for being such a predictable opponent.

-updating-

Yes, because there isnt a great amount of choice in US democracy so very few can elect exactly what they want. And if you wish to say that the government represents the people then I unfortuneately hate you all, but I thought the people were all right - are you telling me otherwise? Should I hate all Americans?
So According to you, I'm in favor of going in to any nation that suits me, and toppling the current Regime? No. There are actually many choices, just not many are known across the Atlantic. You can cote Libretarian, Green, Independant, Republican, Democrat, Communist, Constitution, Hell, there's even an American Nazi Party.

Yes, because there isnt a great amount of choice in US democracy so very few can elect exactly what they want. And if you wish to say that the government represents the people then I unfortuneately hate you all, but I thought the people were all right - are you telling me otherwise? Should I hate all Americans?

Of course I don't advocate hating all Americans. It's just that the "I don't hate Americans, just their government" line sounds a lot like a dodge. If they keep voting these governments into office, maybe there's a message there.

Of course I don't advocate hating all Americans. It's just that the "I don't hate Americans, just their government" line sounds a lot like a dodge. If they keep voting these governments into office, maybe there's a message there.
Blue State! Blue State! I'm From a Blue State! Don't Hate me!

die for america... this sentence will make that no one(hopefully) will respect your words ever ever ever again :P(if the ever did :P)

Are you mocking my patriotism because you despise the country I give it to, or because you don't understand such a virtue?

-updating for the thrills of it-

Of course I don't advocate hating all Americans. It's just that the "I don't hate Americans, just their government" line sounds a lot like a dodge. If they keep voting these governments into office, maybe there's a message there.

If you actually give the American people a proper choice then maybe Ill start caring. Anyway, there is nothing in Bush's manifesto that says "I'll start war in Iraq because I don't like dictators". Also half America did not elect Bush so they dont support him. When America adopts a system of free elections in which groups can stand without having to join one of the 2 sides to get elected then I'll start thinking of it as a representation of the people. Britain went to war, but I barely know anyone in Britain who supported it.

Ein Deutscher']It's not a competition. It was in response to claims that the US was (once again hah!) THE nation everyone was waiting for to do something. Utterly laughable and I refuse to acknowledge such propaganda lies by leaving them here unchallenged. :mad:

If it wasn't a competition (and it shouldn't have been), why can't everyone else just accept the amount America chose to give and quit fucking complaining about how it was insufficient.

Now, as for your statement about the $35million offer, that was in the very early stages of the tsunami, when comprehensive damage assessments hadn't come in yet. Don't mistake a tentative preliminary offer for the real deal.