NationStates Jolt Archive

actually i was talking about ancient kingdome in ancient egypt, some 7000 years ago, before the persian, greeks, hitties, phonecians, assyrians knew how to build houses... and not to mention Nubians:D
lets not forget that the first civilization on earth was egypt, then babylonia(iraq), indus(india) and china, then civilizations started with the contact of the Pharonic and babylonian civilizations. and spread like a flu:D
0_o
Civilization began in Mesopotamia.

Most soldiers are not heroes anymore than you and me.
Agreed.:eek:

Most soldiers are not heroes anymore than you and me.


woops, i think ill disagree with you here

did you ever see a war, for real???
probably not...
iv been throu the lebanese civil war, and was there when israel bombed the hell out of Beirut(former Paris of the east). and saw the bravery of the arab soldiers kicking them out , guns against tanks ans plans, and succed in kicking them back, soldiers are the people that keep you safe to post us your posts...

WWI ended the idea that war is just simply politics by other means, and that God liked any country more than another. I personally think that WWI has done more for the seperation of church and state in Europe than any other event.


Seems like the Thirty Years' War did more, seeing as how the Protestants and Catholics tried to wipe each other out and couldn't.

0_o
Civilization began in Mesopotamia.
no, it started on the Nile valley(Egypt), then mesopotamia(iraq), and then expanded to the fertile cresent to establish, phonecia(lebanon), Assyria(syria) and judiya(palestine) 3000 years ago, then Hitties(turkey, persians greeks and so on

I have a few questions:

When did disagreeing with certain American mannerisms, culture, or policies become synonymous with being "American haters"? (I disagree with a lot of people I don't necessarily hate.)

Has America really become so insecure about themselves, that they require affirmation of every deed they do, and can't shoulder a bit of criticism?

If they believed that Justice was really being served, would they really require this affirmation?

If Americans are so democratic, is it not our right to disagree with them, without being judged and attributed these labels?

no, it started on the Nile valley(Egypt), then mesopotamia(iraq), and then expanded to the fertile cresent to establish, phonecia(lebanon), Assyria(syria) and judiya(palestine) 3000 years ago, then Hitties(turkey, persians greeks and so on

Well, it didn't just start in one place. You both have valid opinions on this.

anyways i must go to sleep now since iv been awak for over 32 hours, and since it is 7 pm...
im guessing youll find some australians and asians entering the thread...

so bottom line
my views

American Citizens(they rock)
American Policies(disagree)

Arabs dream=unity
soldiers=heros
retarded=bad word that is disrespectfull to the opposing part((meaning , never enter a poliltical party)

fianlly, and not to start an argument, check out in your history school books, what civilization do they begin talking about,(since all american curiculam books iv seen starts with egypt and ends with space exploration) and ill rest my case from here..
good night Australia
good evening USA
and good morning Arabs

Seems like the Thirty Years' War did more, seeing as how the Protestants and Catholics tried to wipe each other out and couldn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_strafe_England

http://www.postalmilitar.com/frames.html
Check out the first page of the English ones...Jesus is making them stronger than the Germans...

I have a few questions:

When did disagreeing with certain American mannerisms, culture, or policies become synonymous with being "American haters"? (I disagree with a lot of people I don't necessarily hate.)
Can you say: "You're either with us or against us"?
Has America really become so insecure about themselves, that they require affirmation of every deed they do, and can't shoulder a bit of criticism?
Raving nationalists does not take kindly to criticism of their nation. They'll ask for it, but they will never forgive you for obliging.
If they believed that Justice was really being served, would they really require this affirmation?
See the two answers above, and realize that either they don't know what they're doing, they don't care that it's unethical, or they're looking for an excuse to proclaim how much you suck & how great they are.
If Americans are so democratic, is it not our right to disagree with them, without being judged and attributed these labels?
You aren't part of their democrazy, and you have no rights. STFU & go away you troll ;)

Disclaimer: The vast majority of Americans are nothing like what I just made them out to be. It's just a bit of fun.

Well, it didn't just start in one place. You both have valid opinions on this.
True, it started in Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus River Valley pretty much separately.

The point is, this country is full of extremely closed-minded and stupid people, no doubt because it hasn't been around long enough to weather its problems.

It's not fun for the rest of the world when a country full of self-righteous retards thinks they should be the lords and masters of all.

WTF?:mad:
We dont think we should be masters of the universe. The retarded people are the former colonial powers that started two of the worlds biggest freakin wars ever. After the Great War, we stayed out of the League of Nations, then what happened? NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan, along with other nations basically told the other member nation's where they can shove their freakin Leage of Nations, and went off to conquer all. We stayed out of the conflict, and we get bombed? So basically, if it wasnt for the U.S., Great Britain would have eventually fallen, letting Hitler concentrate his forces against the U.S.S.R., because Hitler would not have to worry about a second front. Imperial Japan would rule the Pacific Asia, and Italy and Germany would rule Africa.

Blame us for the worlds problems, call us self-righteous retards , but in reality you all know you would be doing the same if you had our power.

WTF?:mad:
We dont think we should be masters of the universe. The retarded people are the former colonial powers that started two of the worlds biggest freakin wars ever. After the Great War, we stayed out of the League of Nations, then what happened? NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan, along with other nations basically told the other member nation's where they can shove their freakin Leage of Nations, and went off to conquer all. We stayed out of the conflict, and we get bombed? So basically, if it wasnt for the U.S., Great Britain would have eventually fallen, letting Hitler concentrate his forces against the U.S.S.R., because Hitler would not have to worry about a second front. Imperial Japan would rule the Pacific Asia, and Italy and Germany would rule Africa.

What is it with you historically unaware people and this thread? Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, and that is largely what cost Germany the war. Yes, the second front was important, but that would still have been there without the USA because Hitler didn't want to invade Britain. We declared war on them, not the other way around. That's not to deny that there were valuable American efforts in Africa and Italy, but the second front wasn't opened up until 1943, when Hitler was already losing in Russia due largely to extreme weather conditions and poor planning.

...when Hitler was already losing in Russia due largely to extreme weather conditions and poor planning.
Not to mention an assload of pissed off Russians.

Not to mention an assload of pissed off Russians.

Holy shit, how big is your ass?:p

What is it with you historically unaware people and this thread? Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, and that is largely what cost Germany the war. Yes, the second front was important, but that would still have been there without the USA because Hitler didn't want to invade Britain. We declared war on them, not the other way around. That's not to deny that there were valuable American efforts in Africa and Italy, but the second front wasn't opened up until 1943, when Hitler was already losing in Russia due largely to extreme weather conditions and poor planning.

Yeah, but would the Soviet Union have succeded against the German with power concentrated on them outside the U.S.S.R.?

You delcared war on britain, so freakin what? You would have gotten spanked by hilters forces! True you used to have a good NAVY, but it was in shambles buy the time WWII rolled around, not to metion you army.

I have seen in many threads people always bad mouthing the US and speaking rather ignorantly about it. Ignorance is not bliss.

So if America shut down all its foriegn bases, stopped aid to the world and shut down its borders like the presidents before WW2 wanted to do in the first place. Would that make you happy? Without the support of America how much more chaos would result as nations that rely on the US are left without support.

Not everyone in America is an ignorant person. Many of us are learned and intelligent. And the comments you people make are just as close minded and narrow as those in the US by inviduals who are unlearned and ignorant. So everything you accuse the US of being you are just as bad if not worse.

So like I said. If America where to shut down its borders and become self sufficent, which it is capable of being. Would that please you? Would the world economy last without the support of one of the strongest nations in the world?

Let's break down why the world hates US by continent.

Central, Latin, South Americas; Caribbean:
Jose de San Martin and Simon Bolivar fought for colonial independence in the hopes that the US would support them. We did, but only when they could give us a better offer than Spain/France would if we helped them retake their colonies. But that was a long time ago. More recently, we killed their national hero (Ernesto Guevara de la Serna) overthrew their democratically elected governments (Bolivia) educated the most brutal dictators in the history of the region (School of the Americas) and, possibly, killed or aided the overthrow of one of the only democractically elected Socialist regime (Salvador Allende), attempted to invade a oppressive regime that had overthrown a corrupt, oppressive regime (Cuba) while allowing corporations to set up shantytowns on the border (Maquiladoras) where people can work inhumane hours for a corporate tax write-off, and the women are sexually assaulted.

However, we make up for it by giving aid. Does this help the countries? In the short term, yes. After a hurricane levels the countryside, we're the first nation to put up advertisments asking for our citizen's dimes. And by God, we send 'em Christmas presents. However, toothbruses and ten cents doesn't help 200+ years of economic ruin. Some of it is our fault, some of it is the colonizing country's fault, most of the blame lies with the country.

Africa:
Uh, well, see, we sort of.. didn't do anything in Rwanda. Which, in addition to being one of the worst genocides in recent history, started the First and Second Congo, which between 1996 and 2003, killed over 4 million people.

However, we do try to help the AIDS crisis. The problem is, most of the countries have no infrastructure, so giving aid is akin to stuffing a pillow that isn't a pillow, but rather a hollow tube: You make a mess on the floor, and you can't sleep at night.

Asia:
So long as we keep buying from Japan, manufacturing in China, Korea, and Taiwan, and calling India for tech support, we're fine in their book. Sure, it'll cost us any chance of economic self-sufficiency, but hey, it's all in the name of cheap goods.

OH, WAIT! Yeah, that whole thing about suicide bomber traning camps where people are indoctrinated with asymmetric warfare techniques? Turns out they were in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I guess India was right. And that whole thing about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? When we supplied the tribes with arms to fight them off, then left? Yeah.. turns out that the Taliban came out on top. I guess that whole thing about us not giving those nations credibility because we were preoccupied with stopping Communism WAS a bad idea.

Middle East:
Israel vs Palestine. That's it. Oh, yeah, we supported a largely unpopular ruler, and provided asylum for him, and didn't give him back when they asked to try him for his crimes. Need a hint? Starts with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and ends with Shah of Iran.

Europe:
We're trying to police the world. Europe is kind of like the older brother that lost his job and girlfriend, and is forced to move back into the house. America is trying to wield the power, but the two end up fighting about everything. Even who is in control of Internet domains. They think that we faked 9/11 so we could go around and invade countries.

So, out of all the aforementioned regions, most aid goes to South & Central America and Africa. But the rest of the Americas hate us and Africa has no idea what's going on, so, yeah! Cut all that BS foreign aid! It's not like we need the rest of the world. Global economy, PAH!

This is all so false...
Yeah, but would the Soviet Union have succeded against the German with power concentrated on them outside the U.S.S.R.?
I don't even get that sentence, but I think it means something along the lines of "Russia got a lot of material from the Western Allies".
That's true, but ultimately that was mainly trucks. The one most integral weapon Russia had was the T-34...Soviet designed, Soviet Built, and Soviet Operated.
And besides, if the USSR hadn' been there, neither Britain nor the US would've won the war (Britain being conquered, the US being isolated and eventually starved into submission or bombed).

You delcared war on britain, so freakin what? You would have gotten spanked by hilters forces! True you used to have a good NAVY, but it was in shambles buy the time WWII rolled around, not to metion you army.
Isn't he from Britain?
True, the UK got their arses handed to them. I sincerely doubt that the infinitely smaller US Army would've fared better at the time.
But the British Navy was still the most powerful in the Atlantic, and Germany had nothing on them, despite things like the Bismarck, or even U-Boat Warfare.

Europe:
We're trying to police the world. Europe is kind of like the older brother that lost his job and girlfriend, and is forced to move back into the house.
I'll let this one slide...maybe a comparison Ancient Greece versus Ancient Rome would've been better?

America is trying to wield the power, but the two end up fighting about everything. Even who is in control of Internet domains.
Well, considering that we're fighting about everything, the alliances are still in pretty good shape, and both on Iran and on Syria the front is pretty strong.

They think that we faked 9/11 so we could go around and invade countries.
They do not! Who was the first person to express his condolences? Jaques Chirac, that's who.
NATO as a whole went with the US into Afghanistan, as that was considered a reasonable response.
Iraq is a completely different issue - we're simply shocked that Bush would so blatantly use a terrorist attack as justification for something completely different.
And besides, all of Europe has its fair share of experience with Terrorism - it is understandable that many Europeans thus don't quite follow this almost biblical uproar that the US has undergone.

Have you accepted Jesussaves as your personal savior?

Jessaves saved me! :D

<Snip>
They do not! Who was the first person to express his condolences? Jaques Chirac, that's who.
NATO as a whole went with the US into Afghanistan, as that was considered a reasonable response.
Iraq is a completely different issue - we're simply shocked that Bush would so blatantly use a terrorist attack as justification for something completely different.
And besides, all of Europe has its fair share of experience with Terrorism - it is understandable that many Europeans thus don't quite follow this almost biblical uproar that the US has undergone.
Apart from that, I think you should give the guy some credit for being an American willing to admit that American forign policy wasn't and isn't all that nice.

This is all so false...

I don't even get that sentence, but I think it means something along the lines of "Russia got a lot of material from the Western Allies".
That's true, but ultimately that was mainly trucks. The one most integral weapon Russia had was the T-34...Soviet designed, Soviet Built, and Soviet Operated.
And besides, if the USSR hadn' been there, neither Britain nor the US would've won the war (Britain being conquered, the US being isolated and eventually starved into submission or bombed).


Isn't he from Britain?
True, the UK got their arses handed to them. I sincerely doubt that the infinitely smaller US Army would've fared better at the time.
But the British Navy was still the most powerful in the Atlantic, and Germany had nothing on them, despite things like the Bismarck, or even U-Boat Warfare.

Its true, we might not have won a war without the USSR, but the USSR would not have won without us either.

The problem wasnt Britain's size, Germany wasnt huge...
The problem was Britain's economy after WWII.

Didnt the U.S. trade with Britain a whole bunch of old warships?

Yeah, but would the Soviet Union have succeded against the German with power concentrated on them outside the U.S.S.R.?

You delcared war on britain, so freakin what? You would have gotten spanked by hilters forces! True you used to have a good NAVY, but it was in shambles buy the time WWII rolled around, not to metion you army.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

But, since it is seemingly too much effort for you to look at the location under my name, I'll point out that I am from Britain. Britain declared war on Germany, 3rd September 1939.

Could you clarify your last post?

Holy shit, how big is your ass?:p
Judging by how big of an asshole I am, my ass is of epic- wait, no- godlike proportions.

Didnt the U.S. trade with Britain a whole bunch of old warships?

You mean the lease-lend agreements, where the USA gave us (the british) warships in exchange for the use of our bases in the pacific, on the condition that the ships would be returned after the war (although the American administration never really expected to get the ships back)

Judging by how big of an asshole I am, my ass is of epic- wait, no- godlike proportions.

I'll say! One could fit hundreds, no, thousands... Wait, perhaps millions of Russian soldiers in there!

Judging by how big of an asshole I am, my ass is of epic- wait, no- godlike proportions.

LMAO

That's a lot of Russians.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

But, since it is seemingly too much effort for you to look at the location under my name, I'll point out that I am from Britain. Britain declared war on Germany, 3rd September 1939.

Could you clarify your last post?

Geez come on! I just made the mistake of putting Britain instead of Germany.

I'll say! One could fit hundreds, no, thousands... Wait, perhaps millions of Russian soldiers in there!
There may be some truth to that obesity epedemic after all...

There may be some truth to that obesity epedemic after all...

Perhaps, though one thing's for certain: Undelia's ass is larger than we can possibly imagine...

You mean the lease-lend agreements, where the USA gave us (the british) warships in exchange for the use of our bases in the pacific, on the condition that the ships would be returned after the war (although the American administration never really expected to get the ships back)

So if you had a "powerful Navy" then why the need more warships?

Perhaps, though one thing's for certain: Undelia's ass is larger than we can possibly imagine...
Moreover, it's much larger than I ever hope to imagine.

Geez come on! I just made the mistake of putting Britain instead of Germany.

Okay, well, I wasn't prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. That being said, any German invasion of Britain was not stopped by American military involvement in the war. If Hitler was going to order the invasion, it would have needed the Battle of Britain to be won by the Luftwaffe. But they lost, so no invasion. Further, Nazi Germany could not have maintained simultaneous invasions of Russia and Britain, so clearly the invasion of Russia in June '41 shows that Britain was not going to be invaded.

So if you had a "powerful Navy" then why the need more warships?

Why is "powerful Navy" in quotation marks? When did I say that? Our food convoys were getting spanked left, right and centre by the U-boats. We needed those ships.

Perhaps, though one thing's for certain: Undelia's ass is larger than we can possibly imagine...
:D

Apart from that, I think you should give the guy some credit for being an American willing to admit that American forign policy wasn't and isn't all that nice.
Done! :D

Its true, we might not have won a war without the USSR, but the USSR would not have won without us either.
That's where I would disagree. By the time Germany invaded the USSR, Britain was pretty much out of the picture militarily. They were holding on in Africa, but as far as the bigger picture is concerned, they were no longer holding up Germany.
The Invasion happened too late (later than originally planned - maybe some credit to the Brits afterall for ... or to Mussolini for being an incapable moron), and thus the last few kilometres to Moscow were first turned into mud by the rain, and then into ice by the cold.
Then the Soviets hit back, and from there on the war was pretty much over. The next year Germany attacked again, but by then it was pointless - especially since Moscow wasn't the target.
And as far as material is concerned, it wasn't like the Soviets didn't have their own - they simply started replacing their own trucks with US ones and made more tanks. Ultimately, the effect is difficult to calculate, but IMHO, the factors that led to Germany's defeat there would've been there regardless of Western help.

The problem wasnt Britain's size, Germany wasnt huge...
The problem was Britain's economy after WWII.
I was talking army size...the US army was tiny in 1940.
And Britain's economy, although not as powerful as it had been once, was plenty enough to fight off the Germans in the air - but if the channel hadn't been there, Britain would've fallen just as easily.
Same goes for the US - if the ocean hadn't been there, it would've been rolled over.

Didnt the U.S. trade with Britain a whole bunch of old warships?
Yes, but that hardly means that the British Navy wasn't the most powerful in the area. The US just wasn't in the war yet and thus didn't need them, and Britain didn't have enough anti-U-Boat material. In a fair surface battle though, Britain would've pwned Germany in no time.

Holy fuck, I've been sigged.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]
This might sound a little harsh...but how many American cities were actually levelled to the ground (and I'm not talking villages)?

Ask someone from the southern U.S. that question. Several major cities were burned during the American civil war, New Orleans and Atlanta among them. They still complain about that to this day.

All the same, if we didn't push that conflict (W.W. 2) to its' logical conclusion, most of us on this board would be speaking either German or Japanese today. Certainly all of Europe would be Germanic. Then we could be complaining about the mean ol' Germans/Japanese instead.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

All the same, if we didn't push that conflict (W.W. 2) to its' logical conclusion, most of us on this board would be speaking either German or Japanese today. Certainly all of Europe would be Germanic. Then we could be complaining about the mean ol' Germans/Japanese instead.
Actually, as I said above, we might be speaking Russian.
And besides, I don't know of any language-related war goals, if you have any links, I'd be grateful.

Can you say: "You're either with us or against us"? I can say it, but saying it doesn't make it so. The world isn't as black and white as all that, While I may agree with some of the American Ideals, I am free to disagree with others; this doesn't suddenly make me a terrorist.

Raving nationalists does not take kindly to criticism of their nation. They'll ask for it, but they will never forgive you for obliging.
Perhaps, but if that is so, perhaps the world should require to trade a few 'Raving nationalists', for some more tolerant, educated ones; Maybe there would be less wars that way.

See the two answers above, and realize that either they don't know what they're doing, they don't care that it's unethical, or they're looking for an excuse to proclaim how much you suck & how great they are.

If this were so, any disapproval from other nations would be met with apathy or indifference. The fact that terms such as 'American haters' exist affirm that they feel disapproval. How could they reguard a disapproval, had they not been desiring affirmation, in the first place? Ideally, what America really wants is to have the freedom to say that they are the greatest nation in the world, whilst removing all other nation's freedom to disagree with them.


You aren't part of their democrazy, and you have no rights. STFU & go away you troll ;)

Ah so, other nation's policies are not the American concern....at least until America reguards another nation's blatant abuse of their definition of Democracy. Only then, do they snap into action to liberate the 'ignorant' masses into their own personal brand of Democracy. (whether they like it or not.) Am I the only one seeing a contradiction here?

Disclaimer: The vast majority of Americans are nothing like what I just made them out to be. It's just a bit of fun.

Noted.

No, the U.S. is criticised because it's full of itself, and it tries to police the world like some big brother state, even though it's very young.

You're totally not getting the picture.

In other words you wish to take this moment to go on record as saying all Europeans are inferior to the people of India and China in light of the fact that the Asians have older cultures then them, and are now obliged to bow done before them and left themselves be ruled from New Delhi and Beijing, right? :p

No? o_O

Then I guess we've just seen that Europeans and liberals who play the "elder culture" card merely declare themselves a bunch of twits! ^_~

Noted.
Hahaha, I like the way you think.

In other words you wish to take this moment to go on record as saying all Europeans are inferior to the people of India and China in light of the fact that the Asians have older cultures then them, and are now obliged to bow done before them and left themselves be ruled from New Delhi and Beijing, right? :p

No? o_O

Then I guess we've just seen that Europeans and liberals who play the "elder culture" card merely declare themselves a bunch of twits! ^_~


I wouldn't say that Europe is inferior, however it has no business meddling in the affairs of New Delhi and Beijing other than diplomatic advice when appropriate.

And the last time I had a look at international affairs, Bruxelles wasn't exactly trying to dictate Washington some trade agreements...

I wouldn't say that Europe is inferior, however it has no business meddling in the affairs of New Delhi and Beijing other than diplomatic advice when appropriate.

And the last time I had a look at international affairs, Bruxelles wasn't exactly trying to dictate Washington some trade agreements...
Are you suggesting that US world dictatorship isn't perfectly benevolent? You stinking liberal commie hippie terrorist subversive lazy anti-American *dies of high bloodpressure*

In other words you wish to take this moment to go on record as saying all Europeans are inferior to the people of India and China in light of the fact that the Asians have older cultures then them, and are now obliged to bow done before them and left themselves be ruled from New Delhi and Beijing, right? :p

No? o_O

Then I guess we've just seen that Europeans and liberals who play the "elder culture" card merely declare themselves a bunch of twits! ^_~

no they play the elder nation card, which they are. The chinese and indian cultures are definately older but the nations of china and india a quite young.

no they play the elder nation card, which they are. The chinese and indian cultures are definately older but the nations of china and india a quite young.
You shouldn't go there...as far as governments are concerned, the US is actually one of the older ones around. Germany is 1949, France 1945 (I assume) - no idea about Britain.

You shouldn't go there...as far as governments are concerned, the US is actually one of the older ones around. Germany is 1949, France 1945 (I assume) - no idea about Britain.

well, with france if you start with the first republic, then its about the same age as the US.
UK from the 13th century if we're going by governments. 14th if its from the 2-chamber system.
Denmark i think is from 1220 or so....
etc..

but i guess there are too many criteria for this argument anyway. sod it:)

What is up with your grammar? Oh, the fragments!


haha, too true!

To help out Arab Democratic States who seems to be lacking specific american policies which have a negative impact on his country. How about the masses of asylum seekers and immigrants from Iraq and Palestine escaping american supported genocide?

...How about the masses of asylum seekers and immigrants from Iraq and Palestine escaping american supported genocide?
Meh, for that to bite you'd have to prove that it actually is genocide, and it certainly isn't. It might not be nice, but it isn't a campaign to exterminate all Arabs.

Back to the original point about the USA being self sufficient. Of course they would never want to be self sufficient. The whole reason why the US government continually support despotic regimes around the world is because it guarantees a supply of cheap labour and cheap imports. Allow them to choose their own leader and they elect socialists who pa decent wages and look after the poor, to americas disliking as it increases labour and import costs.
As for american 'aid', its not uncommon knowledge that although america pays more than most other nations to help developing economies, the ammount is still proportionally the smallest out of all developed economies. Take into account that much of what the USA donates in aid is spent on weapons oft purchased from american manufacturers and other policies by the USA tend to encourage poverty in places it's aid might end up and you'll find americas aid is far from justification for its other immoral practicies. For example american farm subsidies simply undermine the farmers in poorer nations like Mexico who actually need the money. Then the equally evil european countries like britain have trade deals to import maize, rice etc from the USA but not the countires who need money the most and who produce the products the cheapest. It is unfair trade, something George Washington will be turning in his grave over.
US military bases around the world being shut down a bad idea? Why not? Who exactly are they protecting us from? America offers military aid to a lot of poor countries and economic aid to a lot more, in fact there are many nations who entirely depend on the USA. Those nations roughly correlate with the 'Coalition of the willing'. Is that mere coincidence? Or is it proof of US hegemony worldwide?
If amaerica goes alone, apart from a few dictators going skint and struggling to fight off an uprising, I think the vast majority of the planet will be better off. It still wont be perfect though. Just wait until China surpasses the US for foreign influence. Then we're in trouble.

Meh, for that to bite you'd have to prove that it actually is genocide, and it certainly isn't. It might not be nice, but it isn't a campaign to exterminate all Arabs.

Genocide isnt necessarily the extermination of all of a specific race but a very large number. Therefore Isreals activities against the Palestinians and Americas rather relaxed attitude to 'collateral damage' in Iraq can be considered genocide. Maybe not on the scale of the Nazi's but maybe they r being subtle. Extermination of the race isn't their plan but they are not unhappy for a large ammount of that race to die. Why? Just like they were happy to exterminate socialists and peasants in Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras etc.

gen·o·cide

NOUN:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

:) Yes, never let a little thing like definitions get in the way of a good rant.

gen·o·cide

NOUN:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

gen·o·cide

NOUN:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

which dictionary is that from?

This is the Paperback Oxford English Dictionary 2002:
genocide/jen-uh-syd/ noun. the deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation.


whereas the Cambridge online dictionary says : GENOCIDE noun [U]
the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race or religious group.

obviously i made my statement using the Oxford definition. Eitherway let's not be pedantic. The yanks don't care for the loss of a few sand niggers or latin american little brown people. Period.

The yanks don't care for the loss of a few sand niggers or latin american little brown people. Period.
Sigh. :rolleyes:

The yanks don't care for the loss of a few sand niggers or latin american little brown people. Period.

There are a lot of people on here who completely disprove that you know. I'm with you on their government's foreign policy mate (and my own too), but that isn't helping anything.

In that case Hitler wasn't guilty of genocide, merely attempted genocide, because he didn't finish the job.

Sigh. :rolleyes:
I assume that means you dispute Empiricism?

If that's the case (hey, you coul just be tired - I am), how do your nations actions reflect that?

I assume that means you dispute Empiricism?

If that's the case (hey, you coul just be tired - I am), how do your nations actions reflect that?

My nation's actions reflect much the same bent TBH. It doesn't mean that the British are all xenophopic murderers though. I suspect that is what the sigh was all about-I know mine was.

There are a lot of people on here who completely disprove that you know. I'm with you on their government's foreign policy mate (and my own too), but that isn't helping anything.

as im sure you are aware not all americans are 'yanks' so i wasnt insulting the entire nation. Ok let me improve on my wording. A great deal of american citizens, mainly the republican psychopaths and by no means the whole country, don't care for the lives of humans who they themselves might refer to as 'sand niggers', 'gooks' etc . Those names have fallen from the mouths of American politicians and i first came accross the terminology courtesy of americans i have met.

as im sure you are aware not all americans are 'yanks' so i wasnt insulting the entire nation. Ok let me improve on my wording. A great deal of american citizens, mainly the republican psychopaths and by no means the whole country, don't care for the lives of humans who they themselves might refer to as 'sand niggers', 'gooks' etc . Those names have fallen from the mouths of American politicians and i first came accross the terminology courtesy of americans i have met.

Yeah, well that is sadly true. Apologies, I thought you were using Yanks as a general pejorative. Loads of people do you know;)

My nation's actions reflect much the same bent TBH. It doesn't mean that the British are all xenophopic murderers though. I suspect that is what the sigh was all about-I know mine was.

Not a day goes by in Britain (hull to be exact) when im not having peoples xenophobic racist attitudes thrust upon me. Death comes indirectly from these attitudes so for me they are as good as murderers. Of course not everyone has these attitudes but it seems to be the consensus around here. The people mean well they are just ignorant, read too many tabloids and drink too much snakebite

I generally only use the term 'yank' to upset the bad americans i meet and sometimes to wind up a canadian friend who is anoying me but with a sense of humour to accept it.

My nation's actions reflect much the same bent TBH. It doesn't mean that the British are all xenophopic murderers though. I suspect that is what the sigh was all about-I know mine was.
And I can say exactly the same. So that our general population don't specifically aim for genocidal behaviour makes it alright? Or makes it non-genocidal?

I don't understand. I agree it's exasparating & extremely sad & grotesque, but I don't get your point.

"Policing of the world?" Hmmm. Perhaps, to a degree. A thankless task at best. As they say, "It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it." It's pretty obvious that most of "the world" is totally incapable of doing it for itself.
I agree completely. Look at how the Europeans are handling an Iran about to go nuclear that has threatened to wipe out Israel. Still, we're not doing much better in N. Korea.

And bombing the snot out of places is a better idea than reforming the UN because...
But setting up a false dillema in an argument is always a good idea, right?

I agree completely. Look at how the Europeans are handling an Iran about to go nuclear that has threatened to wipe out Israel. Still, we're not doing much better in N. Korea.
Well.. Instead of America threatning countries left & right, they could try to use diplomacy & perhaps uphold their bargains.

For example, the previous administration successfully negotiated a deal with N. Korea about nuclear disarmament, in return for help with a civillian nuclear program. To this day, America haven't delivered the expertise & reactor they promised, whereas Kim-Mentally-Ill have upheld his end of the bargain and is currently only threatning to drop it.

Similar things can be said about pretty much any little insane regime on the planet.

And I can say exactly the same. So that our general population don't specifically aim for genocidal behaviour makes it alright? Or makes it non-genocidal?

I don't understand. I agree it's exasparating & extremely sad & grotesque, but I don't get your point.

Semantics I guess, but I was quibbling about the use of the word "yanks". I assumed that the criticism was being levelled against all Americans, when quite clearly it wasn't. What are the practical effects of that? Well, zilch at the moment, but don't you think that Vietnam was influenced by the protesters? The Neo Cons certainly do. All I'm saying (or trying to) is that to judge peoples by the actions of their governments is an act of supreme bigotry, much as Empricism was saying about the particular type of American who would refer to any Arab as towel head or sand ******.

I agree completely. Look at how the Europeans are handling an Iran about to go nuclear that has threatened to wipe out Israel. Still, we're not doing much better in N. Korea.

Well seeing what the US did to a nation that did not have nukes but was part of the axis of evil and how it behaved after N. Korea announced it had I personally wouldn't blame the Iranians to try and make some nukes.
Thing is that there are just 2 nations on the world that are screaming at the top of their lungs that Iran is going for nukes. The one is Israel and the other is the US.
The rest of the world is inclined to believe the IAEA and it's we can go anywhere we want type of investigations in Iran which have resulted in a complete inventory of nuclear materials & processing equipment and where they were used for. All legal uses or planned legal uses which they reported at the times the NPT treaty with additional protocols required them to do.

If anything the European reaction is we know that Iran is not misbehaving but we can't alienate the US more then we've already done.

The main advantage is not from the education received at that level, but from what can be done with it afterwards. American Universities are the best in the world, and it's a lot easier to get into them with a western equivalent qualification.

And your attempt to blame a loss of Arabic cultural values on western education is either

a) a pathetic last ditch attempt to win

b) a shocking and sad testimony to Arabic parenting

c) evidence of the natural strength of western culture
Agreed. Learning math, science, and engineering in a western style university doesn't endanger Arab culture, but saves it from stagnation and decay. It assures that at least some parts of Arab culture and tradition will survive into the future because it's people won't be doomed to starve to death in the desert when the oil runs out.

Anyone who condems American universities in Arab lands is not only biting the hand that feeds but also commiting slow-motion national suicide.

Semantics I guess, but I was quibbling about the use of the word "yanks". I assumed that the criticism was being levelled against all Americans, when quite clearly it wasn't. What are the practical effects of that? Well, zilch at the moment, but don't you think that Vietnam was influenced by the protesters? The Neo Cons certainly do. All I'm saying (or trying to) is that to judge peoples by the actions of their governments is an act of supreme bigotry, much as Empricism was saying about the particular type of American who would refer to any Arab as towel head or sand ******.
I try not to make a habit of judging a people by it's government. It would hardly be fair to accuse the British of being warmongering oil-parasites just because Toney & cronies are, for example. What was it, some 85% of the population who opposed the war?

In the real world, democratic governments rarely have much in common with the people, whose opinions they're supposed to represent.

Still, it's easy to get pissed at Americans, since so many of them take any & all critizism of their government as a personal insult. If the government doesn't represent their veiws, then why are they personally insulted when forigners accuse their regime of being insane?

So if America shut down all its foriegn bases, stopped aid to the world and shut down its borders like the presidents before WW2 wanted to do in the first place. Would that make you happy?

Yes! :D



So like I said. If America where to shut down its borders and become self sufficent, which it is capable of being. Would that please you?

Yes! :D


Would the world economy last without the support of one of the strongest nations in the world?

It would suffer alot.. but in the long run, it would not only recover, but also be without the most wasteful nation on earth :D

If the government doesn't represent their veiws, then why are they personally insulted when forigners accuse their regime of being insane?

Well, it seems to me that there is a certain naivete there with regard to just how much the government represents the people, but the premise stands.
It seems to me that the American government could still get a lot worse, and yet their president now has only a 34% approval rating.
Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist.

actually you are
Vietnam, Korea, Somalia,
Korea was justified by the UN. The US didn't go in alone and most of the world condoned that war. Somalia was justified by Butros Butros Gali and the UN. They went in to feed the people, and the Habr Gidr clan decided to kill UN troops and hijack food shipments to make money and starve their enemies. Our fight in Somalia was justified. We just didn't pursue it ruthlessly or long enough.

what i meant is use of power...
vietname, was a body building tournament for the USA to show its power to the USSR, same as Korea, but we both know how that turned out...

somalia was, to let the world know that the USA is still capable of kicking anyones ass, the gulfwars same idea..
Now I see why you dislike American policy. You have absolutely no understanding of it.

Well, it seems to me that there is a certain naivete there with regard to just how much the government represents the people, but the premise stands.
It seems to me that the American government could still get a lot worse, and yet their president now has only a 34% approval rating.
Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist.
You mean the silly bugger could get drunk & pass out on the big red button? :p

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that when (nearly) all Americans fly into a frenzy when a forigner critisizes policy they don't actually agree with, how can the forigner possibly come to any other conclusion than the American in question must be supporting the policy in question?

These days, it's increasingly rare for me to run into random Americans who aren't punks, Skins or Anarchists, but doesn't defend US forign policy unquestioningly. I hardly ever meet anyone else like that. Most people love to bitch about all the crap their government is doing.

Well.. Instead of America threatning countries left & right, they could try to use diplomacy & perhaps uphold their bargains.

For example, the previous administration successfully negotiated a deal with N. Korea about nuclear disarmament, in return for help with a civillian nuclear program. To this day, America haven't delivered the expertise & reactor they promised, whereas Kim-Mentally-Ill have upheld his end of the bargain and is currently only threatning to drop it.

Similar things can be said about pretty much any little insane regime on the planet.
The threat of war is a part of diplomacy. One must promise rewards for cooperation and punishments for failure to cooperate. The US, under Bush anyway, seems to have forgotten about the non-threatening aspects of diplomacy.

I have seen in many threads people always bad mouthing the US and speaking rather ignorantly about it. Ignorance is not bliss.

So if America shut down all its foriegn bases, stopped aid to the world and shut down its borders like the presidents before WW2 wanted to do in the first place. Would that make you happy? Without the support of America how much more chaos would result as nations that rely on the US are left without support.

Not everyone in America is an ignorant person. Many of us are learned and intelligent. And the comments you people make are just as close minded and narrow as those in the US by inviduals who are unlearned and ignorant. So everything you accuse the US of being you are just as bad if not worse.

So like I said. If America where to shut down its borders and become self sufficent, which it is capable of being. Would that please you? Would the world economy last without the support of one of the strongest nations in the world?


For me, it's not about Americans. It's about people in general. I treat everyone on an individual basis, regardless of race or gender. In the end, it always comes down to each individual's philosophical views. GOD bless!

The threat of war is a part of diplomacy. One must promise rewards for cooperation and punishments for failure to cooperate. The US, under Bush anyway, seems to have forgotten about the non-threatening aspects of diplomacy.Not quite "forgotten":

When asked about the "Carrot and Stick" approach used by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, this man answered:
"I don't do carrots."
Guess who? John Bolton

Well seeing what the US did to a nation that did not have nukes but was part of the axis of evil and how it behaved after N. Korea announced it had I personally wouldn't blame the Iranians to try and make some nukes.
Thing is that there are just 2 nations on the world that are screaming at the top of their lungs that Iran is going for nukes. The one is Israel and the other is the US.
The rest of the world is inclined to believe the IAEA and it's we can go anywhere we want type of investigations in Iran which have resulted in a complete inventory of nuclear materials & processing equipment and where they were used for. All legal uses or planned legal uses which they reported at the times the NPT treaty with additional protocols required them to do.

If anything the European reaction is we know that Iran is not misbehaving but we can't alienate the US more then we've already done.
Iran isn't misbehaving YET. Iran is like a known criminal who's threatened to kill his neighbor walking to the gun store. Europe has decided to wait till he makes his purchase, then will probably decide to wait till he pulls the trigger.

Not quite "forgotten":

When asked about the "Carrot and Stick" approach used by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, this man answered:
"I don't do carrots."
Guess who? John Bolton
Dude, I don't defend Bush. I was happy about John Bolton's appointment, not because I think he'll get anything done, but rather as a slap in the face of the UN, who I dislike almost as much as Bush.

Iran isn't misbehaving YET. Iran is like a known criminal who's threatened to kill his neighbor walking to the gun store. Europe has decided to wait till he makes his purchase, then will probably decide to wait till he pulls the trigger.

Who did they killed? (i.e., which country did they attacked)

Iran isn't misbehaving YET. Iran is like a known criminal who's threatened to kill his neighbor walking to the gun store. Europe has decided to wait till he makes his purchase, then will probably decide to wait till he pulls the trigger.
What would they possibly gain from that?

Right now, the problem is more along these lines: Iran knows it can get some of the technology & investments it so desperately needs, if it dances around the hot topic of nuclear weapons.
America thinks "ah, another midget nation! whack it!". Iran is left in the dilemma "if we get nukes, the US gets us. If we don't get nukes, the US probably gets us without a fight".

I realize almost every simgle American out there thinks their country is some great stabilizing force in the world. You AREN'T. Your leaders have this uncanny gift for turning even relatively uncomplicated diplomacy into possible global catastrophe

Iran isn't misbehaving YET. Iran is like a known criminal who's threatened to kill his neighbor walking to the gun store. Europe has decided to wait till he makes his purchase, then will probably decide to wait till he pulls the trigger.

so are you against the European calm policy, or the American loony one??

Who did they killed? (i.e., which country did they attacked)
Their Hezbollah terrorist proxy army attacked Lebanese christians, American marines and Israeli troops. Hezbollah also established cells in the US southeast.

If you really want to do that, by all means, go ahead. It'd be your loss, primarily.

Hardly anyone thinks all americans are like your current president, but there not all humans are capable of thinking, as you so aptly demonstrate.

Yes, we depend on you. Because the global economy is based on the Dollar. If you guys shut yourself off from the rest of the world, we would most likely switch to the Euro instead. I don't doubt that most of the moneytary interests of the world already wishes we could do that, since frankly, your economic management... ok, that came out wrong.. Economic mismanagement is extraordinary.

You're also the primary cause of armed conflict in the world, and outside the arms industries, noone but you are benefitting from that. It's actually shit for the rest of us, since the result is a lot of lost business opportunities & unstable markets.

No doubt, what you suggest isn't exactly desirable for the rest of the world, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that it's undesirable.

Personally I'd appreciate it if you just stopped murdering everyone & started to make an effort to preserve our biosphere, stop conflicts and so on. You know, acting responsibly, like the world's only superpower ought to.

I'd like to be able to say "just tolerate us for just a another couple of years", till we get rid of the joke of a president (and his administration) that we have in office right now, but I can't say I have alot of faith in our voters at this point. Alot of people care more about owning weapons then they do about leaving a world in which their granchildren can breath the air and drink the water safely. Alot of people care more about cheap gas right now than looking for other types of energy sources that will last for ages and not kill us in the process. Alot of Americans think that we for some odd reason know what is best for every country, spiritualy, politically and economically. While it does not repersent everyone in our country, it's a large, organized, well funded group that knows how to use "scare tactics" to devert attention from the real problems, and works on peoples fears.

Right now, we don't seem to have alot to choose from, but even if we did I'm not sure they would be elected. I'm shocked by some of the "key issues" people have, and because of this I don't know if we are going to get "our head out of our ass" anytime soon.

Sorry, wish I could be more positive. :(

so are you against the European calm policy, or the American loony one??
Both. Iran should be offered nuclear power technology that doesn't allow for weapons manufacture, like Thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors. It should be threatened with an aggressive bombing campaign against it's military sites, nuclear sites, and with assasination of it's political leaders if it chooses to become a nuclear power.

Their Hezbollah terrorist proxy army attacked Lebanese christians, American marines and Israeli troops. Hezbollah also established cells in the US southeast.Hezbollah is, to some extent, independent of Iranian decision-making. Or did the US fight the Russians in Afghanistan?

Hezbollah is, to some extent, independent of Iranian decision-making. Or did the US fight the Russians in Afghanistan?
We used the indigenous people as well as arab mujahadin as a proxy army. They recieved training, equipment, and advice from the US.

Their Hezbollah terrorist proxy army attacked Lebanese christians, American marines and Israeli troops. Hezbollah also established cells in the US southeast.

Your Israeli proxy army attacked Lebanese Muslims, and the US has established bases in Iran's neighbour after a military invasion.

If your argument is true, then Iran has every right to feel threatened, does it not?

Both. Iran should be offered nuclear power technology that doesn't allow for weapons manufacture, like Thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors. It should be threatened with an aggressive bombing campaign against it's military sites, nuclear sites, and with assasination of it's political leaders if it chooses to become a nuclear power.
and thats what iran is trying to do...
but the West wouldnt listen, scared that it might bomb Israel, Not realizing that for Iran to Nuke Israel, it will effect it, and israel also has Nuke's...
so its not fair...
im not saying Iran should have Nukes, but Israel shouldnt too, its not like Israel is a superior nation...

Your Israeli proxy army attacked Lebanese Muslims, and the US has established bases in Iran's neighbour after a military invasion.

If your argument is true, then Iran has every right to feel threatened, does it not?
No. The US is in no condition to invade a country that's larger, more mountainous and just as unfriendly as Iraq. Plus I think even the Bush administration has learned that occupying a foreign nation isn't as easy or cheap as they first thought.

<Snip>

Right now, we don't seem to have alot to choose from, but even if we did I'm not sure they would be elected. I'm shocked by some of the "key issues" people have, and because of this I don't know if we are going to get "our head out of our ass" anytime soon.

Sorry, wish I could be more positive. :(
Actually, I think is quite a positive change to hear someone say that. Sadly I share your bleak outlook, but it shouldn't stop you from trying to communicate with your fellow countrymen. I can't imagine you'd be as unsuccesful as I.
Get involved in politics. With basic concerns like that, I'm tempted to say you owe the rest of us to do it.

Regardless, I'm so glad to see that this mythical American most of us have been going on about, who doesn't explode when his government is critisized, isn't mythical after all. I was seriously starting to doubt you existed.

and thats what iran is trying to do...
but the West wouldnt listen, scared that it might bomb Israel, Not realizing that for Iran to Nuke Israel, it will effect it, and israel also has Nuke's...
so its not fair...
im not saying Iran should have Nukes, but Israel shouldnt too, its not like Israel is a superior nation...
But Israel is a superior nation. First of all Israel is more democratic than Iran. Iranian mullahs decide who can or cannot run for office. Iran punishes people for violating religious laws, Israel doesn't. Israel is superior in those regards.

Also Israel is vulnerable and needs nuclear weapons. It's been attacked by it's neighbors several times in the past and is a small country that could be overrun quickly. Iran fought Iraq once and that's it. Also Iran's a big country with defensive depth. It doesn't need nuclear weapons for self defense.

No. The US is in no condition to invade a country that's larger, more mountainous and just as unfriendly as Iraq. Plus I think even the Bush administration has learned that occupying a foreign nation isn't as easy or cheap as they first thought.

And Iran is in no condition to field nuclear weapons in at least what? five years?

That is enough time for the americans to get out of Iraq and start thinking about those evil Iranians that have made deals to sell oil to the chinese, denominated in euros! The pigs!

And Iran is in no condition to field nuclear weapons in at least what? five years?

That is enough time for the americans to get out of Iraq and start thinking about those evil Iranians that have made deals to sell oil to the chinese, denominated in euros! The pigs!
If the US wanted to invade Iran we've had plenty of chances since the islamic revolution. Remember, Iran wasn't even talked about in the US until Bush decided to use them in his "Axis of Evil". Iran's not making itself safer with nuclear weapons, it's making itself a target that the US can't ignore. I just wish they'd figgure that out.

But Israel is a superior nation. First of all Israel is more democratic than Iran. Iranian mullahs decide who can or cannot run for office. Iran punishes people for violating religious laws, Israel doesn't. Israel is superior in those regards.

Also Israel is vulnerable and needs nuclear weapons. It's been attacked by it's neighbors several times in the past and is a small country that could be overrun quickly. Iran fought Iraq once and that's it. Also Iran's a big country with defensive depth. It doesn't need nuclear weapons for self defense.

hmmm...
you cant assume israel is superior, just for having the same ideology of you,
and i agree iran isnt as democratic as israel, but so is Pakistan and China , i think Iran is more democratic then them, at least they are more used for elections in tehran then in beijing..
as for the security of israel...
if you trust israel with nuclear weapons, you might as well trust Bin laden with them. israel is no different then taliban, the only difference is that Israel is more organized, and is recognized by most powerfull nations in the globe,
israel killed more souls then taliban did, and i mean innocent, no jihadist or islamist, several massacures have been commited by israel in the last 60 years, and not to mention its appauling legitimacy of existance, 4 wars are pretty normal for a situation for israel...

hmmm...
you cant assume israel is superior, just for having the same ideology of you,
and i agree iran isnt as democratic as israel, but so is Pakistan and China , i think Iran is more democratic then them, at least they are more used for elections in tehran then in beijing..
as for the security of israel...
if you trust israel with nuclear weapons, you might as well trust Bin laden with them. israel is no different then taliban, the only difference is that Israel is more organized, and is recognized by most powerfull nations in the globe,
israel killed more souls then taliban did, and i mean innocent, no jihadist or islamist, several massacures have been commited by israel in the last 60 years, and not to mention its appauling legitimacy of existance, 4 wars are pretty normal for a situation for israel...
Personally I don't think Pakistan or China should have nukes either, but what can we do?

Comparing Israel with the Taliban, who sponsored attacks aimed directly at civilians and who executed women for the crime of being raped or with Bin Laden, who organized the killing of 3000 civilians on 9/11 and called for at least 4 million American civilians to be killed is obscene. Israel actually has gone out of it's way to reduce civilian casualties among Palestinians. Many of the supposed massacres were lies used by the Palestinians to tarnish Israel's reputation and to win support from overseas.

Personally I don't think Pakistan or China should have nukes either, but what can we do?

Comparing Israel with the Taliban, who sponsored attacks aimed directly at civilians and who executed women for the crime of being raped or with Bin Laden, who organized the killing of 3000 civilians on 9/11 and called for at least 4 million American civilians to be killed is obscene. Israel actually has gone out of it's way to reduce civilian casualties among Palestinians. Many of the supposed massacres were lies used by the Palestinians to tarnish Israel's reputation and to win support from overseas.

israel has violated several cease fires
lots of massacrures that you say they are fake, are real, but im assuming you mean jenin, maybe your media doesnt show you that stuff, since CNN, NBC are with israeli and anti-arabs, our media showed us Israeli troops taking dead bodies from jenin, so the foreign inspectors find only demolished houses,
... for gods sake where is your logic people, who the hell do you think Lived in these houses???

did you ever hear about sabra and shatila, look it up on yahoo or google, preferably with images so youd understand what i mean...

as for China-pakistan, iran isnt seeking Nuclear weapons, it announced that its only a Nuclear power plant, and allowed inspectores to pay them a visite any time they want...

and btw if israelis had the chance to kill 300 million arabs they would take it...

Israelis are as deadly as bin laden, the difference is that they are too sneaky to say so, ofcourse not all israelis are as bad but its gradual..

Personally I don't think Pakistan or China should have nukes either, but what can we do?

And yet the USA is justifiably entitled to nucleur armaments because they are not controlled by a belligerent warmongerer?

Or is it due to the fact that both Pakistan and China are militant nations with a history of invading nations for their own ends whilst utilising the pre-text of altruism?

Or just perhaps, do you fear the repriasls that would be enacted upon the USA were other, less obseisquient naions to be afforded nucleur armaments?

Personally I don't think Pakistan or China should have nukes either, but what can we do?

Comparing Israel with the Taliban, who sponsored attacks aimed directly at civilians and who executed women for the crime of being raped or with Bin Laden, who organized the killing of 3000 civilians on 9/11 and called for at least 4 million American civilians to be killed is obscene. Israel actually has gone out of it's way to reduce civilian casualties among Palestinians. Many of the supposed massacres were lies used by the Palestinians to tarnish Israel's reputation and to win support from overseas.
Are you saying that the Israeli Apartheid regime is somehow to be trusted with nukes when Iran isn't? Excuse me, but that's what I'd call obscene.

Israel carries out assasinations on palestinian civilians & PA personel on a regular basis, and pretty much always have. Israel have stolen anything worthwhile in Palestine, and while they have, to the casual observer, complied with several of the points outlined in the 'Roadmap to PEace', they have not actually done anything but bend & break the rules. If the number of outstanding UN resolutions is an argument for going to war, the Israel would've been the logical target, not Iraq.
More settlements, greater military presense, stricter apartheid laws, more assinations, greater displacements of local populations, more devatsation of infrastructure and an increasing number of thefts of land & resources, is all Israel have done to comply with the stinking Roadmap.

Israel never needed nukes to defend themselves. They have unflinching military support from a power so vast, it is greater than the combined armed forces of the rest of the planet. They have the USofA.
If you don't buy that argument, then think back to what actually happened in every war the state of Israel have been involved in.
And then remember that only Israel & America knew Israel possesed fully functional nuclear weapons for somewhere between 2-5 years, before it became known to the rest of the world.
If Israel was interested in nukes for defense, they would have leaked more or less all information, with proof, as soon as they had a functioning nuclear weapons program.

DCD, I truely hope you are drunk.

if you trust israel with nuclear weapons, you might as well trust Bin laden with them. israel is no different then taliban, the only difference is that Israel is more organized, and is recognized by most powerfull nations in the globe, Right, two questions:
How long have Israelis had nuclear weapons? and How often have they dropped the bomb on someone?
Answer those questions and you'll see why I would trust Israel more than bin Laden.

And yet the USA is justifiably entitled to nucleur armaments because they are not controlled by a belligerent warmongerer?

Or is it due to the fact that both Pakistan and China are militant nations with a history of invading nations for their own ends whilst utilising the pre-text of altruism?

Or just perhaps, do you fear the repriasls that would be enacted upon the USA were other, less obseisquient naions to be afforded nucleur armaments?
China's threatened to use them over Taiwan. Pakistan's been known to sell nuclear technology and is one bullet with Musharraf's name on it away from being taken over by radical islamists. Excuse me for being uncomfortable with their nuclear arsenals.

and btw if israelis had the chance to kill 300 million arabs they would take it...

Israelis are as deadly as bin laden, the difference is that they are too sneaky to say so, ofcourse not all israelis are as bad but its gradual..

and yet I would surmise that Arabs have, both in terms of the proportion of the Israeli popuace, and the figures themselves, slain more Israelis than the Israeli'shave slain Arabs. No doubt you would laud any invasion of Israel by the Arab world, yet deplore any Isareli couner invasion when its forces superceded those of the Arab in open conflict, when not fighting the Isareli civilans.

Can you truly, in all sincerity, claim Israel and its populace to be equally malign as Osama Bin Laden? Bin Laden cowers in squalid cave, with intentions to revenge a people against fraudulent transgressions through attacking civilians, the Israelis, however, merely seek to maintain peace and a reasonablr quality of life in a homeland that was originally theirs. And yet, somehow I envisage you opposing such a notion since the "infidel" has no right to a quality of life.

China's threatened to use them over Taiwan. Pakistan's been known to sell nuclear technology and is one bullet with Musharraf's name on it away from being taken over by radical islamists. Excuse me for being uncomfortable with their nuclear arsenals.

How many small live in abject terror of the American nucleur stock and military invasion, or economic embargo?

Are you saying that the Israeli Apartheid regime is somehow to be trusted with nukes when Iran isn't? Excuse me, but that's what I'd call obscene.

Israel carries out assasinations on palestinian civilians & PA personel on a regular basis, and pretty much always have. Israel have stolen anything worthwhile in Palestine, and while they have, to the casual observer, complied with several of the points outlined in the 'Roadmap to PEace', they have not actually done anything but bend & break the rules. If the number of outstanding UN resolutions is an argument for going to war, the Israel would've been the logical target, not Iraq.
More settlements, greater military presense, stricter apartheid laws, more assinations, greater displacements of local populations, more devatsation of infrastructure and an increasing number of thefts of land & resources, is all Israel have done to comply with the stinking Roadmap.

Israel never needed nukes to defend themselves. They have unflinching military support from a power so vast, it is greater than the combined armed forces of the rest of the planet. They have the USofA.
If you don't buy that argument, then think back to what actually happened in every war the state of Israel have been involved in.
And then remember that only Israel & America knew Israel possesed fully functional nuclear weapons for somewhere between 2-5 years, before it became known to the rest of the world.
If Israel was interested in nukes for defense, they would have leaked more or less all information, with proof, as soon as they had a functioning nuclear weapons program.

DCD, I truely hope you are drunk.
Are those Palestinian civilians you're talking about perhaps the leaders of Hamas and other terrorist organizations?

As for apartheid, where does that accusation that come from? Muslim Arabs living in Israel have the same rights and protection under the law as Jews.

Israel doesn't count on US protection because they know that the US might, under certain leaders, choose to abandon Israel if the oil supply is threatened. It's not a decision I would agree with, but it's one I could see being made by some politicians. That's why they need nuclear weapons. Over the vast history of the Jewish people they've learned that they can truly rely on nobody but themselves for their safety.

How many small live in abject terror of the American nucleur stock and military invasion, or economic embargo?
small what?

small what?

nations, so sorry, speed typing:)

nations, so sorry, speed typing:)
Small nations that don't sponsor terrorist attacks against us or butcher their own people have nothing to worry about. Ask the average resident of Mali, Beliz, or Luxemborg if they're particularly worried about US troops marching down their street. Who's worried? Sudan, Syria, Iran, N. Korea. Maybe you can tell something about a country's character by who it's enemies are.

Small nations that don't sponsor terrorist attacks against us or butcher their own people have nothing to worry about. Ask the average resident of Mali, Beliz, or Luxemborg if they're particularly worried about US troops marching down their street. Who's worried? Sudan, Syria, Iran, N. Korea. Maybe you can tell something about a country's character by who it's enemies are.

Yet what gives you the right to assume a moral high ground over every othe rnation on earth, and invade all those whose conduct is not concurrent to your ends?

Incidentally, I notice Arabic Democratic States is gone:p

Are those Palestinian civilians you're talking about perhaps the leaders of Hamas and other terrorist organizations?

As for apartheid, where does that accusation that come from? Muslim Arabs living in Israel have the same rights and protection under the law as Jews.

Israel doesn't count on US protection because they know that the US might, under certain leaders, choose to abandon Israel if the oil supply is threatened. It's not a decision I would agree with, but it's one I could see being made by some politicians. That's why they need nuclear weapons. Over the vast history of the Jewish people they've learned that they can truly rely on nobody but themselves for their safety.
YEs, because blowing up half a city block with an American Apatche helicopter, that they haven't even payed for, killing women, children, PA officers and whatever else is nearby, is clearly hunting for Hammas.

It's fucking terrorism, and the agenda is population control. And it's bought & payed for by your glorious leaders.

Israel wouldn't exist if it wasn't for US backing. The country would go broke & dissolve in internal powerstruggles, assuming their nukes was enough to hold the Arabs at bay. Nukes makes no defensivesense to Israel. Their enemies are so close to them it's not even a viable defence strategy, at least if self-preservation is the goal.

Where do the Apartheid accusations come from? Hmm.. Well I call it as I see it. I know more polite international organisations calls it segregation. To be, segregation policies where people are shot for not submitting, is an apartheid regime.

I'm not sure I hope you're right about US backing of Israel. But I know I'd be a whole lot less suprised if the Moon suddenly fell on my head.

Why don't you go dig up some info on what that two-bit racist terror regime is actually doing, instead of just reciting US media?

Yet what gives you the right to assume a moral high ground over every othe rnation on earth, and invade all those whose conduct is not concurrent to your ends?

Incidentally, I notice Arabic Democratic States is gone:p
I don't assume a moral high ground over every nation. I do assume a moral high ground over Sudan, because my country isn't on it's second genocidal war in two decades. Also N. Korea because we're not starving our people and killing them if they complain. I wouldn't assume a moral high ground over for example Norway. They're actually more civilize than the US.

YEs, because blowing up half a city block with an American Apatche helicopter, that they haven't even payed for, killing women, children, PA officers and whatever else is nearby, is clearly hunting for Hammas.

It's fucking terrorism, and the agenda is population control. And it's bought & payed for by your glorious leaders.

Israel wouldn't exist if it wasn't for US backing. The country would go broke & dissolve in internal powerstruggles, assuming their nukes was enough to hold the Arabs at bay. Nukes makes no defensivesense to Israel. Their enemies are so close to them it's not even a viable defence strategy, at least if self-preservation is the goal.

Where do the Apartheid accusations come from? Hmm.. Well I call it as I see it. I know more polite international organisations calls it segregation. To be, segregation policies where people are shot for not submitting, is an apartheid regime.

I'm not sure I hope you're right about US backing of Israel. But I know I'd be a whole lot less suprised if the Moon suddenly fell on my head.

Why don't you go dig up some info on what that two-bit racist terror regime is actually doing, instead of just reciting US media?
If it's population control it's not working. Palestinians outbreed Jews. Accusations of genocide by Israel have been debunked on this board before. I'm not going to do it again.

Israel is at the cutting edge of civilian and military technology. They wouldn't go broke without the US. They'd have less money, but they'd still have customers around the world for their products.

It's segregation to keep non-Israelis citizens outside Israel's borders? That's apartheid? Do try to make some sense.

I don't assume a moral high ground over every nation. I do assume a moral high ground over Sudan, because my country isn't on it's second genocidal war in two decades. Also N. Korea because we're not starving our people and killing them if they complain. I wouldn't assume a moral high ground over for example Norway. They're actually more civilize than the US.

Who are you, or the USA, to judge another nation in any manner? Have you not commited war crimes? So why assume a moral high ground and inform others they cannot?

If America where to shut down its borders and become self sufficent, which it is capable of being.

we CLEARLY do not have enough oil to last us even 10 more years. Also we need national coalitions in order to create alternative means of non fossil fuel energies.

Who are you, or the USA, to judge another nation in any manner? Have you not commited war crimes? So why assume a moral high ground and inform others they cannot?
I'm a sensible person who doesn't regard genocidal maniacs as equal to nations that have forced a couple of prisoners to cross-dress.

A program of organized rape and massacre clearly outweighs some pee on a koran. Yeah, I think we're better than the Sudanese.

A public policy of executing homosexuals and persecuting Baha'i is far worse than a public policy of executing convicted killers. Yes. We're better than Iran.

I never said our hands were clean, just that they're not as filthy as those of our enemies, and those who are better than us have nothing to fear from our military.

I'm a sensible person who doesn't regard genocidal maniacs as equal to nations that have forced a couple of prisoners to cross-dress.

A program of organized rape and massacre clearly outweighs some pee on a koran. Yeah, I think we're better than the Sudanese.

A public policy of executing homosexuals and persecuting Baha'i is far worse than a public policy of executing convicted killers. Yes. We're better than Iran.

I never said our hands were clean, just that they're not as filthy as those of our enemies, and those who are better than us have nothing to fear from our military.

Once more, why do you have any justifiable right to rectify any genocide? You cannot be a global policr force (you do try), nor are you welcome as one?

The colonial powers acted solely for their own ends, and are more lauded than you are for acting out of self-indulgent, fraudulent altruism, on behalf of freedom and liberty.

I'd just like to point out for the record, that using the term 'aparthied' in reference to Israel has got to be about the stupidest political analogy I've ever heard. That's like calling the Kurds nazis. Don't be quite so ridiculous, please--especially since every 'civilized' nation has committed war crimes at some point in their history...and usually against their own people.

A public policy of executing homosexuals and persecuting Baha'i is far worse than a public policy of executing convicted killers. Yes. We're better than Iran.


Ah in fairness.... you don't keep great company with regards executions...


Since 2000, only five countries are known to have executed juvenile offenders: China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Pakistan, and the USA. 13 of these 21 executions have been in the USA

The execution of those with mental illness or "the insane" is clearly prohibited by international law and virtually every country in the world. Despite these standards, and constitutional law, the USA continues to execute people with diagnosed schizophrenia, those that suffer from severe delusions, and others with clinically-labeled mental illnesses.

Once more, why do you have any justifiable right to rectify any genocide? You cannot be a global policr force (you do try), nor are you welcome as one?

The colonial powers acted solely for their own ends, and are more lauded than you are for acting out of self-indulgent, fraudulent altruism, on behalf of freedom and liberty.
Then who will be the global police force? Who will push back the tide of barbarism and bring civilization? Someone has to do it for the good of all mankind. Most European nations are unwilling to shoulder the burden. Should we abandon little girls to honor killings? Should we let gays be killed because of the way they were born? Should we allow free expression to be muzzled by violence?

If it's population control it's not working. Palestinians outbreed Jews. Accusations of genocide by Israel have been debunked on this board before. I'm not going to do it again.

Israel is at the cutting edge of civilian and military technology. They wouldn't go broke without the US. They'd have less money, but they'd still have customers around the world for their products.

It's segregation to keep non-Israelis citizens outside Israel's borders? That's apartheid? Do try to make some sense.
The segregation, by all non-Israeli accounts, perpetuate all aspects of living, within or without occupied territorries. You also forget that the Palestinian territories have been completely seperated by Israeli settlements etc. As it is, you're only not submitted to segregation laws, under the threat of summary execution, when you're within the confines of your own home, or some snotty 500 people village. Do try to make some sense.

And I apologise about calling it population control. I mean't crowd control. And it does work somewhat. Especially since it keeps Israeli citizens in a state of panic & helps the rightwing loons to maintain power over a deeply torn nation.

Israel's economy is a pile of shit. Sure, it's a technologically advanced nation, but only because you subsidise their asses off. Look it up. Find one economic analysis of Israel that indicates it has a snowballs chance in hell of continuing to exist without continued massive US funding.
That's, by the way, what the majority of your 'forign aid' goes to. I read in a recent study that something like 65% of the American voters believed that the two sides got nearly equal funding, and that they strongly felt they should. That's pure imagination on the part of the American voters, so I figured you might want to know, just in case you didn't.

Basically Israel doesn't generate enough money to pay for their own expenses. They have staggering unemployment amongst the native minorities, and sky high social/welfare spendings. And since they treat even the local minorities like subhuman scum, there's tons of dissidents on both sides of the political spectrum. The nation is as fucked up as it's policies.

Do not take this to mean that the PA, and Arab support of the PA, is any less shit, but making Israel out to be a modern 1st world style democracy is not exactly something a sane person would do.

FYI, I'm off for the day, so don't expect any immediate response from me.

Then who will be the global police force? Who will push back the tide of barbarism and bring civilization? Someone has to do it for the good of all mankind. Most European nations are unwilling to shoulder the burden. Should we abandon little girls to honor killings? Should we let gays be killed because of the way they were born? Should we allow free expression to be muzzled by violence?

The world resents a global police force. Please maintain a facade no longer, it is America's fraudulently conceived view of itself as a global enforcer, and according conduct, that has engendered Islamic extremism. Afford the woprld the capacity to develop according to its moral code, to its fath, and its sentiments, not yours. Would you, a citizen of a regressed nation, welcome the presence of an overtly masculate, right wing nation concerned with its own hypocritical morals, and the imposition of suchmorals upon your nation?

Why does the world need a police force? Ultimately humanity will act in its interest, for self aggrandising ends, why deny and refute such a motive?

The world resents a global police force. Please maintain a facade no longer, it is America's fraudulently conceived view of itself as a global enforcer, and according conduct, that has engendered Islamic extremism. Afford the woprld the capacity to develop according to its moral code, to its fath, and its sentiments, not yours. Would you, a citizen of a regressed nation, welcome the presence of an overtly masculate, right wing nation concerned with its own hypocritical morals, and the imposition of suchmorals upon your nation?

Why does the world need a police force? Ultimately humanity will act in its interest, for self aggrandising ends, why deny and refute such a motive?
Islamic extremism existed before the US started backing Israel. It existed long before US troops were stationed in Saudi. Saying that US conduct started Islamic extremism shows ignorance of the roots of such extremist groups and their writings. It's true that they don't like our current policies, but they've never liked us. Appeasing them won't keep them from hating us.

If the morals of a nation include the idea that it's ok to kill homosexuals for their orientation, persecute people of other religions, ban free speech, keep women in second class citizen status, and stoning women and children to death for "immodesty" then I honestly don't care what they think of the morals we impose upon them.

Then who will be the global police force? Who will push back the tide of barbarism and bring civilization? Someone has to do it for the good of all mankind.

haha i thought you were joking, but your serious. Barbarism? Civlization? haha many would contend that our "civil" civilization is not one at all. Our civilization comes at the expense of other "less fortunate" nations.

I have seen in many threads people always bad mouthing the US and speaking rather ignorantly about it. Ignorance is not bliss.

So if America shut down all its foriegn bases, stopped aid to the world and shut down its borders like the presidents before WW2 wanted to do in the first place. Would that make you happy? Without the support of America how much more chaos would result as nations that rely on the US are left without support.

Not everyone in America is an ignorant person. Many of us are learned and intelligent. And the comments you people make are just as close minded and narrow as those in the US by inviduals who are unlearned and ignorant. So everything you accuse the US of being you are just as bad if not worse.

So like I said. If America where to shut down its borders and become self sufficent, which it is capable of being. Would that please you? Would the world economy last without the support of one of the strongest nations in the world?

Very true, that's why America (USA) is asking for a passport control with Canada.
That's why the French (cowards as said in USA) does not care about USA with no problems for a number of years..

USA is not the centre of the world but its trouble. USA is not the people but the administration and the NSA governors.

Yes Americans (USA) are not very good in Geo-politics, they too much navel self centered. How could they understand a truth which is not in their favor?

Why am I trying to talk to a deaf man? Maybe coz I've nothing to say...

:fluffle:

haha i thought you were joking, but your serious. Barbarism? Civlization? haha many would contend that our "civil" civilization is not one at all. Our civilization comes at the expense of other "less fortunate" nations.
Why would you think I was joking? What makes you think I don't want to change our policy of globalization to bring more justice and protection to foreign workers?

AHHH! I hate these threads!
Very few people are America haters.

i agree with you on this, its just that the ones who are are very loud spoken individuals.