NationStates Jolt Archive

Sarcasm to be exact.

If Milosevic was such a non-event, why bother crying to the US?

Oh, right, NATO.

The US controls NATO, but don't let that stop you...



NATO has no power any more. Also if I remeber rightly it was a decision by the members of NATO to go to war, not a decision to come to the US for help.

... but that is still not as scary as having a madman as the president of the most powerful nation on earth.

Give it a rest.

Your hyperbole makes any other of your words that much less meaningful.

Also, remember that although there has not been a single terror attack in the USA

That's a good thing.

there has been on American troops in the Middle East

Those attacks are from an insurgency, not terrorism.

and on other countries such as Britain and Spain.

Those would be Britain's and Spain's problems.

Spain hadled it right nicely, wouldn't you say? They surrender and no more attacks.

Also, there was a plot to blow up British planes overAmerican cities only months ago.

And, the plot was stopped.

Your point?

If you support Bush because you feel safer you don't seem to have much understaning over how much more dangerous the world is now becuase of his Iraq policy.

Safety is not the responsibility of the US government. Neither is the danger level of the rest of the world.

I support Bush because he is the President of the United States.

I dont like America as a country or their policies but so far Ive liked all the Americans Ive talked to. The accents bug the hell out of me though lol

China is spreading its influence whilst America's influence and respect seems to shrink every day.

C'est la vie.

But, as soon as the world needs help from a country bent on domination, they'll came back to us.

For myself, as long as the US is secure, I'm not all that concerned about the rest of the world.

NATO has no power any more.

Yeah.

That must be why Eastern Europen nations are clamoring to join.

Also if I remeber rightly it was a decision by the members of NATO to go to war, not a decision to come to the US for help.

If the US doesn't want NATO to do something, NATO ain't doin' it...

So, the RAF was given a breather and Operation See Lowe had to be called off.
Seelöwe was called off because the RAF managed to outperform the Luftwaffe in a couple of occasions - shooting down most of the German bombers involved in operations against British homeland. Plus, the Axis was invading Greece, the Balkans and the British Egypt at the time - they were already on more fronts.


But, it would've been only a matter of time - had the US not intervened - before Germany would've taken Britain down, either via a German dominated peace or conquest.
France, if you recall, had already surrendered to Germany. Fat lot of good they were.


Forgetting the largest army of the world at the time, aren't you? CCCP.


Russia was also lucky through German blunders. And, a two front war. Had Hitler only the Eastern Front to contend with, with a powerful Japan starting a second front on Russia's East, Russia would not have withstood.

Also Germany was lucky because of Stalin blunders. But the real turn of war was at Stalingrad, at the siege of Leningrad, and at Kursk.
Also, remember the Ardennes in 1944. A bunch of little boys armed with the latest german tanks were almost able to stop the allied advance on the german west border. US tanks and infantry were totally outperformed, and it was mainly because the Nazis had the Soviets rolling in from east and their supply lines cut off by bombers that the counterattack failed.


And, much of Russia's survival depended upon US Lend Lease. The US kept the Allies alive. And, we didn't have to. We were safe from Germany. There's no way Germany could've logistically supported any sort of invasion force to the US. Look how long the D-Day invasion had to prepare with an allied nation to stage from and only the Channel in the way. Where would Germany have staged an invasion from? Cherbourg? Dunkerque? Across 3,000 miles of ocean? With our land-based aircraft to defend the coast along with a respectable naval presence?

Nope, if you look at the papers, the US Lend-Lease act gave CCCP very few weapons - I mean modern weapons able to fight against Nazi tech.
Also, the Germans in 1943 were preparing:
a long-range bomber able to strike all over the Atlantic and return to France
a long-range ballistic missile (sort of a super V2) named "Amerika" (guess why?)
So, in a three or four years, they would've had the technical capability to invade the US. Not that they needed that: the US would have made a truce way before, remember that Nazi simpathy in the US was quite widespread in some very influential political groups (take Lindbergh for example).


I do not ignore any lost lives. However, had the US not joined in, had we stuck to fighting Japan - the ones who attacked us, but were put on the back-burner until Hitler was taken care of - do you honestly think that the Swastika would not be flying, at least, from Poland to the Channel; from the Baltic to North Africa?

More likely, the Red Flag would be flying. And I don't think that the US soldiers and seamen who fought at Midway, Sulu, Tarawa, Iwo Jima would agree that Japan was put on the back-burner...


We may not have been there long, but we were instrumental, if not decisive, to Germany's defeat. Had we not shown up, I suspect the extant stalemate would've led to a ceasefire, followed by a nasty dust-up maybe a decade later That Germany, I believe, would've won.

The D-Day was requested by Stalin and promised by Roosevelt and Churchill for 1943. The allied invasion took place 1 year later. At the same time:
Germany and Mussolini's fascist Italy were about to lose central Italy (mainly because of Montgomery)
Tito was freeing the Balkans without any support
Soviet armies were about to reach Warsaw
Most cities in Germany and northern Italy were under bomber attacks every night

So, I don't think that the D-Day was exactly "decisive" in the defeat of Nazi Germany. It was "decisive" in preventing CCCP from reaching Paris and controlling the whole Europe.

added: look at the numbers. Soviet military losses: more than 12 M. German military losses: about 5 M. US military losses: 600k.

[QUOTE=King Bodacious;11957241] I say it's time America focuses on America first. [QUOTE]

Doesn't it do that anyway?

Ha!

The only reason France aided us was as an attempt to deprive Britain of the colonies. Louis full and well intended to simply replace Britain as the colony's overlord. To that end, France would deny much needed loans to further the Cause so as to keep the colonies under control.

Fortunately, Denmark came through for us and provided monies when others woud not.

Denmark was our true ally, not France.
France gave soldiers, ships, weapons and money, but because they could have given more, they were worh less than Denmark? That doesn't make sence. It seems to bother you that France helped US in a war.

And Denmark and France were far from the only one aiding the US.

C'est la vie.

But, as soon as the world needs help from a country bent on domination, they'll came back to us.

For myself, as long as the US is secure, I'm not all that concerned about the rest of the world.

Why use America to save the world from America? Its like asking Britain to defend the world from Britain during its empire days. America is only secure as long as it controls the worlds oil supplies - hence attcks on Iraq, threats against Iran and Venezuala and America's disregard for the threat of global warming.

There may be crazy people in Korea and Iran but that is still not as scary as having a madman as the president of the most powerful nation on earth. Bush has used the excuse of furthering democracy and removing dictators to gain more oil for America and allow the US to control the Middle East.

Oh, puhlease.

Also, remember that although there has not been a single terror attack in the USA, there has been on American troops in the Middle East and on other countries such as Britain and Spain. Also, there was a plot to blow up British planes overAmerican cities only months ago.

This is an argument to ramp down anti-terrorist activities? Show your belly? Leave them alone until next time it is a nuke in London or a biological attack in Madrid?

If you support Bush because you feel safer you don't seem to have much understaning over how much more dangerous the world is now becuase of his Iraq policy.

The Islamic jihadists were not sitting around playing beer pong prior to the Iraq invasion. They were training in camps to murder civilians, plotting and carrying out 9-11, plotting and carrying out embassy bombings and the Cole attack, etc all through the 90s.

You can squinch your eyes tight but that won't make them go away.

This is an argument to ramp down anti-terrorist activities? Show your belly? Leave them alone until next time it is a nuke in London or a biological attack in Madrid?



The Islamic jihadists were not sitting around playing beer pong prior to the Iraq invasion. They were training in camps to murder civilians, plotting and carrying out 9-11, plotting and carrying out embassy bombings and the Cole attack, etc all through the 90s.

You can squinch your eyes tight but that won't make them go away.

I never said stop combating terrorists, I have no problem with the war in Afghanistan as I belive it was necessary. However, there is no connnection between Iraq and Al Qaeda except that there seems to be a bigger threat from Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups after Iraq.
I know that there were other terrorists attacks before 9/11 such as the car bomb outside the WTC. However, the Iraq war has only made these groups more abundant.

Also, if America is so anti-terrorism, explain why they helped fund the IRA throughout the 70's and 80's despite their terrorist attcks upon Britian?

Seelöwe was called off because the RAF managed to outperform the Luftwaffe in a couple of occasions...

From all I've read in thirty years, the decision by Germany to divert the Luftwaffe from bombing military targets and focus on civilian, due to the British bombing of Berlin, was the overriding reason that Germany failed.

Forgetting the largest army of the world at the time, aren't you? CCCP.

Nope.

Also Germany was lucky because of Stalin blunders.

True. Stalin telling his forces not to fire on German invaders at the beginning of the invasion was quite fortuitous.

But the real turn of war was at Stalingrad, at the siege of Leningrad, and at Kursk. And, I believe, had it not been for the US having entered the war, forcing Germany to expend resources in the West, they could have focused more on the East and withstood, if not taken, Russia.

Also, remember the Ardennes in 1944. A bunch of little boys armed with the latest german tanks were almost able to stop the allied advance on the german west border. US tanks and infantry were totally outperformed, and it was mainly because the Nazis had the Soviets rolling in from east and their supply lines cut off by bombers that the counterattack failed.

I remember. And, again, without the US, there'd've been no Ardennes and the Germans coud've put the vast majority of their effort on the East.

Nope, if you look at the papers, the US Lend-Lease act gave CCCP very few weapons - I mean modern weapons able to fight against Nazi tech.

Weapons are a small part of war. The largest consideration is logistics. Without supplies, Russia was going nowhere. Lend Lease gave the Soviets much needed supplies.

Also, the Germans in 1943 were preparing:
a long-range bomber able to strike all over the Atlantic and return to France

Yeah, the Condor. Let's assume it worked perfectly, even carrying a useful bombload across the Atlantic. What fighters would escort it and defend against the swarms of fighters US industry would've put out?

German industry was no where near as robust as that of the US, and their fighters were ripping our unescorted bombers to shreds. Bombers that only had to fly mere hundreds of miles, rather than thousands.

But, let's assume they magically succeeded in bombing the US. How would they support a lifeline across the Atlantic to prosecute an invasion?

a long-range ballistic missile (sort of a super V2) named "Amerika" (guess why?)

Experimental - not operational. With what payload? Besides, had the US not entered the war, would the weapon have been developed in the first place? Or, would it be called the "Russia?" Russia's a lot closer, meaning a bigger payload.

So, in a three or four years, they would've had the technical capability to invade the US.

Again, kept alive by what 3,000-mile supply line?

Not that they needed that: the US would have made a truce way before, remember that Nazi simpathy in the US was quite widespread in some very influential political groups (take Lindbergh for example).

"Truce" implies a pre-existing conflict. Without the conflict, there might have been a non-aggression pact, like Germany had with the Soviets. But, it would have been more effective since the Atlantic provided a pretty good barrier against a surprise invasion.

More likely, the Red Flag would be flying.

Possibly. Maybe 33% as opposed to 66% for swastikas. My guess, anyway.

And I don't think that the US soldiers and seamen who fought at Midway, Sulu, Tarawa, Iwo Jima would agree that Japan was put on the back-burner...

Regardless of their agreement, facts are facts. Roosevelt saw Hitler as the greater threat and put more US resources towards defeating him, than Japan.

So, I don't think that the D-Day was exactly "decisive" in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

I believe it was. It forced a second front on Germany. I do not believe that the Soviets could've succeeded without it.

It was "decisive" in preventing CCCP from reaching Paris and controlling the whole Europe.

Again, possibly.

But, the bottomline would be, Europe under someone's boot had the US not intervened.

There are some nice thought out discussions going on here. But, I don't think Europe would have been under Nazi rule had the U.S. not helped out. It would just taken a long time to get there without their help, even with crap Sherman tanks. I believe it was a team effort and Germany would not been able to take Russia especially with such poor timing. The tide was turning and it would have just been a matter of time before Hitler was sent to the next life.

France gave soldiers, ships, weapons and money, but because they could have given more, they were worh less than Denmark? That doesn't make sence. It seems to bother you that France helped US in a war.

France GAVE nothing.

France did not want the colonies to be independent, they wanted them to be French. France didn't even formalize the deal until 1778, after we had won at Saratoga. They may have seen the writing on the wall.

France's motive was to get England out of the New World.

Denmark had no such motive.

And Denmark and France were far from the only one aiding the US.

Who else?

Spain and the Netherlands are all that I am aware of.

Spain, only because of treaty obligations to France. But, even so, they refused to recognize our independence because they didn't want to foment similar attitudes in their colonies.

The Netherlands didn't get involved militarily until 1780. They had been providing money earlier, but their motive was also simply to dilute British power.

France GAVE nothing.

France did not want the colonies to be independent, they wanted them to be French. France didn't even formalize the deal until 1778, after we had won at Saratoga. They may have seen the writing on the wall.

France's motive was to get England out of the New World.

Denmark had no such motive.

Who else?

Spain and the Netherlands are all that I am aware of.

Spain, only because of treaty obligations to France. But, even so, they refused to recognize our independence because they didn't want to foment similar attitudes in their colonies.

The Netherlands didn't get involved militarily until 1780. They had been providing money earlier, but their motive was also simply to dilute British power.
And what did the colonials want? To get England out of the New World.

Same as France.

But, I don't think Europe would have been under Nazi rule had the U.S. not helped out.

An alternative was provided; under Stalinist rule. That was a distinct possibility, too. Though, I think Nazi rule was more likely.

It would just taken a long time to get there without their help, even with crap Sherman tanks.

Without US supplies and resources, how would England have launched a successful invasion of France?

The Sherman may have been crap, but it was there. Where was England going to get steel to build Centurions? U-boats were strangling them and would have cut off imports. As far as I know, England doesn't have a burgeoning domestic iron ore resource.

As for the Sherman, it's biggest advantage was its numbers.

Sure, the Germans could knock them out, but for each knocked out, there were three to five to replace it. For every Pz IV, V or VI knocked out, there were none to replace them.

I believe it was a team effort and Germany would not been able to take Russia especially with such poor timing. The tide was turning and it would have just been a matter of time before Hitler was sent to the next life.

The tide was there because of US impetus.

And what did the colonials want? To get England out of the New World.

Same as France.

Oi...

The colonials didn't want a removed Britain replaced by French masters.

France did.

There are some nice thought out discussions going on here. But, I don't think Europe would have been under Nazi rule had the U.S. not helped out.

Actually, Germany declared war on the US. I know they still helped out, but it was easier to quote you :p many people on here seem to think the US declared war on Germany.

Actually, Germany declared war on the US. I know they still helped out, but it was easier to quote you :p many people on here seem to think the US declared war on Germany.

Good point my friend.

Actually, Germany declared war on the US. I know they still helped out, but it was easier to quote you :p many people on here seem to think the US declared war on Germany.

I don't know of a single person who thinks we declared war on Germany.

However, this was an oversight on my part earlier when I disputed the use of the term "truce."

Technically, "truce" could be used, though it implies - to me, anyway - that some sort of combat has taken place.

I know that there were other terrorists attacks before 9/11 such as the car bomb outside the WTC. However, the Iraq war has only made these groups more abundant.

More abundant? What is your data for that? Maybe some of the jihad nuts had to resort to backpack boms instead of continiung their training in hijacking and worse in Afghanistan. I'll take the impotent young thugs plotting in a basement over the terrorist getting well-funded training any day.

And, by the way, Saddam's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is well documents, so he didn't have clean hands on Arab terrorism.

Also, if America is so anti-terrorism, explain why they helped fund the IRA throughout the 70's and 80's despite their terrorist attcks upon Britian?

lol...don't like this debate anymore so you are switching? Hey, we hid behind rocks at Lexington and Concord, that wasn't cricket, was it? :-)

I never said stop combating terrorists, I have no problem with the war in Afghanistan as I belive it was necessary. However, there is no connnection between Iraq and Al Qaeda except that there seems to be a bigger threat from Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups after Iraq.
I know that there were other terrorists attacks before 9/11 such as the car bomb outside the WTC. However, the Iraq war has only made these groups more abundant.

Also, if America is so anti-terrorism, explain why they helped fund the IRA throughout the 70's and 80's despite their terrorist attcks upon Britian?

I agree with you on the first point. On the second, the IRA never received funds from the American government, but rather from private citizens. And while it's not strictly legal to donate money to terrorist groups, the 70's and 80's were a different world, and such things slipped by under the radar.

Oi...

The colonials didn't want a removed Britain replaced by French masters.

France did.

Yet France was one of the first to accept America's independence (the first?). And The French commander in America, with his 5OOO French troops, worked as a part of the colonial army under George Washington.

Do you really think that France thought they could control America when the stronger British Empire couldn't?

Do you really think that France thought they could control America when the stronger British Empire couldn't?

They thought so.

Whether they were right or not really doesn't matter...

And, by the way, Saddam's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is well documents, so he didn't have clean hands on Arab terrorism.


Saddam's dealings with Palestine has little to do with America and is no motive for the invasion of Iraq. Also, although there was terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda before the invasion of Iraq, Iraq has given Al Qaeda the propaganda to brainwash thousands more people to follow its cause and attack the West.

lol...don't like this debate anymore so you are switching? Hey, we hid behind rocks at Lexington and Concord, that wasn't cricket, was it? :-)

The thread was about the world's view on America so I suppose any point on the funding of the IRA by American citizens is as much a part of the debate as Iraq or the World Wars.

More abundant? What is your data for that?

Number of Muslims with suicide bombs on the London Underground prior to the Iraq war: 0
Number of Muslims with suicide bombs on the London Underground after the war started: 6 (Hasib Hussain and the 21st July bus bomb not included, for obvious reasons)

Hey, Conservatiana, if it's any comfort, there's no proof that they weren't going to blow themselves up anyway.

Oh wait.
Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer both left videos explaining exactly why they did it.

The thread was about the world's view on America so I suppose any point on the funding of the IRA by American citizens is as much a part of the debate as Iraq or the World Wars.

Was that funding a matter of national policy or the actions of individuals?

OK, this is about the most ridiculous load of bantha poodoo I've seen in almost any forumm I frequent.

Is your tin-foil hat properly fitted?



Why?

What is wrong with passports? They've been around for a long time.

Or, should we just let the Mohammed Attas of the world travel here willy-nilly?

Yes, my tin foil hat is properly fitted.

I'm not talking about passports. You don't need a passport as a US citizen to fly from Dallas to Chicago. The travel paper I'm talking about are papers that would require you (as a US citizen) to get permission to fly WITHIN the country as well as in/out and if you can't get that permission (much different than applying for a passport IMO), then you can't fly from Dallas to Chicago.

as far a the prison camps go, here are my sources:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.15B.ashcr.camps.htm
http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/archive/government/camp9-97.html

for the national guard reference, here is my source:
10 USC 332 – “Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority”

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

And for martial law, here are my sources:
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=665&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

::adjusts hat::

Saddam's dealings with Palestine has little to do with America and is no motive for the invasion of Iraq. Also, although there was terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda before the invasion of Iraq, Iraq has given Al Qaeda the propaganda to brainwash thousands more people to follow its cause and attack the West.

Would you disagree that if a free and open democracy with a free media and progressive culture evolves in Iraq, that has the potential to "brainwash" millions of young people away from medieval fundamentalist Islam?

The thread was about the world's view on America so I suppose any point on the funding of the IRA by American citizens is as much a part of the debate as Iraq or the World Wars.

In a free society one can't blame the government for every action of their citizens, anymore than one should blame Britain for Richard Reid or money flowing to Al Queda from radical London mosques.

Number of Muslims with suicide bombs on the London Underground prior to the Iraq war: 0
Number of Muslims with suicide bombs on the London Underground after the war started: 6 (Hasib Hussain and the 21st July bus bomb not included, for obvious reasons)

Hey, Conservatiana, if it's any comfort, there's no proof that they weren't going to blow themselves up anyway.

Oh wait.
Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer both left videos explaining exactly why they did it.

Oh dear. Okay.

Well, if the british are going to lose the stiff upper lip, why not surrender to the IRA? Or the German buzz bombs?

Or perhaps the English should seek to mollify radical Islam. Get those burqhas on your women. Do a few ritual rapes in Trafagar Square for accused adultery. Murder a few infidels. Jump in on a war against Israel. Make the crazy islamic fundmaentalists feel that jihad love for you.

You don't need a passport as a US citizen to fly from Dallas to Chicago.

Your earlier post, I believe, indicated international travel.

The travel paper I'm talking about are papers that would require you (as a US citizen) to get permission to fly WITHIN the country as well as in/out and if you can't get that permission (much different than applying for a passport IMO), then you can't fly from Dallas to Chicago.

And, substantiation for these "papers" are where?

as far a the prison camps go, here are my sources:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.15B.ashcr.camps.htm
http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/archive/government/camp9-97.html

Ye gads! Truthout? ppbbtthh... Yes, and I get my breaking news from the Weekly World News...

for the national guard reference, here is my source:
10 USC 332 – “Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority”

Not from here?

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States[.]
-- US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

And for martial law, here are my sources:
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=665&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Oi...

Never a lack for entertainment...

Oh dear. Okay.

Well, if the british are going to lose the stiff upper lip, why not surrender to the IRA? Or the German buzz bombs?
We haven't lost it at all. He was just talking about why people are attacking us, and how this relates to the Iraq war.
Or perhaps the English should seek to mollify radical Islam. Get those burqhas on your women. Do a few ritual rapes in Trafagar Square for accused adultery. Murder a few infidels. Jump in on a war against Israel. Make the crazy islamic fundmaentalists feel that jihad love for you.
Or maybe we could just treat everyone equally and not villify Muslims instead, you silly bastard.

We haven't lost it at all. He was just talking about why people are attacking us, and how this relates to the Iraq war.

Or maybe we could just treat everyone equally and not villify Muslims instead, you silly bastard.

I don't agree with people who validate terrorist acts by some sort of sudden self-introspection over their nation's polices or actions. That is what the terrorists want and it only encourage more terrorism when you act like pussies, much like with a schoolyard bully.

Attacks against civilians are wrong. No further discussion is needed. Anyone motivated to commit such acts forfeits all rights to having their grievances considered, since they are obviously irrational psychos.

Remember -- radical islam was attacking the West long before Afghanistan, long before Iraq. When your religion tells you that you will get 72 virgins in heaven for killing infidels, the reason du jour doesn't much matter.

In 1993 the WTC was bombed,. In 1994 a plot was broken up to fly a hijakced jetliner into the eiffel Tower. In 1995 a polt was foiled by terrorist mastermind Ramzi Youssef to blow up 12 Western jetliners simultaneously over the Pacific. Etc..

These weren't because of Iraq. They were because of hatred against the Western "infidels" and the promise of heaven for martyrdom.

Listen to Bin Laden. Is it isn't the US it is Israel. If it isn't Israel it is westerners allowed in Saudi Arabia. If it isn't that it is the Saudi government. If it isn't that it is any government that isn't fundamentalist Islam.

It never ends. The only way to fight it is to "drain the swamp" and stop terrorism at its roots.

Oh dear. Okay.

Well, if the british are going to lose the stiff upper lip, why not surrender to the IRA? Or the German buzz bombs?

Or perhaps the English should seek to mollify radical Islam. Get those burqhas on your women. Do a few ritual rapes in Trafagar Square for accused adultery. Murder a few infidels. Jump in on a war against Israel. Make the crazy islamic fundmaentalists feel that jihad love for you.
Stop talking about cowardice. Innocent civilians lost their lifes, exactly because a government many don't support helped the USA in his excessive anti-terrorrist attacks in the Middle East. I would appreciate it if you stop gloating to the fact that there were no attacks on US soil, because of Bush his war, while in the meantime people in Europe, Africa and Asia DID die. They payed the price for a battle that wasn't their own and yet you keep calling them cowards for some none-existing reasons. You lack respect. The army is not an anti-terrorrist organisation. Not using it doesn't mean not doing something against terrorism.

Check the number of terrorrist attacks worldwide 5 years for and 5 years after the war of terror.

I don't agree with people who validate terrorist acts by some sort of sudden self-introspection over their nation's polices or actions. That is what the terrorists want and it only encourage more terrorism when you act like pussies, much like with a schoolyard bully.
Obviously, yes.

It's not like the French and British have actually dealt with terrorism through dialogue, rather than the random application of violence in the Middle East or anything. Oh... wait...
Attacks against civilians are wrong. No further discussion is needed. Anyone motivated to commit such acts forfeits all rights to having their grievances considered, since they are obviously irrational psychos.
Yeah, I agree. Look at Fallujah, look at Haditha, look, indeed, at most of the stuff in the Sunni Triangle and in the north with the Kurds...
In 1993 the WTC was bombed,. In 1994 a plot was broken up to fly a hijakced jetliner into the eiffel Tower. In 1995 a polt was foiled by terrorist mastermind Ramzi Youssef to blow up 12 Western jetliners simultaneously over the Pacific. Etc..
OK, you've actually got one thing which you can prove, and two others which might well be security agencies proving that they're worth something to the general public.
These weren't because of Iraq. They were because of hatred against the Western "infidels" and the promise of heaven for martyrdom.
No, they were because of a great deal of resentment towards the US backing Israel for easy votes, and Saudi Arabia for economic ties, instead of Palestine, because it's getting fucked over and Iraq, because it was a secular bastion inside the Middle East that could and should have been an ally.
Listen to Bin Laden. Is it isn't the US it is Israel.
And what a fucking surprise that is.
If it isn't Israel it is westerners allowed in Saudi Arabia.
Because they're much, much better off than the average Saudi.
If it isn't that it is the Saudi government.
For its compliance with the US... and it's not a real government, it's a group of Taifas.
If it isn't that it is any government that isn't fundamentalist Islam.
A bloody easy target in Saudi, since due to a lack of proper education, people often stick to what their clerics tell them is the truth, and when you're poor and you know you're getting fucked over by the Sheikhs so that they can live the good life with their American chums, it's the kind of thing you'd listen to.
It never ends. The only way to fight it is to "drain the swamp" and stop terrorism at its roots.
And those roots are intolerance founded upon poverty and a lack of proper education, and genuine anger at a hostile country for how badly it's treated your own homeland and your values.

Now, I find this a bit strange...

I don't agree with people who validate terrorist acts by some sort of sudden self-introspection over their nation's polices or actions. That is what the terrorists want and it only encourage more terrorism when you act like pussies, much like with a schoolyard bully.
...

It never ends. The only way to fight it is to "drain the swamp" and stop terrorism at its roots.

You want to stop terrorism at its roots, but you refuse to examine whether or not the (western) nation's policies and actions has been or is a factor that helps breed terrorism? Most peculiar...

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/media/images/disp/blogger-archives/0060.jpg
♪ Won't you come see about me
I'll be alone, dancing --- you know it, baby
Tell me your troubles and doubts
Giving me everything inside and out
Love's strange --- so real in the dark
Think of the tender things
That we were working on
Slow change may pull us apart
When the light gets into your heart, baby
Don't you forget about me
Don't, don't, don't, don't
Don't you forget about me ♪

Your earlier post, I believe, indicated international travel.

And, substantiation for these "papers" are where?

Ye gads! Truthout? ppbbtthh... Yes, and I get my breaking news from the Weekly World News...

Not from here?

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States[.]
-- US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

Oi...

Never a lack for entertainment...

My previous post indicated BOTH international and intranational travel. But now that I re-read my source (I am not afraid of admitting error) it says that the recently passed regulation refers only to international travel.

What's wrong with my source from 10 USC 332?

as far as the "travel papers":
http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3023
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=090000648019da96&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

the "travel papers" concept seems to be redundant to the passport as applied to US citizens - we already are tracked via the passport, why is it necessary for us to be automatically considered no-fly unless we get governmental approval in advance prior to each and every entrance or exit of the US? I do not think this is an acceptable arrangement (your mileage may vary) and no, I do not think it helps "make me safer from the terrorists".

Is this a more acceptable source for the detention centers?
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/detention_camps_for_who_exactly.htm
The link is to the actual text of the article which was originally published here: http://citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage (now it's in the archives and you have to pay to access it).


I have already admitted my tin foil hat, but just because my fear of these things happening seems "out there" does not defray the reality of those in power having those legal abilities.

Now, I find this a bit strange...


...


You want to stop terrorism at its roots, but you refuse to examine whether or not the (western) nation's policies and actions has been or is a factor that helps breed terrorism? Most peculiar...

I absolutley agree one should examine Western policies with the middle east, and that really isnt hardconsidering policies adopted by westernized countries towards the middle east basically consist of using and exploiting the middle east then covering there own rears and pretending nothin happened.
Maybe the Iraq war is the US's way of finally facing the music. As Conservatiana said before maybe It's there way of finally "draining the swamp", a swamp which the U.S. and other westernized coountries created.
Consider the war facing the consequences of the US's actions. The war may not be good, the war may not be right, but the war [I]is neccessary[I].

Maybe the Iraq war is the US's way of finally facing the music. As Conservatiana said before maybe It's there way of finally "draining the swamp", a swamp which the U.S. and other westernized coountries created.


The Iraq region is a shithole because it is at the confluence of the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds. Outside Iraq the only place where there are large populations challenging a Sunni majority is....wait for it....Afghanistan. Both have been shitholes of ethnic violence since 650 ad when they split on Muhammad's successor.

The swamp has been there ever since. It was not created by Westerners.

The Iraq region is a shithole because it is at the confluence of the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds. Outside Iraq the only place where there are large populations challenging a Sunni majority is....wait for it....Afghanistan. Both have been shitholes of ethnic violence since 650 ad when they split on Muhammad's successor.

The swamp has been there ever since. It was not created by Westerners.

The unnatural boarders throwing together groups of people who hate each other was down to western influence though.

Stop talking about cowardice.

I don't believe I used the word, but it does spring rapidly to your lips.

Innocent civilians lost their lifes, exactly because a government many don't support helped the USA in his excessive anti-terrorrist attacks in the Middle East.

In the 1980s six people were killed in New York by a guy who said his neighbor's dog told him to kill them.

Oddly, instead of negotiating with the dog, they incarcerated the guy.

I would appreciate it if you stop gloating to the fact that there were no attacks on US soil, because of Bush his war, while in the meantime people in Europe, Africa and Asia DID die.

Fundamental Islamists were killing Westerners before 9/11. Bush was just the first guy to get tired of it.

They payed the price for a battle that wasn't their own and yet you keep calling them cowards for some none-existing reasons.

What does it say about the attackers if they target people whose battle wasn't there own?

What does the reaction of people who are attacked in that unfair fashion?

Do you negotiate with the dog?

Now, I find this a bit strange...

You want to stop terrorism at its roots, but you refuse to examine whether or not the (western) nation's policies and actions has been or is a factor that helps breed terrorism? Most peculiar...

I reject any notion that anything "breeds" terrorism. That is liberal apologism. It is like saying poverty breeds crime. And every criminal didn't get hugged enough by his mother.

The Iraq region is a shithole because it is at the confluence of the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds. Outside Iraq the only place where there are large populations challenging a Sunni majority is....wait for it....Afghanistan. Both have been shitholes of ethnic violence since 650 ad when they split on Muhammad's successor.

The swamp has been there ever since. It was not created by Westerners.
The policy of divide and conquer being waged in Iraq definitely exacerbates the situation. Creating a power vacuum even more so.

I reject any notion that anything "breeds" terrorism. That is liberal apologism. It is like saying poverty breeds crime. And every criminal didn't get hugged enough by his mother.
You are a fucking moron, then.

People aren't born terrorists, they may have something in their psyche that makes them more prone to extreme actions, but it's generally very much an environmental factor or two which leads to people taking up terrorism. Being invaded, being starved at the whim of another nation, those are influences.

The same goes for proverty and crime. People may have something born in them that makes them more prone to commit crimes, but without the quality of life being poor enough for them to have to commit crimes as a way out of their situation. Poverty is one such influence.

You are a fucking moron, then.

Hmmm...<checks Mensa card>

People aren't born terrorists, they may have something in their psyche that makes them more prone to extreme actions, but it's generally very much an environmental factor or two which leads to people taking up terrorism. Being invaded, being starved at the whim of another nation, those are influences.

Darwin would say weed people with those psyche issues out of the gene pool. Everybody comes under stress in their lives. If you can't handle it without violence, than society needs to separate you from the free populace where you can do harm. Or perhaps separate you from oxygen.

The same goes for proverty and crime. People may have something born in them that makes them more prone to commit crimes, but without the quality of life being poor enough for them to have to commit crimes as a way out of their situation. Poverty is one such influence.

Sorry, I don't accept an apologist view that everyone is somehow entitled to violent behavior if life is tough on them.

No apologetic boo-boo kitty liberalism.

Oi...

The colonials didn't want a removed Britain replaced by French masters.

France did.

Originally, the colonials didn't want Britian to leave at all. They felt they were at war with Parliament and were still loyal to the King.

I reject any notion that anything "breeds" terrorism. That is liberal apologism. It is like saying poverty breeds crime. And every criminal didn't get hugged enough by his mother.

"Liberal" whatnow? What are you on about?

Ah, perhaps you'd rather explain how terrorism spontaneously errupts then :)

Hmmm...<checks Mensa card> Was it revoked? ;)


Darwin would say weed people with those psyche issues out of the gene pool. Everybody comes under stress in their lives. If you can't handle it without violence, than society needs to separate you from the free populace where you can do harm. Or perhaps separate you from oxygen.
Oh, so you know nothing about Darwin? He would say no such thing.


Sorry, I don't accept an apologist view that everyone is somehow entitled to violent behavior if life is tough on them.
*sigh*

Not entitled. Poverty can be a cause. One reason. One factor of many. Maybe even an important factor?

If you can't make ends meet legally, do you think it would be very difficult to contemplate doing something illegal?


No apologetic boo-boo kitty liberalism.
So what do you like to do on saturday nights then? Apologetic nonsensical bellybutton-viewing egostroking?

...no, I make as little sense as your statement did.

Give it a rest.
Your hyperbole makes any other of your words that much less meaningful.

Actually it's not entirely unreasonable (or discrediting) to suggest that someone who admits he was told by some 'entity' to bring about the deaths of thousands of people (and who then proceeded to do so) might be a madman.

Until needed, most of the world hates the US. But, who is called upon when things really get tough?

Who was called in 1917? 1939?

Heck, who was called to take out that world threatening dictator who may have taken over the entire world known as Milosevic?

The US was.

So, everyone hates us. Everyone has always hated us. Probably, everyone will always hate us.

Until they need us.

Oderint dum metuant, baby :D

Oh dear. Okay.

Well, if the british are going to lose the stiff upper lip, why not surrender to the IRA? Or the German buzz bombs?

Or perhaps the English should seek to mollify radical Islam. Get those burqhas on your women. Do a few ritual rapes in Trafagar Square for accused adultery. Murder a few infidels. Jump in on a war against Israel. Make the crazy islamic fundmaentalists feel that jihad love for you.
Wow, what a nasty image. And so entirely non-sequitor. Since it doesnt follow from the proceeding conversation we can only assume it originates in your mind. :eek:

The poster pointed out (and was facing up to) an unpleaseant reality. That takes a stiff upper lip, unlike playing at Cleopatra, frolicking about in denial.

It's utterly non-sequitor to reach the 'conclusion' that this means women ought to be, or will be raped in Trafalgar Square.

The poster gave a simple description of reality. It's not an indication of someone else's lack of courage, if you find reality a bit too much to face up to.

Oh, so you know nothing about Darwin? He would say no such thing.

actually, you are correct. I concede the point. Evolution has little to do with mass murder. Perhaps the fastest runners or the scaredest stay at home people survive random homicidal terrorists, I don't know...

Not entitled. Poverty can be a cause. One reason. One factor of many. Maybe even an important factor? If you can't make ends meet legally, do you think it would be very difficult to contemplate doing something illegal?

Of course. I just condemn society and the justice system recognizing it as an excuse. But how does it work? Do you have to be brought up starving? Is anarchy okay then in, say, India? Is it only if you are hungry later in life? Never understood where the line was on condoning criminal behavior....

So what do you like to do on saturday nights then? Apologetic nonsensical bellybutton-viewing egostroking?

Saturday night? Well, masturbation actually, but the goddamn bus driver keeps screaming at me.

This is why people criticise US foreign policy. Because this rhetoric is spouted, yet it belies an ugly truth: US foreign policy is based on self-interest.

The US has publicly supported people who massacred their own people. Who wrongly imprisoned men, women, and children letting them die horrible deaths of all kinds of diseases full of pain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#1973

People have no right to criticize our policy, because all of people's actions are driven by self-interest. People volunteer because they want to give something back, be a good person, etc. If you think about everything is driven by self-interest even religion. People follow it because they want to be included in the afterlife.

Saturday night? Well, masturbation actually, but the goddamn bus driver keeps screaming at me.

Just sit in a less visible place and draw attention away from what you're doing by discussing a banal topic, such as the what people around the world think about America.

Er...I'm in rough political agreement with you, but that only applied to the Western Hemisphere.

Frankly, I'm sick of playing policeman to an ungrateful world. Let France and Sweden go bail out Bosnia and Somalia and Kuwait.

You have a point with the western hemisphere, but when we basically took over Indonesia didn't it begin with it as an excuse? I'm pretty sure that Indonesia isn't in the western hemisphere.

Another thing, if people need help people should do their best to help them regardless of their hemisphere! I do know that we can't safe the world, but thats not important. Saving individuals is whats important, be they soldiers or civilians.

Er...I'm in rough political agreement with you, but that only applied to the Western Hemisphere.

Frankly, I'm sick of playing policeman to an ungrateful world. Let France and Sweden go bail out Bosnia and Somalia and Kuwait.

You have a point with the western hemisphere, but when we basically took over Indonesia didn't it begin with it as an excuse? I'm pretty sure that Philippines isn't in the western hemisphere.

Another thing, if people need help people should do their best to help them regardless of their hemisphere! I do know that we can't save the world, but thats not important. Saving individuals is whats important, be they soldiers or civilians.

Not entitled. Poverty can be a cause. One reason. One factor of many. Maybe even an important factor?

If that were so, then India should have been awash in violence until we began outsourcing, Mexico should have been a war zone, and the Dust Bowl in the 1930's should have been one continuous riot.

It is insulting to poor people, not to mention untenable, to impute to them a greater inclination to violence simply because they're poor.

Poverty is used as an argument to excuse violence, if not justify it, by people who refuse to acknowledge that it's evil values, or a lack of values, that underlies the violent behavior, not poverty.

If you can't make ends meet legally, do you think it would be very difficult to contemplate doing something illegal?

"Illegal" is not synonymous with "violent." Jean Valjean may have stolen a loaf of bread, but he didn't blow up a bus. Try again.

Just sit in a less visible place and draw attention away from what you're doing by discussing a banal topic, such as the what people around the world think about America.

Eureka ! <erection>

You have a point with the western hemisphere, but when we basically took over Indonesia didn't it begin with it as an excuse? I'm pretty sure that Philippines isn't in the western hemisphere.

Well, the "mandate" only applied to the Western Hemisphere. Apparently the save-the-world crap was optional.

Another thing, if people need help people should do their best to help them regardless of their hemisphere! I do know that we can't save the world, but thats not important. Saving individuals is whats important, be they soldiers or civilians.

But what about doe-eyed puppies in the rain and kittens playing with yarn?

I don't believe I used the word, but it does spring rapidly to your lips.
No, you like to find lots and lots of synonyms for it.

Fundamental Islamists were killing Westerners before 9/11. Bush was just the first guy to get tired of it.
And now everyone is feeling safe...

What does it say about the attackers if they target people whose battle wasn't there own?
That they judge people by their government?

Do you negotiate with the dog?
Uh... I just don't talk and listen to dogs.

actually, you are correct. I concede the point. Evolution has little to do with mass murder. Perhaps the fastest runners or the scaredest stay at home people survive random homicidal terrorists, I don't know...
OK :)


Of course. I just condemn society and the justice system recognizing it as an excuse. But how does it work? Do you have to be brought up starving? Is anarchy okay then in, say, India? Is it only if you are hungry later in life? Never understood where the line was on condoning criminal behavior....
It's really not about excusing, but more about understanding the root causes and seeing what to fight to stop/reduce crime.

Though, of course, if someone has to steal food to survive, maybe a fine or a prison sentence isn't the best thing for them or for society, so maybe it could be an excuse as well... (But then you have to examine why he has to steal food to survive etc etc) :)

Saturday night? Well, masturbation actually, but the goddamn bus driver keeps screaming at me.
You just tell him to keep his eyes on the road and mind his own damn business! :p
If that were so, then India should have been awash in violence until we began outsourcing, Mexico should have been a war zone, and the Dust Bowl in the 1930's should have been one continuous riot.

It is insulting to poor people, not to mention untenable, to impute to them a greater inclination to violence simply because they're poor.

Poverty is used as an argument to excuse violence, if not justify it, by people who refuse to acknowledge that it's evil values, or a lack of values, that underlies the violent behavior, not poverty.
*sigh*

No, not at all. That's where "one" comes into play. One factor of many, remember?

And I'm talking about crime, not violent crime.

"Illegal" is not synonymous with "violent." Jean Valjean may have stolen a loaf of bread, but he didn't blow up a bus. Try again.
How about you read back and see the whole debate, and you try again?

And now everyone is feeling safe...


Maybe not. But when the cops show up at a murder scene do you blame them, or blame the criminals?

Is your gripe with Bush that *he* is responsible for terrorism? Or that he didn't catch the bad guys? Or that he didn't try hard enough? Or that he wasn't perfectly omniscient in reacting to a shadowy mass murder attack from a bunch of clandestine lunatics?

Or maybe we could just treat everyone equally and not villify Muslims instead, you silly bastard.

Well said

The war may not be good, the war may not be right, but the war [I]is neccessary[I].

The war was never necessary. Iraq has posed America no threat and has also caused little threat to Europe. If there are no WMD's in Iraq, the original reason for the re-invasion, and there is no real threat from Iraq to the West, then why attack them? The only real reason is for America to get its hands on Iraq's oil and allow America to have a few more decades indulging in its current lifestyle whilst the rest of the world wakes up to the threat of global warming.

The war was never necessary. Iraq has posed America no threat and has also caused little threat to Europe. If there are no WMD's in Iraq, the original reason for the re-invasion, and there is no real threat from Iraq to the West, then why attack them?

There was a threat. In order to stay in power, Saddam had agreed to UN WMD inspectors and then threw them out. That raised the threat that he was going to AGAIN make WMDs and AGAIN use them en masse, which of course he had already done in the past.

There was a threat. In order to stay in power, Saddam had agreed to UN WMD inspectors and then threw them out. That raised the threat that he was going to AGAIN make WMDs and AGAIN use them en masse, which of course he had already done in the past.

They were threatening to used WMDs on the US? When did they say that?

The war was never necessary. Iraq has posed America no threat and has also caused little threat to Europe.

How did you feel about Afghanistan prior to 9-11?

Would anyone have been shocked if some biological attack in 2002 in the US or Europe had been linked to Saddam's labs ? How loud would the outcry been if we'd just sort of ignored the tossing out of the UN WMD inspectors in 1998 and that happened?

The thing that cracks me up now is that you can't find ANYBODY that is against the Afghanistan invasion -- why? Because it went well. the Democrats in washington overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war as well. Because Iraq was a tough sled now every dickhead on the internet is an expert in WMD manufacture and Saddam's psyche.

Maybe not. But when the cops show up at a murder scene do you blame them, or blame the criminals?

Is your gripe with Bush that *he* is responsible for terrorism? Or that he didn't catch the bad guys? Or that he didn't try hard enough? Or that he wasn't perfectly omniscient in reacting to a shadowy mass murder attack from a bunch of clandestine lunatics?
If the cops start beating down random innocents, than I won't be so happy about the cops.

Bush isn't responsible for terrorism. There is indeed a good terrorist hunt going on at the moment and he did try hard enough. That doesn't mean, however, that I approve of all the things he does besides fighting against terrorism, altough he always tries to connect it with his war.

How did you feel about Afghanistan prior to 9-11?

The thing that cracks me up now is that you can't find ANYBODY that is against the Afghanistan invasion -- why? Because it went well. the Democrats in washington overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war as well. Because Iraq was a tough sled now every dickhead on the internet is an expert in WMD manufacture and Saddam's psyche.
Afghanistan went well? The first goals were achieved, just like Iraq. It's what came after that hurted most. The situation in both countries is different. Afghanistan is largely in the hands of several members of the Northern Alliance, while in Iraq the coallition has a strong pressence.

And no, there was no proof that Iraq had WMD's. Innocent untill proven.

Hmmm...<checks Mensa card>
Great. You can jump through MENSA test hoops. Doesn't make you an intellectual.
Darwin would say weed people with those psyche issues out of the gene pool
No, Darwin would say "they seem to be surviving, so you know what - maybe they've just adapted in a different way to what's going on, fair play to them".
Everybody comes under stress in their lives. If you can't handle it without violence, than society needs to separate you from the free populace where you can do harm.
Stress is one thing, actually being invaded / starved by sanctions / bombed from afar is rather different. Would you not strike back at those responsible, to regain a free populace which has been lost to war?
Or perhaps separate you from oxygen.
Charming.
Sorry, I don't accept an apologist view that everyone is somehow entitled to violent behavior if life is tough on them.
Since you're obviously quite well off, since you're a part of MENSA, and you don't seem to understand... well... people, maybe you just don't really get why people act the way they do.

I've spoken to people who were thieves, and they basically said that was life not dealing them such a shitty hand, they'd never have started it in the first place. These are people that had one of their parents killed in accidents, and had to live on benefits all through their childhood.

They were bored due to not having the money to enjoy themselves, poor due to no real source of income, and surrounded by people who had more than they needed, at least in their opinions anyway.

Wouldn't you be tempted to commit crime in those circumstances?
No apologetic boo-boo kitty liberalism.
Maybe you just don't understand empathy. It's great.

Live your life as a cold-hearted MENSA member, fair enough. Avoid human contact with others, assert your own intelligence if you want. You'll die without acheiving a single bloody thing, or using your intelligence.

Try and think about the reasons for the actions of others, try to put right what's going wrong and aid others and you'll get something out of life. Use your intelligence for something decent, for crying out loud. Not just for arguing why those 'below you' need no sympathy.

actually, you are correct. I concede the point. Evolution has little to do with mass murder. Perhaps the fastest runners or the scaredest stay at home people survive random homicidal terrorists, I don't know...
You are right to conceed the point since your initial assertion was incorrect. However, you conceed for the wrong reason. The fact is Darwin was not into social-Darwinism as he would have had to have been for your statement about him to have been true.

How did you feel about Afghanistan prior to 9-11?
It was a shithole, but also none of our business, to be quite honest.
Would anyone have been shocked if some biological attack in 2002 in the US or Europe had been linked to Saddam's labs ?
I know I would have been.
How loud would the outcry been if we'd just sort of ignored the tossing out of the UN WMD inspectors in 1998 and that happened?
Loud, but mainly from people who had no idea about what they were going on about - We've done some horrible things to Iraq, let's be honest.
The thing that cracks me up now is that you can't find ANYBODY that is against the Afghanistan invasion -- why? Because it went well.
I'm against it - it was none of our business, plus there's no real enemy in Afghanistan other than everyone - but only as soon as you launch a war on them.

Have you ever read up on the military history of Afghanistan, by the way?

Then you might know what's going to happen to your troops. A long, horrible conflict that you will lose. The US and its allies will run away from Afghanistan. Everyone always does, eventually. You can't really win there.
the Democrats in washington overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war as well.
That's because they're utterly spineless as an oppositionary force, and also because a fair deal of them are just as right-wing as the average Republican.
Because Iraq was a tough sled now every dickhead on the internet is an expert in WMD manufacture and Saddam's psyche.
Yes, including you, seemingly.

There was a threat. In order to stay in power, Saddam had agreed to UN WMD inspectors and then threw them out. That raised the threat that he was going to AGAIN make WMDs and AGAIN use them en masse, which of course he had already done in the past.
The threat was lowered back down when Saddam let the inspectors back in. So at the time of the invasion, no threat.

Bush isn't responsible for terrorism. There is indeed a good terrorist hunt going on at the moment and he did try hard enough. That doesn't mean, however, that I approve of all the things he does besides fighting against terrorism, altough he always tries to connect it with his war.

I don't agree with everything he does either. His immigration policies are insane, for example.

And no, there was no proof that Iraq had WMD's. Innocent untill proven.

Saddam was innocent?

It was a shithole, but also none of our business, to be quite honest.

So terrorist training camps in afghanistan during the 90s are none of your business. But you were bemoaning the London subway bombings.

Have you ever read up on the military history of Afghanistan, by the way?
Then you might know what's going to happen to your troops. A long, horrible conflict that you will lose. The US and its allies will run away from Afghanistan. Everyone always does, eventually. You can't really win there.


That's the spirit. Which side of your family is descended from Neville Chamberlain?

That's the spirit. Which side of your family is descended from Neville Chamberlain?
None of it at all, he was a cad of the highest.


On the other hand, you didn't answer my question - do you actually know anything about the military history of Afghanistan?

You can't win there. No-one ever has.



And as per your London bombings comment -

1) Where was I bemoaning them?
2) Does it really merit an invasion?

France GAVE nothing.

Excuse me? If it wasn't for France we wouldn't have won. The GAVE us troops, money, weapons, and a NAVY. They started the bandwagon of European nations assisting the American cause. If France didn't decide to help, do you honestly think your pal Denmark would've? The last real battle of the American Revolution that sealed victory for the Americans in Yorktown was won because Admiral De Grasse's French fleet blocked Chesapeake Bay keeping the British from escaping by sea while the combined forces of Washington and French commander Rochambeau surrounded him on land.

I reject any notion that anything "breeds" terrorism. That is liberal apologism. It is like saying poverty breeds crime. And every criminal didn't get hugged enough by his mother.
I assume that you believe everyone has an inherent nature that doesn't change even if their upbringing does. I also assume that because of your intellectual prowess (MENSA is MENSA after all, ignore Yootopia's flaming,) that you grew up in a house with lots of books and an atmosphere that encouraged learning new things and getting good grades. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

However what if instead you grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp and your parents taught you that the Israelis were evil? Or in rural pre-American invasion Afghanistan to Taliban supporting parents who believed that women were subservient to men and deserve to wear the veil? Would you still defy all odds and become a dyed in the wool America supporter proudly displaying a MENSA card? (Rhetorical question.)


No apologetic boo-boo kitty liberalism.
Meow ;)

When I think of the US, I think of Leonard Bernstein.

I assume that you believe everyone has an inherent nature that doesn't change even if their upbringing does. I also assume that because of your intellectual prowess (MENSA is MENSA after all, ignore Yootopia's flaming,) that you grew up in a house with lots of books and an atmosphere that encouraged learning new things and getting good grades. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

However what if instead you grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp and your parents taught you that the Israelis were evil? Or in rural pre-American invasion Afghanistan to Taliban supporting parents who believed that women were subservient to men and deserve to wear the veil? Would you still defy all odds and become a dyed in the wool America supporter proudly displaying a MENSA card? (Rhetorical question.)


Nature/nurture?

Well, I'm sure even in a Palestinian refugee camps there are degrees of intelligence, work ethic, and proclivity to violence among the residents.

My wife and I run a large food bank, and one of the amazing things to me is reading how people get into tough life situations and who has the intelligence/drive/motivation to get out of those situations.

When we distribute, we talk to a ton of homeless and under-priviledged one-on-one. Not scientific, but I'd say the number one cause of their problems? Alcohol. Number two, drug abuse. Number three, mental illness.

I've also volunteered with a special training program which teaches work ethics to large city welfare recipients. You know pretty fast who is going to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.

Some of them are relatively happy go lucky. When we distribute winter coats there is always some scuffles (my son got punched last fall) but in general the groups protect the children and mothers, letting them get their picks first. this is on my mind this week as we are preparing hundreds of food packages in my kitchen for less fortunate families. When we do thanksgiving dinner and soup kitchens next week you see the people beaten down and you also see the guys who maybe could escape the cycle with the right opportunity.

At any rate, I'm not sure where this fits into the political discussion, but I guess it is to say that by my experience and observation, once some people have the ability to cope and get along without playing society's game, they will, whether by violence, welfare, panhandling, etc.

Among our volutneers there are two types. One like me, and I encourage my son to do this as well, seek to connect at a human level, seeing who wants to talk about there families, which is usually a safe subject compared to job, health, legal problems, or living accommodations.

The other group of volunteers tend to ladle soup or whatever they are on the line while staring into the soup or out to the middle distance. In discussions with these volunteers on breaks or whatever you see that they don't these people as humans, they seen them as "the homeless" and there salvation is more government programs. But they don't talk about what an individual needs to build work skills , get back in the work force and regain their self dignity. The are concerned with whether the monthy check could be larger, or some food stamps or other coupon sytstem was available, setting cement into their shoes as they seek deeper into the welfare spiral. These are the liberals. To them the poor are a faceless mass, a tangible living by product of their cherished liberal theories.

If this attitude is condoned (i.e.: oh you were abused, you never had a chance. etc) they won't change. If there is an atmosphere that simply says there is acceptable and unacceptable behavior in society, there tends to be improvement. Most successful substance abuse centers have switched to this tougher love method.

This is human behavior and it carries over into international issues, I think. So, no, I don't condone or explain away or have sympathy or seek the underlying causes of people who fly planes into buildings to meet Allah. And if there *were* underlying grievances the last thing I would want to do would be to give there fellow suicide pilot wannabes the impression that the tactic of mass murder will forward their political goals.

And it upsets me whe idiots say "9-11 was because Israel, or the Saudi government or whatever. Don't waste my time with what Sam the dog said to Berkowitz to turn him into a serial killer. It is not relevant.

Saddam was innocent?
... of having WMD's, untill it is proven.

... of having WMD's, untill it is proven.

they didnt charge saddam with the Shia uprising killings rite?

This is human behavior and it carries over into international issues, I think. So, no, I don't condone or explain away or have sympathy or seek the underlying causes of people who fly planes into buildings to meet Allah. And if there *were* underlying grievances the last thing I would want to do would be to give there fellow suicide pilot wannabes the impression that the tactic of mass murder will forward their political goals.

And it upsets me whe idiots say "9-11 was because Israel, or the Saudi government or whatever. Don't waste my time with what Sam the dog said to Berkowitz to turn him into a serial killer. It is not relevant.

I still don't get why you don't think that the the underlying causes are relevant.

I still don't get why you don't think that the the underlying causes are relevant.

They are relevant in a sociological or perhaps a long term policy way.

But overtly giving them credence can not help but, to some degree, excuse and condone violent or terrorist behavior. I think there is a line there that it is extremely dangerous to cross. You start to have every aggrieved party think their right -- maybe their obligation -- is violence against society. That is what leads to the deification of homicide bombers in Israel.

I'm a law and order guy.

If the families of homicide bombers were deported instead of showered with gifts and prestige, do you think attacks would stop?

That, and the nigh analphabetism. One could make comments about substandard schooling systems, but when it's presented like this, one just hasn't the heart to be honest.

Oh, shut up. I'd like to see YOU try to educate thirty three million children (More than three times the population of your own country, I might add.)

How did you feel about Afghanistan prior to 9-11?

Would anyone have been shocked if some biological attack in 2002 in the US or Europe had been linked to Saddam's labs ? How loud would the outcry been if we'd just sort of ignored the tossing out of the UN WMD inspectors in 1998 and that happened?

The thing that cracks me up now is that you can't find ANYBODY that is against the Afghanistan invasion -- why? Because it went well. the Democrats in washington overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war as well. Because Iraq was a tough sled now every dickhead on the internet is an expert in WMD manufacture and Saddam's psyche.

Nobody is against the Afghanistan invasion because the Taliban allowed Al Quaeda to train and recruit followers there....to get at Al Quaeda they had to invade Afghanistan.

They are relevant in a sociological or perhaps a long term policy way.

But overtly giving them credence can not help but, to some degree, excuse and condone violent or terrorist behavior. I think there is a line there that it is extremely dangerous to cross. You start to have every aggrieved party think their right -- maybe their obligation -- is violence against society. That is what leads to the deification of homicide bombers in Israel.

I'm a law and order guy.

If the families of homicide bombers were deported instead of showered with gifts and prestige, do you think attacks would stop?

"Homicide bombers"? :confused: You're talking about suicide bombers, right?

To start with the last part: No, I don't for a second believe that the attacks would stop. I actually think they might increase due to the percieved injustice of the government that deports the family.

And secondly, the entire terrorism phenomenon is a problem where short term policies are not enough. The long term policies - to stop terrorism from happening - is essential and, unfortunately, mostly ignored. Just like with ordinary crime, you have to look at the reasons behind the acts in order to fight it properly. Or else you will be doomed to react and not act to prevent it form happening - treating only the symptoms, not the disease.

I also do not see any good reason for your fears that it will in any way condone the acts of violence. It is a tool to understand your enemy so you can better fight him, not much else. Believe me, the aggrieved are more than capable of justifying their own actions on their own.

"Homicide bombers"? :confused: You're talking about suicide bombers, right?
It's a fucking ridiculous FOX-based semantic point.

It's a fucking ridiculous FOX-based semantic point.

I expect it to be in tomorrow's Daily Mail...

I expect it to be in tomorrow's Daily Mail...
Even the Daily Mail doesn't stoop so low as to ignore the fact that someone's given the life to make such an attack.

Also (off-topic) - why aren't you telling me your location? :p

US : The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
nuff said..

US : The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
nuff said..
No, that was Weimar Germany, actually.

Oh dear. Okay.

Well, if the british are going to lose the stiff upper lip, why not surrender to the IRA? Or the German buzz bombs?

Or perhaps the English should seek to mollify radical Islam. Get those burqhas on your women. Do a few ritual rapes in Trafagar Square for accused adultery. Murder a few infidels. Jump in on a war against Israel. Make the crazy islamic fundmaentalists feel that jihad love for you.
If you're so intelligent you should at least attempt to understand opposing valid arguments, instead of making straw men. Those who bombed London were not right to do so, but the lives of 57 people in London would not have been lost if it weren't for the Iraq war.

Nobody wants to surrender to Islamists. But there's no point in antagonising them when we have nothing to gain from it. The Iraq war did not serve the interests of Europe or America.

That is what the terrorists want and it only encourage more terrorism when you act like pussies, much like with a schoolyard bully.
Then why have no further attacks on Spain been attempted. Forget your ideological posturing and look at reality.

Attacks against civilians are wrong.
I agree, but there is further discussion needed (although that may not suit your propagandist agenda). The urgent discussion is how to stop more. To serve that, it is also worth talking about why they attacked in the first place. To stop further attacks, in some instances may mean going to war. In other instances it may mean the opposite.

Remember -- radical islam was attacking the West long before Afghanistan, long before Iraq. When your religion tells you that you will get 72 virgins in heaven for killing infidels, the reason du jour doesn't much matter.
Not every attack has the same causes, and if they were just about killing non-Muslims, we would see a lot less suicide attacks in the Muslim world and a lot more in the non-Muslim world.

The Iraq region is a shithole because it is at the confluence of the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds. Outside Iraq the only place where there are large populations challenging a Sunni majority is....wait for it....Afghanistan. Both have been shitholes of ethnic violence since 650 ad when they split on Muhammad's successor.
Hussein was doing an efficient, if evil, job of containing that hatred. We should have left him there.

I reject any notion that anything "breeds" terrorism. That is liberal apologism.
No, it's reality. If you're saying that the observed conditions where terrorists consistently appear is all just a coincidence, you're ignoring reality.

Nature/nurture?

Well, I'm sure even in a Palestinian refugee camps there are degrees of intelligence, work ethic, and proclivity to violence among the residents.

My wife and I run a large food bank, and one of the amazing things to me is reading how people get into tough life situations and who has the intelligence/drive/motivation to get out of those situations.

When we distribute, we talk to a ton of homeless and under-priviledged one-on-one. Not scientific, but I'd say the number one cause of their problems? Alcohol. Number two, drug abuse. Number three, mental illness.

I've also volunteered with a special training program which teaches work ethics to large city welfare recipients. You know pretty fast who is going to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.

Some of them are relatively happy go lucky. When we distribute winter coats there is always some scuffles (my son got punched last fall) but in general the groups protect the children and mothers, letting them get their picks first. this is on my mind this week as we are preparing hundreds of food packages in my kitchen for less fortunate families. When we do thanksgiving dinner and soup kitchens next week you see the people beaten down and you also see the guys who maybe could escape the cycle with the right opportunity.

At any rate, I'm not sure where this fits into the political discussion, but I guess it is to say that by my experience and observation, once some people have the ability to cope and get along without playing society's game, they will, whether by violence, welfare, panhandling, etc.

Among our volutneers there are two types. One like me, and I encourage my son to do this as well, seek to connect at a human level, seeing who wants to talk about there families, which is usually a safe subject compared to job, health, legal problems, or living accommodations.

The other group of volunteers tend to ladle soup or whatever they are on the line while staring into the soup or out to the middle distance. In discussions with these volunteers on breaks or whatever you see that they don't these people as humans, they seen them as "the homeless" and there salvation is more government programs. But they don't talk about what an individual needs to build work skills , get back in the work force and regain their self dignity. The are concerned with whether the monthy check could be larger, or some food stamps or other coupon sytstem was available, setting cement into their shoes as they seek deeper into the welfare spiral. These are the liberals. To them the poor are a faceless mass, a tangible living by product of their cherished liberal theories.
You sure all those people are liberal? It's been my experience that genuine empathy isn't given only to one political group but is something that any individual either has or doesn't. That's why there are conservatives who want to help the poor (like you) and there are those who fire people to make their salaries bigger.

I've met people of all political affiliations who walk right past homeless people as if they aren't even there. But there are people who talk to them and perhaps buy a copy of Real Change which is a newspaper they sell in order to get money.

You're right, welfare is a flawed system especially when people get dependent on it but it's better for people to be on food stamps than starving, it's better for them to be on welfare than with no means of support. Do you offer food to everyone who comes in the soup kitchen whether you think they deserve it or not? A real hardline conservative would say you are contributing to laziness just as much as welfare does. Some people in this country work 2 or even 3 jobs and are still not making it by, they aren't even close to being lazy. That's why liberals want to raise the minimum wage.

When I was a kid my Mom would make conversation with everyone she met, the cashiers when we were shopping, the waiters when we were eating out, and yes homeless people. I used to find it awkward and embarrasing that she would go up to some seemingly random guy living on the street and call him Larry or whatever his name happened to be. Now I'm proud and I do the same thing.

You see the poor as human beings, so does my Mom, so do I, so do some people on this forum. America may be a nation of individuals but people also try to look out for one another whenever possible, that's what makes this country great. :D If more people did, perhaps we could think of a better system than welfare.

There are many things i dislike/hate about America but one of the most frustrating things is their ignorance to global warming. Because the US refuses to sign up to the keoto agreement (may be spelt wrong) then China and India wont all because mr Bush is afraid that it will damage the US economy:headbang: Global warming would cause a bigger ecenomic crash than in 1929!!! Somone needs to expalin this too him and soon since the US provides about 33% of world co2 emmisions.

There are many things i dislike/hate about America but one of the most frustrating things is their ignorance to global warming. Because the US refuses to sign up to the keoto agreement (may be spelt wrong) then China and India wont all because mr Bush is afraid that it will damage the US economy:headbang: Global warming would cause a bigger ecenomic crash than in 1929!!! Somone needs to expalin this too him and soon since the US provides about 33% of world co2 emmisions.

As much as I agree that the USA (along with the rest of the world) needs to combat climate change in order to prevent a global humanitarian, if not economic, disaster, simply ratifying Kyoto will not force China or India to reduce their emissions because they are exempt from any targets.

Even the Daily Mail doesn't stoop so low as to ignore the fact that someone's given the life to make such an attack.
Plus, it would mean they would have to reduce the amount of space devoted to Teen Mums/Asylum Seekers in order to do it.

Also (off-topic) - why aren't you telling me your location? :p
Because if I do, the aliens will come and eat my Brains!!!

Plus, it would mean they would have to reduce the amount of space devoted to Teen Mums/Asylum Seekers in order to do it.
Did you know - I'm the son of a teen mum (obviously you didn't) and I did really well in my GCSEs and such.

*sighs* if only the Mail actually researched anything properly instead of foreigner-bashing.
Because if I do, the aliens will come and eat my Brains!!!
True, but I could save all of your Brians.

It's a fucking ridiculous FOX-based semantic point.

when one asshole kills 10 people in a subway, I'm going to discuss the incident in terms of the victims, not the religious fanatic who killed himself. If he is a suicide bomber let him go blowe himself up in a field. I'll buy the TV rights and supply the plastique.

when one asshole kills 10 people in a subway, I'm going to discuss the incident in terms of the victims, not the religious fanatic who killed himself. If he is a suicide bomber let him go blowe himself up in a field. I'll buy the TV rights and supply the plastique.

When the same term has been used to describe something for a long time it seems a little stupid to change it. Everyone understands the connotations of the phrase 'suicide bomber'.

If you're so intelligent you should at least attempt to understand opposing valid arguments, instead of making straw men. Those who bombed London were not right to do so, but the lives of 57 people in London would not have been lost if it weren't for the Iraq war.

Bin Laden was training murders all through the 90s. Once they are trained and in a religious jihad fever the specific excuse is irrelevant. It could be a 1000 year old grudge against Crusaders. You can't say which westerners they would target. Probably targets of opportunity, which means europe rather the the US.

Hussein was doing an efficient, if evil, job of containing that hatred. We should have left him there.

Sure, same with Hitler, right? Neville Chamberlain all over again. Ignore the evil and maybe it will kill my neighbor and not me. This time.

Did you know - I'm the son of a teen mum (obviously you didn't) and I did really well in my GCSEs and such.

*sighs* if only the Mail actually researched anything properly instead of foreigner-bashing.
The Mail is actually run by fascists - my dad works for the Mirror, and knows plenty of people in the newspaper industry, including some who work/worked for the Daily Mail. One of dad's workmates went to work for the Mail, but was suspended on his first day of having (shock!) shoulder length hair. Another was refused a job because he wore brown shoes. Plus, the office is designed so that people can't talk to each other because they are put in dingy cubicles and that kind of thing.

All true...

True, but I could save all of your Brians.
If that's the case, I live in south Essex. Near Britain's, playground...Basildon!:rolleyes:

when one asshole kills 10 people in a subway, I'm going to discuss the incident in terms of the victims, not the religious fanatic who killed himself. If he is a suicide bomber let him go blowe himself up in a field. I'll buy the TV rights and supply the plastique.
So, it is semantics, then.

There are many things i dislike/hate about America but one of the most frustrating things is their ignorance to global warming. Because the US refuses to sign up to the keoto agreement (may be spelt wrong) then China and India wont all because mr Bush is afraid that it will damage the US economy:headbang: Global warming would cause a bigger ecenomic crash than in 1929!!! Somone needs to expalin this too him and soon since the US provides about 33% of world co2 emmisions.

Let me expand.

Is CO2 growing and might it effect climate changes if it does? Probably. If the sun doesn't have some flares and there are no volcanoes or meteor strikes or if we don't figure out global air conditioning and that runs amuck.

I just have found that whereever teeming masses of protesters go howling about the end of the world, it behooves one to pause. There seems to be a very human instinct to panic in herds.

Let's review:

WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE KILLED BY NUKES !!

When I was a kid it was nuclear war. Yeah, that was definitely a real threat. And teaching the kids to hide under there desks was empowering. And kumaya was a rocking good folk song. But the predictions of the end of the world by 1980 and regular regional nuclear wars were premature, it seems. Now none of the scientists talk about global thermonuclear war much, even though they are expanding around the world. And there weren't many wars in the last 50 years, where wars were very popular. It seems it became sort of a conservative talking point once it came to stopping proliferation to nutjob countries, and the liberal academicians went off to find something else.

WE ARE ALL FUCKED FROM FUCKING !!

They found population growth. Famines by 1980. The end of the world by 1990. Dr. Ehrlich's famous 1968 book The Population Bomb predicted 1 billion dead by 1985. A disaster of biblical proportions, Old Testament, real wrath-of-God type stuff. (Drs. Ehrlich and Peter Venkman)

Instead, famines and food shortages have steadily declined since the 60s with the growth of food producing technology. Countries like Japan, Italy, France...most of Europe, have DIRE population downtrends which are predicted to DRAMATICALLY negatively impact their economies in the next 50 years. Ehrlich sold his books and then the liberal marchers found another thing to fearmonger.

WHY? WHY? Y2K IS GOING TO KILL US ??!

You all know this one. My wife filled the bathtub with water New Year's Eve. Once again, fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria. The computer scientist guys all got their lucrative two year crisis coding projects, and nothing happened. At all.

WE ARE GOING TO BURN AND DROWN !!

So, now we are all going to drown because the average world temperature has dropped by 1 degree fahrenheit in the past 30 years and CO2 levels have risen. Of course, by somewhat questionable measurement data, CO2 levels were roughly as high as they are now 125,000 years ago. And there was a peak before that at 240,000 years ago. And 340,000 and 410,000, etc. Average world temperatures spiked higher than they are now back then too. Even tho Fred Flintstone was pedalling his Prius hybrid with his feet.

METEOR STIKE !!!

It killed the dinosaurs, looks like. Even dino and hopefully Barney. Protesters haven't seemed to get their teeth into this yet. Probably no fun action points. and putting a nuke on a rocket is so conservative sounding.

PANDEMIC !!! AIDS !! AVIAN FLU !!! HERPES !!!

Except for AIDS, no real foothold in the only place whose capitalist system rewards research and whose citizens and academicians have the wealth and free time to panic, so no mass movements yet.

ISLAMIC TERROROSTS COMING TO KILL US !!!!!

How did this get in here? This one is real. No liberals marching though. Another issue that empowers conservatives, damn their evangelical christian hides.

WE ARE ALL DOOMED FAT SLOBS !!

The new obesity panic I particularly like, after Dr. Ehrlich's predictions.

Is it maybe possible that some percentage of humans have an inate need to march and protest and worry about semi-realistic possibilities?

Bin Laden was training murders all through the 90s. Once they are trained and in a religious jihad fever the specific excuse is irrelevant. It could be a 1000 year old grudge against Crusaders. You can't say which westerners they would target. Probably targets of opportunity, which means europe rather the the US.
If you only tackle the effects the causes will remain. If the causes remain, more terrorists will be produced. Simple.

Sure, same with Hitler, right? Neville Chamberlain all over again. Ignore the evil and maybe it will kill my neighbour and not me. This time.
False analogy, and you know it. Hitler was bent on spreading fascism, while Saddam was intent on curbing Islamists to consolidate his power.

-snip-
Please remove your tinfoil helmet. Why? There is no liberal conspiracy to falsify/fear monger climate change. Even Pat "hurricane slayer" Robertson admitted that something needed to be done about it on national TV, and he's no liberal.

they didnt charge saddam with the Shia uprising killings rite?
Hmmm? Could Saddam have attacked the US with WMD's, as was feared by some?

-snip-

Is it maybe possible that some percentage of humans have an inate need to march and protest and worry about semi-realistic possibilities?
Oh, not some, a lot if you look at the recent terrorist hype.

Please remove your tinfoil helmet. Why? There is no liberal conspiracy to falsify/fear monger climate change. Even Pat "hurricane slayer" Robertson admitted that something needed to be done about it on national TV, and he's no liberal.

I never said there was a conspiracy. I think there is science behind it. Of course, saying the sky is falling will get you published and the attention will get you tenure and grants a lot faster than saying nothing is certain and it might take 50,000 years. That is what happened during some of the past "scares" I mentioned.

I don't think there is a liberal conspiracy, I just think the naive and scared flock to a light like gnats.

And don't throw Pat Robertson up at me, I think he is a stupid as any mullah. I'm an atheist.

Hmmm? Could Saddam have attacked the US with WMD's, as was feared by some?


Oh, not some, a lot if you look at the recent terrorist hype.

where was the last anti-terrorism march?

where was the last anti-terrorism march?

Where was the last pro-terrorism march, for that matter?


Would anyone have been shocked if some biological attack in 2002 in the US or Europe had been linked to Saddam's labs ?

And yet... this didn't happen. Just because you invent a scenario doesn't mean that scenario happened.
You'll also note that a bombing in America in 1995 was linked to a lab in some country... erm... anyway, I'm sure America should have invaded that country, deposing their leader and massacring their citizens. I'm sure the name of that country will conveniently come to me by the end of this post.

So terrorist training camps in afghanistan during the 90s are none of your business.

Actually, I quite like Conservatiana's stance on this. It seems to follow that as America gave the Mujahideen the guns, bombs and training in the first place, it's NATO's responsibility to clean it up.
Yeah, I'm glad British, French, Canadian, German and other soldiers are dying in order to fix America's mess, and I'm glad Conservatiana's so grateful.
Don't mention it, mate. It's our pleasure.

Oh, and by the way, that country that supplied the bomb that was used on American citizens in 1995. That country that, following your logic, America should bomb and massacre etc? Yeah, we all know it was America. Oklahoma city, 1995. Round of applause for Conservatiana, everyone. He thinks America should bomb America.

Where was the last pro-terrorism march, for that matter?

You seem to want to debate positions I did not make. I bet you win, you, you admitted advocate of pedophiliatic necrophiliatic molestation, you.

And yet... this didn't happen. Just because you invent a scenario doesn't mean that scenario happened.

I believe you hit upon the definition of scenario.

Good point, its difficult when you try and compare the Rocky Mountains, New York and California (to name a few of the best places in America and possibly in the world) to places such as Nebraska and Detroit.
WTF? What we do that deserves being put in the same catagory at Detroit.

Maybe the U.S should just resign from the UN (its not like we're welcomed there anymore anyway). Have the US backed UN army be replaced by an EU army or NATO army, remove the US from the Secerity Council and have it be replaced by someone else. Have then the UN then pull US troops out of Iraq (along with the international forces) as well as any other instillations the US may occupy around the world. From what I've watched on CNN, BBC and FoX I've come to the conclusion that the world dosen't need another Big Boss persona keeping up with everyone elses problems. I think as an American we need to look within our own borders and solve more domestic problems.Conservatiana there are somethings you say I agree with on how the US should protect itself from terrorism (you seem to be this threads favorite whiping boy but I admire your ability to hold ground on the issues that matter to you, same goes to everyone else :)). However, I believe that the US can fight terrorism within the US (and the world can keep it that way by helping prevent attacks directed at us from abroad like the UK airline plot a few months earlier). The Middle East can be left alone and allow it to be absorbed by whatever powers who desire to control it and the rest of the world can watch or intervene however they like. Should it get to the point that it gets out of control, it then should be the UN's resposiblity to handle the situation not the US, because we've gotten our chance and we blew it. If a plan like this can be implicated (though not likely) it may not fully change the situation in the Middle East or the Worlds current view of America but it will cause policy makers in London, Bejing, Moscow and maybe even Tehran to give three silent cheers becaue it will be seen as justice served. Current policies cannot allow us to operate the way we wanted to a decade earlier because of the opposition towards our policies (not to say that all our current policies arn't bogus). If the world wants the US to stay out of international affairs than fine, so be it, but isolationism may very well become the US's policy through the later half of the 21st century because of this war we're fighting. It can't be our responsibilty anymore, because of this mistake in Iraq we can never regain our crediability in the international community...Sorry I'm rabbling on like this and that I may have contradicted my self a number of times but what I'm trying to say I guess is that America should just be concerned about America. *sigh* *kneels down* Conservatiana let me releave you of your burden and let the others beat me around for a change :).

Martyr much? :rolleyes:

No just thought I'd have my say.

No just thought I'd have my say.

So what's with "let the others beat me around for a change", then? Sheesh.

Because I think all the European users here are getting bored just messing with Conservatiana :D .

Re: The OP

Having an extensive network of friends and associates all over the world.

Most say they beleive individual Americans can be caring, tolerant, peace-loving and capable of altruist deeds.

What they think of our government is another story altogether.

It's vital to separate the two.

You seem to want to debate positions I did not make. I bet you win, you, you admitted advocate of pedophiliatic necrophiliatic molestation, you.

I believe you hit upon the definition of scenario.
Wow ad hominin attack complete with flame; we are all so impressed....you've done wonders for your own credibility with this...[/sarcasm]

By the way, you might want to consider abiding by the forum rules. I'm no mod, but last time I checked flaming other posters was most definately against the rules.

where was the last anti-terrorism march?
Can you tell me your point so I can debate it?

Since you're obviously quite well off, since you're a part of MENSA, and you don't seem to understand... well... people, maybe you just don't really get why people act the way they do.

I've spoken to people who were thieves, and they basically said that was life not dealing them such a shitty hand, they'd never have started it in the first place. These are people that had one of their parents killed in accidents, and had to live on benefits all through their childhood.

Just because life deals you a bad hand does not give you permission to commit crimes.

Lots of people have less than perfect upbringings yet don't become criminals.

They were bored due to not having the money to enjoy themselves, poor due to no real source of income, and surrounded by people who had more than they needed, at least in their opinions anyway.

And, their opinions trump their victim's rights?

Wouldn't you be tempted to commit crime in those circumstances?

As I was in those circumstances, I can say - No.

Ok I am and an american and very greatfull to be one. As I know the hate towards my country. Though I know why many people have such strong feelings about us i understand. But when people say I want America to die or whatever are you talking about the people. I know that normal Americans have done nothing to you, You cant think that all americans are like bush...Just like you cant say all people from North Korea are like their fat leader.

Take a look in the average discussion about North Korean nuclear arsenal, or Iranian military ambitions, and you will see people saying things like "we should bomb Iran back into the stone-age" or "North Korea needs to be nuked".

If you can understand why Americans say those things about other people, you should be able to understand why other people say those things about 'Americans'.

Excuse me? If it wasn't for France we wouldn't have won. The GAVE us troops, money, weapons, and a NAVY. They started the bandwagon of European nations assisting the American cause. If France didn't decide to help, do you honestly think your pal Denmark would've? The last real battle of the American Revolution that sealed victory for the Americans in Yorktown was won because Admiral De Grasse's French fleet blocked Chesapeake Bay keeping the British from escaping by sea while the combined forces of Washington and French commander Rochambeau surrounded him on land.

I agree; without France, we might not have won.

Might.

But, still, they GAVE nothing, any aid they provided was motivated by animosity towards England, not towards helping the colonies become independent.

France saw a chance to get England out of the New World and took advantage of it. Their motivation was to replace English mastery with French.

But, still, they GAVE nothing, any aid they provided was motivated by animosity towards England, not towards helping the colonies become independent.

France saw a chance to get England out of the New World and took advantage of it. Their motivation was to replace English mastery with French.

Has ever some country fought or supported a war that wasn't in its own best interests?

Wasn't it US interest to intervene against the Axis in WW2?
Wasn't it CCCP interest to intervene against Mujaheddins in Afghanistan?
Wasn't it US interest to intervene against North Vietnam?
Wasn't it CCCP interest to send weapons to North Vietnam?
Wasn't it US interest to strike Jugoslavia?
Wasn't it EU interest to send a UN force to South Lebanon?
...

Really, last time I heard that someone fought a war that wasn't his own for no direct interest, it was when the international brigades supported the Spanish Republic against Franco's golpe. But they hadn't been sent by their own countries... governments tend to be more interest-driven than that.

Has ever some country fought or supported a war that wasn't in its own best interests?

Wasn't it US interest to intervene against the Axis in WW2?
Wasn't it CCCP interest to intervene against Mujaheddins in Afghanistan?
Wasn't it US interest to intervene against North Vietnam?
Wasn't it CCCP interest to send weapons to North Vietnam?
Wasn't it US interest to strike Jugoslavia?
Wasn't it EU interest to send a UN force to South Lebanon?
...

Really, last time I heard that someone fought a war that wasn't his own for no direct interest, it was when the international brigades supported the Spanish Republic against Franco's golpe. But they hadn't been sent by their own countries... governments tend to be more interest-driven than that.
Nicely put. And even the people in the international brigades in the Spanish Civil War were fighting in what they perceived as their own interests, feeling that a fascist take-over in Spain would lead to worse things.

And if I may nudge you gently, Risottia, you should type SSSR instead of CCCP for the Soviet Union. "CCCP" in Cyrlilic letters transliterates to "SSSR". ;)

Wow ad hominin attack complete with flame; we are all so impressed....you've done wonders for your own credibility with this...[/sarcasm]

By the way, you might want to consider abiding by the forum rules. I'm no mod, but last time I checked flaming other posters was most definately against the rules.

They say recognition of satire is a higher cognitive ability.

Maybe the U.S should just resign from the UN (its not like we're welcomed there anymore anyway). Have the US backed UN army be replaced by an EU army or NATO army, remove the US from the Secerity Council and have it be replaced by someone else. Have then the UN then pull US troops out of Iraq (along with the international forces) as well as any other instillations the US may occupy around the world. From what I've watched on CNN, BBC and FoX I've come to the conclusion that the world dosen't need another Big Boss persona keeping up with everyone elses problems. I think as an American we need to look within our own borders and solve more domestic problems.Conservatiana there are somethings you say I agree with on how the US should protect itself from terrorism (you seem to be this threads favorite whiping boy but I admire your ability to hold ground on the issues that matter to you, same goes to everyone else :)). However, I believe that the US can fight terrorism within the US (and the world can keep it that way by helping prevent attacks directed at us from abroad like the UK airline plot a few months earlier). The Middle East can be left alone and allow it to be absorbed by whatever powers who desire to control it and the rest of the world can watch or intervene however they like. Should it get to the point that it gets out of control, it then should be the UN's resposiblity to handle the situation not the US, because we've gotten our chance and we blew it. If a plan like this can be implicated (though not likely) it may not fully change the situation in the Middle East or the Worlds current view of America but it will cause policy makers in London, Bejing, Moscow and maybe even Tehran to give three silent cheers becaue it will be seen as justice served. Current policies cannot allow us to operate the way we wanted to a decade earlier because of the opposition towards our policies (not to say that all our current policies arn't bogus). If the world wants the US to stay out of international affairs than fine, so be it, but isolationism may very well become the US's policy through the later half of the 21st century because of this war we're fighting. It can't be our responsibilty anymore, because of this mistake in Iraq we can never regain our crediability in the international community...Sorry I'm rabbling on like this and that I may have contradicted my self a number of times but what I'm trying to say I guess is that America should just be concerned about America. *sigh* *kneels down* Conservatiana let me releave you of your burden and let the others beat me around for a change :).

Well, we have many points of agreement, and I am a isolationist by nature. Pragmatically, until the world gets energy efficient beyond oil, and the US efficiently secures our borders and develops an effective missile defense system, I would be uncomfortable leaving our national defense to the UN Tower of Babel and retreating from defense commitments around the world such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Israel, etc.

But it is a good goal :-)

I hate America just because you are so damned insecure. I didn't even know that before I started in NSG. It annoys me immensely that you have to constantly ask us if we like you. WE DON'T! We stopped liking you last July! Stop bothering us!

:p

Nicely put. And even the people in the international brigades in the Spanish Civil War were fighting in what they perceived as their own interests, feeling that a fascist take-over in Spain would lead to worse things.

And if I may nudge you gently, Risottia, you should type SSSR instead of CCCP for the Soviet Union. "CCCP" in Cyrlilic letters transliterates to "SSSR". ;)

About the international brigades: yes, but it can be seen as a sort of "moral" interest, different from the more "materialistic" interests government usually pursue.

Thank you for the gentleness... but I'm perfectly aware of the translitteration, since I can also speak a little Russian. I just like writing CCCP because for once I can write Cyrillic without a Cyrillic keyboard.
Sojuz Soc'jalisticeskikh Sovetskikh Respublikh...more or less. Sorry, but I can't get UNICODE working here.

About the international brigades: yes, but it can be seen as a sort of "moral" interest, different from the more "materialistic" interests government usually pursue.
Yes, true, those people were certain far more altruistic than any of the Western governments (the good old CCCP did send material aid and fighters, I believe).

Thank you for the gentleness... but I'm perfectly aware of the translitteration, since I can also speak a little Russian. I just like writing CCCP because for once I can write Cyrillic without a Cyrillic keyboard.
Sojuz Soc'jalisticeskikh Sovetskikh Respublikh...more or less. Sorry, but I can't get UNICODE working here.
;)

Originally Posted by Bunnyducks
I hate America just because you are so damned insecure. I didn't even know that before I started in NSG. It annoys me immensely that you have to constantly ask us if we like you. WE DON'T! We stopped liking you last July! Stop bothering us!

Doesn't it seem ironic that America is damned if care about your opinion and damned if we ignore it?

No, that was Weimar Germany, actually.

:p

Doesn't it seem ironic that America is damned if care about your opinion and damned if we ignore it?

Probably but thats what comes with being the worlds only superpower.

Doesn't it seem ironic that America is damned if care about your opinion and damned if we ignore it?You have my permission to ignore my opinion. That doesn't seem like much, but it's all I can do.

Yeah...

Ben Franklin's Lightning Rod Churched had lightning Rods for a bit before this
David Bushnell's Submarine I think you mean Cornelius Jacobszoon Drebbel, (dutch)
Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin, which was a mechanised version of a charkhi, (indian)and development of stadardized Interchangeable Parts
Robert Fulton's Steamboat, Denis Papin (french) & Jonathan Hulls (brits) 50 to 80 years before.
John Jethro's Iron Plow
Thomas Blanchard's Profile Lathe
Joeseph Henry's Electro-magnetic Motor, Michael Faraday did it in 1881 (brit)
McCormick's Reaping Machine first invented in ancient rome, but mechanised by him yes.
Walter Hunt's Sewing Machine, you mean the lock stich, the sewing machine had been around for a while
John A. and Hiram Abial Pitts' Threshing Machine, nope you mean Andrew Meikle (british)
Samuel Colt's Revolver
Thomas Davenport's Power Tools
Crawford Williamson Long's Ether Anesthesia i'd be more impressed by Samuel Guthrie for chloroform
Charles Goodyear's Vulcanized Rubber They were doing it in central america in 1600BC
Samuel Morse's Telegraph the first electric one was by William Fothergill Cooke (brit), electromagnetic/electrochemical by a frenchmen and germna
Elisha Graves Otis' Passenger Elevator, first developed in britain in 1823 30 yeasr earlier
Edwin T. Holmes' Burglar Alarm
B. Tyler Henry's Repeating Rifle
William Bullock's Web Offset Printer
Lucien B. Smith's Barbed Wire,first done by Louis Jannin of France.
Alfred Ely Beach's Pneumatic Subway, good idea of his, yet neither invented Pneumatics nor was it the first underground
Christopher Latham Sholes' Typewriter Rasmus Malling-Hansen, was already on sale when this guy invented his
Thomas Alva Edison's Mimeograph, Phonograph and Incandescent Light Bulb
Alexander Graham Bell's Telephone He was british you know. anyway Antonio Meucci (italian) might of done it first
R.G. Rhodes' Hearing Aid
Dr. Schuyler Skaats Wheeler's Electric Fan
George Eastman's Kodak Camera
Thomas A. Edison and William Dickson's Kinetoscope
Jesse W. Reno's Escalator
Whitcomb L. Judson's Zipper
Willis H. Carrier's Electric Air Conditioning, air conditioning had been around 2000 years or so
Orville and Wilbur Wright's Airplane Alberto Santos-Dumont (Brazil) did it first
Stopped here because correcting all these errors was taking too long to correct..
Nah, Americans haven't invented a thing...

Nah not really. They made few improvements though.

You have my permission to ignore my opinion. That doesn't seem like much, but it's all I can do.

That's awful modest, but I can't fathom why we wouldn't want input from Bunnyducks on every foreign policy decision.

"Damnit Rumsfeld, I told you no military action until the analysis from Bunnyducks comes in!"

That's awful modest, but I can't fathom why we wouldn't want input from Bunnyducks on every foreign policy decision.
Because he's a European and maybe the US should consult us a bit more on its actions?
"Damnit Rumsfeld, I told you no military action until the analysis from Bunnyducks comes in!"
Not much military action Rummy's going to be co-ordinating for a while...

That's awful modest, but I can't fathom why we wouldn't want input from Bunnyducks on every foreign policy decision.

"Damnit Rumsfeld, I told you no military action until the analysis from Bunnyducks comes in!"It's not modesty at all, because I almost always keep my opinion to myself. Shock and horror! There actually are that kind of OTHERS too, would you believe it?!?

And That Rumsfeld bit was funny! As he would listen to anybody.

Because he's a European and maybe the US should consult us a bit more on its actions?


Bunnyducks is a he?

At any rate, hasn't there been a decent amount of consulting done? Britain joined the US in Iraq, a number of other coutries did in Afghanistan, and you know we would have stopped Saddam's clock in 1996 or so if it wasn't for the UN handwringing.

Bunnyducks is a he?Sure is. Not macho enough a name? Don't worry, I like to shoot both.

And no, you shouldn't care about my opinion (don't listen to that other guy), I thought I made that clear. The only thing I want from you is to stop asking non-americans if they like you. I thought I made that clear also. It's so embarrassing.

And no, you shouldn't care about my opinion (don't listen to that other guy), I thought I made that clear. The only thing I want from you is to stop asking non-americans if they like you. I thought I made that clear also. It's so embarrassing.

I assume by "you" you mean America and not me.

I'm generally apathetic to other's opinions about me. Or my country. Probably something I should work on.

Sure is. Not macho enough a name? Don't worry, I like to shoot both.
Kubblagh!
And no, you shouldn't care about my opinion (don't listen to that other guy), I thought I made that clear.
He's right, you know.
The only thing I want from you is to stop asking non-americans if they like you. I thought I made that clear also. It's so embarrassing.
He's right, you know.

Doesn't it seem ironic that America is damned if care about your opinion and damned if we ignore it?

No. Look, by mistaking "paradoxical" for "ironic" here, you're confirming yet another stereotype. Please, for the sake of Americans everywhere, stop making a fool of yourself, you blundering oaf!

No. Look, by mistaking "paradoxical" for "ironic" here, you're confirming yet another stereotype. Please, for the sake of Americans everywhere, stop making a fool of yourself, you blundering oaf!


I like ironic. Paradoxical...seems like a word that some anal priss semantic emotional basket case would light upon and try to hammer into every awkward sentence structure she cound find.

I like ironic. Paradoxical...seems like a word that some anal priss semantic emotional basket case would light upon and try to hammer into every awkward sentence structure she cound find.

Paradoxical still works better in that context. Nyeh :p

I like ironic. Paradoxical...seems like a word that some anal priss semantic emotional basket case would light upon and try to hammer into every awkward sentence structure she cound find.

Not at all like you, with the word "ironic" then?
Look, all I'm saying is, learn what ironic means. It's really awkward listening to someone try to use it incorrectly.

Merriam-Websters Eleventh Edition Dictionary

Irony: 1. A pretense of ingnorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the others false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning- called also Socratic irony 2. a the use of words to express something other than esp. the opposite of the literal meaning b. a usu. humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony.

Now that, that is out of the way lets get back to what we were originally talking about (though I must admit I'm also straying from the topic). I thought this Thread was called "World's View on America" not "Do Europeans read the Dictionary more than Americans?". YOU CAN TELL I'M BEING SERIOUS BECAUSE I'M USING CAPITAL LETTERS.

Alright lets review the talking points:
1. Europeans hate Americans (though I think they hate American voters the most).
2. Americans hate Europeans, because of point #1.
3. Europeans don't like 13-year-old Americans with "stupid" questions.
4. French Fries were invent by the Belgiums (or Dutch or any other Scandanavian country that might be responsible for its conception). Though we renamed it "Freedom Fries" (don't even think about that for two seconds or blood will squirt out of your nose).
5. Some Americans did invents some things (I'm not even going to refer to that list though). However, I will admit we did steal some inventions, like the US Constitution, which was written by the French and the Founding Fathers stole and put their names on it.

and for the sake of comedy...

6. Bill O'Reilly is crazy.
7. Pat Robertson is stupid.
8. and Vanilla Ice can't rap.

We must remember to discuss what was originally asked, FOR THE CHILDREN!!

As to the ironic point above...I don't hate Europeans for hating Americans. That is amusing but unimportant. I do hate them for being consistent wimps in areas of international security (except for Britain and occasionally Italy). They pussy out of actions America must take to avoid getting nuked by lunatics, and then they screech and cry about America acting without their help. We saw enough of France's military prowess in World War II. If we need any reverse tank transmissions you'll be the first place we look, don't worry. As to the rest of Europe, it is unrealistic to think that every bombing there is tied to US military actions. That might be on the note the nut leaves in his flat, but islamic loonies have been killing themselves and murdering infidels since time immemorial, and there are millions of them now in europe. If it wasn't support for the US it would be support for Israel. Or Saudi Arabia. Or the failure of english women to wear burghas. whatever.

Well, resources are limited, we can only go so far to protect ourselves. Europe needs to stand up against mob majority (namely the bad Muslims who want to hurt people), whether or not they agree with us on issues involving counter terrorism, or how we handle terrorism in general. If Europe wants to handle it in its own way fine. However, America needs to stand up with Europe and fight this together. We as the global community need to put up a united front against an ideology of hate which has a goal of controlling the populace under a state of fear and isolation. NATO needs to live up to its former name and what it stood for however our enemy is different now thus we also need the former Soviet Republic's as well as Russia's support, both of which are geo-politically signifigant in this new war we are fighting.

(and to lighten the mood up a bit :))

Congratulations Conservatiana! Your the 400th poster and you win a BRAND NEW CAR! *throws confeddy in Conservatiana's face while the car pulls out behind him (or her)*.

They pussy out of actions America must take to avoid getting nuked by lunatics

What actions?
Bear in mind that The Sum of All Fears doesn't count. It's fiction.

As to the ironic point above...I don't hate Europeans for hating Americans. That is amusing but unimportant. I do hate them for being consistent wimps in areas of international security (except for Britain and occasionally Italy). They pussy out of actions America must take to avoid getting nuked by lunatics, and then they screech and cry about America acting without their help. We saw enough of France's military prowess in World War II. If we need any reverse tank transmissions you'll be the first place we look, don't worry. As to the rest of Europe, it is unrealistic to think that every bombing there is tied to US military actions. That might be on the note the nut leaves in his flat, but islamic loonies have been killing themselves and murdering infidels since time immemorial, and there are millions of them now in europe. If it wasn't support for the US it would be support for Israel. Or Saudi Arabia. Or the failure of english women to wear burghas. whatever.

I wouldn't call causing two world wars being "wimps".... and also just because France does not support US foreign policy does not mean they are wimps, it may mean that they are one of the few countries who are brave enough to stand up to America.

Although I do like the way you did not include Britain in your "Europeans are Wimps" rant :D

I wouldn't call causing two world wars being "wimps".... and also just because France does not support US foreign policy does not mean they are wimps, it may mean that they are one of the few countries who are brave enough to stand up to America.

If there is a way to be brave in a cowardly way, trust France to find it.

Although I do like the way you did not include Britain in your "Europeans are Wimps" rant :D

Britain is a standup country. So is Australia. In about 20 years, Japan will be as well, forced to militarize by North Korea and China...

4. French Fries were invent by the Belgiums (or Dutch or any other Scandanavian country that might be responsible for its conception). Though we renamed it "Freedom Fries" (don't even think about that for two seconds or blood will squirt out of your nose)
Probably Spain.

If there is a way to be brave in a cowardly way, trust France to find it.
Than why did the France declare a war on Germany because they invaded Poland? And how did the US came into WW2? They wanted to help? Or did Hitler declare war on the US first? I have the feeling we're going around in circles.

I'm really tired of these "jokes". They're not funny and France isn't the most logical candidate for such a jest. They kicked ass troughout history. They conquered and pillaged Rome, they holded of a large muslim force that was going to conquer Europe (already did Spain), they eventually won the 100 years war. There was a Frenchman on the throne in France and one in England. They holded of the superior Germans in WW1 and carried most of the allied western front...

They fought true powers of the world in their times. Don't call them "cowards", because they somehow didn't manage to win them all.

I Love my Country. May God Bless America. I salute you, America.

If there is a way to be brave in a cowardly way, trust France to find it.
Oh the wit.

Not like they saved your country twice and won World War one or anything...
Britain is a standup country. So is Australia. In about 20 years, Japan will be as well, forced to militarize by North Korea and China...
No, Howard and Blair are just Bush's bitches. That makes us pathetic, not strong. Pathetic for bowing down, rather than openly disagreeing with a superpower as most of the world was brave enough to do.

I Love my Country. May God Bless America. I salute you, America.
So we've heard on this topic before. Many a time.

So we've heard on this topic before. Many a time.

and many more times to come......:D

The OP does state, "World's View on America" Last I checked Florida is still part of this world. I'd much rather have Pride in my Great Country and move on to the future than Hate my country and be a depressed fool for the rest of my Life.

and many more times to come......:D

The OP does state, "World's View on America" Last I checked Florida is still part of this world. I'd much rather have Pride in my Great Country and move on to the future than Hate my country and be a depressed fool for the rest of my Life.
*sighs*

Probably Spain.
I'm really tired of these "jokes". They're not funny and France isn't the most logical candidate for such a jest. They kicked ass troughout history. They conquered and pillaged Rome, they holded of a large muslim force that was going to conquer Europe (already did Spain), they eventually won the 100 years war. There was a Frenchman on the throne in France and one in England. They holded of the superior Germans in WW1 and carried most of the allied western front...

They fought true powers of the world in their times. Don't call them "cowards", because they somehow didn't manage to win them all.

I think the jabs are more at the positions taken by the French government post WWII. Admittedly, there was not much to be done to stop the blitzkrieg of Hitler after the Chamberlain appesiers had their way. The jokes are of modern policy, not of the past.

No, Howard and Blair are just Bush's bitches. That makes us pathetic, not strong. Pathetic for bowing down, rather than openly disagreeing with a superpower as most of the world was brave enough to do.

Agreed, these last few years have made me ashamed to be a Labour supporter, and even more ashamed to be British.

Than why did the France declare a war on Germany because they invaded Poland? And how did the US came into WW2? They wanted to help? Or did Hitler declare war on the US first? I have the feeling we're going around in circles.

I'm really tired of these "jokes". They're not funny and France isn't the most logical candidate for such a jest. They kicked ass troughout history. They conquered and pillaged Rome, they holded of a large muslim force that was going to conquer Europe (already did Spain), they eventually won the 100 years war. There was a Frenchman on the throne in France and one in England. They holded of the superior Germans in WW1 and carried most of the allied western front...

They fought true powers of the world in their times. Don't call them "cowards", because they somehow didn't manage to win them all.

Don't forget Napolean....he was arguably just as much a threat to Europe in his day as Hitler was in World War Two.

No, Howard and Blair are just Bush's bitches. That makes us pathetic, not strong. Pathetic for bowing down, rather than openly disagreeing with a superpower as most of the world was brave enough to do.

The bravest countries in the world are those prepared to stand up against something they do not believe is right....such as most of Europe did when Britain and America began the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Don't forget Napolean....he was arguably just as much a threat to Europe in his day as Hitler was in World War Two.

Damn, Savoy sold Corse to France the very same day Napoleon was born. Had they just waited a day, Napoleon would have been born italian!

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." --- General George S. Patton

The bravest countries in the world are those prepared to stand up against something they do not believe is right....such as most of Europe did when Britain and America began the Iraq invasion in 2003.
Yes, that's what I meant.

Oh and the Patton thing isn't actually very funny, Cons.

Did you ever consider that America has never single-handedly won a war in its entire span of history, and that the French were involved in almost every success story that it's had?

The one who won both world wars...

Brits can't handle sarcasm?

Interesting...



okay i wasnt going to get involved in this thread, but u had to go and push it

the brits OWN sarcasm, if their was a british version of friends they would all be more extreme chandlers. sarcasm makes up about 80% of our homour, and we have more than the rest of the world put together!

Did you ever consider that America has never single-handedly won a war in its entire span of history, and that the French were involved in almost every success story that it's had?

"Single-handed" is an interesting phrase. I'm not sure how many countries have "single-hadedly" won any war. Maybe aggressive tryrants. When America is moved to military action it normally does have friends on the side of right. France is just rarely one of them. Their backing of the US in 1778 was not out of friendship but a strategic decision in a world-wide war with the British.

I would guess that the French killed far more Americans in the French and Indian war than they did British in the Revolutionary War.

Yes, that's what I meant.
Did you ever consider that America has never single-handedly won a war in its entire span of history, and that the French were involved in almost every success story that it's had?

I suppose the French did really well in Vietnam, lol

I suppose the French did really well in Vietnam, lol
I don't see the American government boasting about their successes in Indochina either.

The bravest countries in the world are those prepared to stand up against something they do not believe is right....such as most of Europe did when Britain and America began the Iraq invasion in 2003.


Since when does bravery entail *not* putting your ass on the line? What sort of bravery is entailed in staying at home? One could argue it is, perhaps, "moral" to stay out of a conflict, but there is nothing "brave" about staying home while others go put their blood on the line to overthrow a bloody tyrant that had ignored 19 UN resolutions.

Since when does bravery entail *not* putting your ass on the line? What sort of bravery is entailed in staying at home? One could argue it is, perhaps, "moral" to stay out of a conflict, but there is nothing "brave" about staying home while others go put their blood on the line to overthrow a bloody tyrant that had ignored 19 UN resolutions.

You should listen to less white house propaganda. There was no valid reason for the invasion of Iraq and everybody knows the war was illegal. If you saw somebody doing an illegal act what is the right and brave thing to do? Join in and help them or stand up to them?

The true cowards are the ones that supported America, the ones that refused to bow to American pressure are the ones that put the respect of their country on the line to speak out against what they saw was morally wrong. If that is not a brave decision in light of the economic power of the US I don't know what is.

You should listen to less white house propaganda. There was no valid reason for the invasion of Iraq and everybody knows the war was illegal.

If Saddam Hussein is "legal" than point me to the illegal line. International "legality" is designed to protect tinhorn dictators with sovereign rights. Honestly, try to imagine a crime Hussein DIDN'T commit? Genocide? Gassing civilians? Gassing neighbors? Firing missiles at neighboring countries? Throwing dissidents into woodchippers? Systematic rape as torture?
Sacking Kuwaut? Lighting oil wells and causing one of the largest environmental disasters in history? Gee, what would be the one extra crime that would make stopping his clock worth it to you...hmmmm....what if he had stolen all the incense and peace sign flags in Leeds England? Bet that would have had you screaming for blood!

The trouble with the 'Iraq was a good idea because we got rid of the evil dictator' argument is this:

1. The USA put Saddam in power, IIRC.
2. The USA does not topple other third world dicators, so to assume this is the only reason Iraq was invaded is wrong.
3. The life of the average Iraqi is not better than when Saddam was in power.

I am glad that Saddam was removed from power. It would have been far better if the Iraqis had done it themselves.

If Saddam Hussein is "legal" than point me to the illegal line. International "legality" is designed to protect tinhorn dictators with sovereign rights. Honestly, try to imagine a crime Hussein DIDN'T commit? Genocide? Gassing civilians? Gassing neighbors? Firing missiles at neighboring countries? Throwing dissidents into woodchippers? Systematic rape as torture?
Sacking Kuwaut? Lighting oil wells and causing one of the largest environmental disasters in history? Gee, what would be the one extra crime that would make stopping his clock worth it to you...hmmmm....what if he had stolen all the incense and peace sign flags in Leeds England? Bet that would have had you screaming for blood!


hehe shit that may well be the case, but the truth is the UN did not sanction the war, it was, and is illegal.

Now you can argue that if you like(good luck) or you can rant on and on about the evil od Saddam Hussain, yet that wont make the war legal, and it is still true that two wrongs don't make a right.

hehe shit that may well be the case, but the truth is the UN did not sanction the war, it was, and is illegal.

Now you can argue that if you like(good luck) or you can rant on and on about the evil od Saddam Hussain, yet that wont make the war legal, and it is still true that two wrongs don't make a right.

We wouldn't have had to go back to Iraq if the UN had let us oust Saddam back in 1991! The UN is not the miracle organization Europe thinks it is.

And the Kurds tried to oust Saddam. They just had the misfortune of being up against the Arab version of Stalin. Of course I will not pretend that the U. S. didn't repeat the Bay of Pigs in Iraq.

The trouble with the 'Iraq was a good idea because we got rid of the evil dictator' argument is this:

1. The USA put Saddam in power, IIRC.
2. The USA does not topple other third world dicators, so to assume this is the only reason Iraq was invaded is wrong.
3. The life of the average Iraqi is not better than when Saddam was in power.

I am glad that Saddam was removed from power. It would have been far better if the Iraqis had done it themselves.

This is like an argument from a sophomore in Logic 101.

1. Totally irrelevant. You deal with the present, you can't be hampered by the past. Who you married twenty years ago shouldn't tie your hands to the options in dealing with the present day whore using your credit card.

2. Logic disconnect. Saddam wasn't sitting in the middle of a gaggle of world's dictators and we picked him out like a puppy in a store window. He was living under ceasefire sanctions from his invasion of Kuwait, sanctions he chose to ignore. Whether we found them or not, the guy had ACTUALLY manufactured and ACTUALLY employed WMDs, so to say there was no threat when he threw out UN inspectors is asinine.

3. So you are for bringing Saddam back? Sort of like Hitler made the trains run on time? At least there is the hope for Iraqis of a free democracy now.

hehe shit that may well be the case, but the truth is the UN did not sanction the war, it was, and is illegal.

Now you can argue that if you like(good luck) or you can rant on and on about the evil od Saddam Hussain, yet that wont make the war legal, and it is still true that two wrongs don't make a right.

I can live with that. I'll take the "wrong" that puts the madman at the end of a rope and installs a democracy in his country, you take the right that has Madagascar filibustering for 12 years while Saddam slaughters the Kurds and Shiites.

If Saddam Hussein is "legal" than point me to the illegal line. International "legality" is designed to protect tinhorn dictators with sovereign rights. Honestly, try to imagine a crime Hussein DIDN'T commit? Genocide? Gassing civilians? Gassing neighbors? Firing missiles at neighboring countries? Throwing dissidents into woodchippers? Systematic rape as torture?
Sacking Kuwaut? Lighting oil wells and causing one of the largest environmental disasters in history? Gee, what would be the one extra crime that would make stopping his clock worth it to you...hmmmm....what if he had stolen all the incense and peace sign flags in Leeds England? Bet that would have had you screaming for blood!

I am no pacifist and I believe that we should go to war if it is necessary e.g. Afghanistan.
However, everybody knows the REAL reason behind the Iraq war is not events that occured 12 years before the invasion, thus making the war unnecessary. Why waste the lives of our troops on a country which poses us no threat and has nothing to do with us.....if we are to randomly remove governments that America does not like, why has it yet to remove Mugabe from power in Zimbabwe? Or Kim Jong Il in North Korea? because America only wants to help countries that have resources that America requires (Iraq oil) or that America has a political motive for its invasion (Vietnam in fight against communism).

We wouldn't have had to go back to Iraq if the UN had let us oust Saddam back in 1991! The UN is not the miracle organization Europe thinks it is.

And the Kurds tried to oust Saddam. They just had the misfortune of being up against the Arab version of Stalin. Of course I will not pretend that the U. S. didn't repeat the Bay of Pigs in Iraq.

The UN was at fault for not forcing Saddam from power back in 1991.

2. Logic disconnect. Saddam wasn't sitting in the middle of a gaggle of world's dictators and we picked him out like a puppy in a store window. He was living under ceasefire sanctions from his invasion of Kuwait, sanctions he chose to ignore. Whether we found them or not, the guy had ACTUALLY manufactured and ACTUALLY employed WMDs, so to say there was no threat when he threw out UN inspectors is asinine.



There were no WMD's in Iraq at the time of the invasion, as has been proven after the invasion. You have obviously been spoon fed too much White House propaganda to see the truth that the rest of the world accepted long ago.

I am no pacifist and I believe that we should go to war if it is necessary e.g. Afghanistan.
However, everybody knows the REAL reason behind the Iraq war is not events that occured 12 years before the invasion, thus making the war unnecessary. Why waste the lives of our troops on a country which poses us no threat and has nothing to do with us.....if we are to randomly remove governments that America does not like, why has it yet to remove Mugabe from power in Zimbabwe? Or Kim Jong Il in North Korea? because America only wants to help countries that have resources that America requires (Iraq oil) or that America has a political motive for its invasion (Vietnam in fight against communism).

But...there were no WMDs in Afghanistan, right? There were just lunatics looking to attack the free wolrd.

There isn't any question about whether Saddam *could* make WMDs (he had) or *would* actually employ them against people (he did). Once he threw the UN inspectors out the threat became too great. We didn't find any....but let''s be real, if we had found SOME, the rest would have probably migrated to Iran or Syria. Maybe it did anyway.

And living outside NYC, I'm glad our government is erring on the side of caution. The Islamofascists aren't going to take a nuke and blow up Nice France. They are going to blow up New York. I'd rather employ a tougher level of national defense than, say, France has historically.

The only difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is the Iraq had a religious civil war break out after America took out its pscho government. Had Afghanistan proven to be any real difficulty the same liberals and wimpy lefty Europeans would be saying they were against Afghanistan for all the same reasons.

3. So you are for bringing Saddam back? Sort of like Hitler made the trains run on time? At least there is the hope for Iraqis of a free democracy now.

If a man has his hand trapped in a vice, you undo the vice, you don't hack his hand off with a machete. Just because one problem is solved doesn't mean the situation is better.
Stop toeing the party line, it's sad and it's ridiculous.

If a man has his hand trapped in a vice, you undo the vice, you don't hack his hand off with a machete. Just because one problem is solved doesn't mean the situation is better.
Stop toeing the party line, it's sad and it's ridiculous.

That is the dumbest analogy I've ever heard. How old are you? Where did you graduate college?

That is the dumbest analogy I've ever heard. How old are you? Where did you graduate college?

Eighteen.
Two years ago, Finham Park.
Please clarify, don't just call things "dumb".
Cheers.

Eighteen.
Two years ago, Finham Park.
Please clarify, don't just call things "dumb".
Cheers.


Okay, who is the vice? who is the hand? Who is the machete?

Essay bonus: how would you have handled Saddam after a decade of sanctions merely starved his people and he threw out UN WMD inspectors? What was the plan?

Okay, who is the vice? who is the hand? Who is the machete?

Essay bonus: how would you have handled Saddam after a decade of sanctions merely starved his people and he threw out UN WMD inspectors? What was the plan?

Vice - Saddam
Hand - The population of Iraq
Machete - America.

The point of an analogy is to demonstrate a real situation or scenario in simpler or more "down-to-earth" terms. By forcing me to explain it, you're ruining the whole point and embarrassing yourself in the process.

As for your bonus:
I would have done nothing. I am a social worker helping refugees to find homes in this country. I fill in forms for them, I liaise with local landlords. Incidentally, I fill in a lot of forms for Iraqis and Afghans.
However, I assume you're asking me what position I'd have liked my country to have taken. I'd have preferred if we didn't get involved in Iraq.
Take a look at how many people died in a year in Iraq prior to the war, and after it.
Yes, Saddam was killing his own people. Guess what, it's not Britain's policy to invade any country where people get killed by their government. If that were the case, we'd be in North Korea, Iran, America, Japan, China, and so forth.
You've been brainwashed into thinking that Saddam was the "Big Baddy", the most evil guy in the world.
He was a bastard, but here's a poser: Why are there more al Qaeda in Iraq under the new government than under Saddam? Why has sectarian violence kicked off?

(clue: It was America wot did it, guv'nor)

But...there were no WMDs in Afghanistan, right? There were just lunatics looking to attack the free wolrd.

There isn't any question about whether Saddam *could* make WMDs (he had) or *would* actually employ them against people (he did). Once he threw the UN inspectors out the threat became too great. We didn't find any....but let''s be real, if we had found SOME, the rest would have probably migrated to Iran or Syria. Maybe it did anyway.

And living outside NYC, I'm glad our government is erring on the side of caution. The Islamofascists aren't going to take a nuke and blow up Nice France. They are going to blow up New York. I'd rather employ a tougher level of national defense than, say, France has historically.

The only difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is the Iraq had a religious civil war break out after America took out its pscho government. Had Afghanistan proven to be any real difficulty the same liberals and wimpy lefty Europeans would be saying they were against Afghanistan for all the same reasons.

Firstly, Afghanistan if you haven't noticed is as much a problem as Iraq is now due to the frequent Taliban attacks in the area.
Secondly, Saddam posed no threat and Hans Blix himself found no evidence to suggest there were WMD's in or being made in Iraq before the war or after it.
Finally, if you really want to protect your country from further attacks, surely antagonising the terrorists by invading Iraq Illegally is only going to gain Al Quaeda more support and further increase the chances of an attack in the USA. If you believe that meddeling in the middle east will make the world safer you are sadly mistaken.

The only difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is the Iraq had a religious civil war break out after America took out its pscho government. Had Afghanistan proven to be any real difficulty the same liberals and wimpy lefty Europeans would be saying they were against Afghanistan for all the same reasons.

If you knew anything about Europe you would know that even the most conservative, right wing parties, politicians and people do not agree with the war in Iraq.
The difference between Iraqw and Afghanistan was the fact that Al Quaeda controlled Afghanistan...Iraq however posed no threat but had alot of oil that America wanted instead and convieniently had a dictator that could be used as the excuse for the invasion.

By forcing me to explain it, you're ruining the whole point and embarrassing yourself in the process.

Oh dear.

As for your bonus:
I would have done nothing. I am a social worker helping refugees to find homes in this country. I fill in forms for them, I liaise with local landlords. Incidentally, I fill in a lot of forms for Iraqis and Afghans.
However, I assume you're asking me what position I'd have liked my country to have taken.

Don't be a twit.


I'd have preferred if we didn't get involved in Iraq.
Take a look at how many people died in a year in Iraq prior to the war, and after it.

Where did you get that data? Did you average in the fact that every few years Sadam fought a bloody war agaisnt one of his neighbors? Or the fact that UN international sanctions were starving his people?

How many died in Europe the year before and the year after the world engaged Hitler. Is that an argument? Are you related to Neville Chamberlain?

You've been brainwashed into thinking that Saddam was the "Big Baddy", the most evil guy in the world. He was a bastard, [quote]

Your apologetic parsing of evil is quite pathetic. He didn't have to be the most evil guy in the world. Everyone knows that is John Tesh. What he had to stop doing was attacking his neighbors, shooting missiles at peacekeeping planes and invading surrounding countries, manufacturing and using WMDs, and causing environmental disasters. Since the nations of the workld had the highly questionable mercy to leave him in power after all this crap, he was at least under the obligation to not fire missiles at our planes and abide by the UN inspection standards.

When he didn't, fuck him, game over, enough. Twelve years, 19 UN sanctions, stop his clock, no more excuses.

[quote]but here's a poser: Why are there more al Qaeda in Iraq under the new government than under Saddam? Why has sectarian violence kicked off?

Your argument was that if Saddam was killing his own people but not threatening other countries than was fine with you. Now there is sectarian violence but no threat to other countries PLUS at least the hope of a free democracy down the road. And despite The Sun's opinion. Things are going pretty well in the Kurdish portion of the country.

Sometimes sectarian violence phases through and then there is a fairly peaceful government that was worth fighting for. Lebanon until recently. Hey, how about Northern Ireland?

Oh dear.
Don't be a twit.

Of course! With those pathetic attempts at condescension, you've completely converted me to your way of thinking!

Where did you get that data? Did you average in the fact that every few years Sadam fought a bloody war agaisnt one of his neighbors? Or the fact that UN international sanctions were starving his people?

There wasn't any data presented :)

How many died in Europe the year before and the year after the world engaged Hitler. Is that an argument? Are you related to Neville Chamberlain?

I notice that you often bring up Neville Chamberlain. Maybe it's to do with the guilt you feel for the US not actually trying to stop Hitler until the Allies had already fought for three years. Don't worry. It's not your fault :)


and invading surrounding countries, manufacturing and using WMDs

Invading surrounding countries? Like when we supported him against Iran, you mean? Oops! Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that he wasn't entirely to blame!
And as for the WMDs, well, that's a sadly outdated argument. Where da WMDs at, dawg?



Your argument was that if Saddam was killing his own people but not threatening other countries than was fine with you.
No, it wasn't. Read it over again, this time paying attention to all those difficult long words. Take a dictionary along to help you.

Hey, how about Northern Ireland?

Oh yeah, there's no violence there any more. Nope, none at all. Thanks, Mr. Current Events, for your unique view on the modern world!

Of course! With those pathetic attempts at condescension, you've completely converted me to your way of thinking!

Glad I could be there to help you. Now go get a job.

There wasn't any data presented :)

You made a statement. Was it just opinion then?

I notice that you often bring up Neville Chamberlain.

The lesson of being a pussy in the face of bullying Islamofacism seems appropriate to revisit with people like you.

And as for the WMDs, well, that's a sadly outdated argument. Where da WMDs at, dawg?

There aren't any now and there won't be for the foreseeable future.

No, it wasn't. Read it over again, this time paying attention to all those difficult long words. Take a dictionary along to help you.

Don't a little sophomoric prick. Get some life experience, if someone will give you a real job and you can move out of mom's basement. Start being a productive citizen before you tell everyone how to save the world.

Glad I could be there to help you. Now go get a job.

And that, above all else, suggests to me that you don't actually read what other people write.


The lesson of being a pussy in the face of bullying Islamofacism seems appropriate to revisit with people like you.

Note to Conservatiana: Chamberlain did not negotiate with al Qaeda. They didn't even exist that long ago. Your argument is null on the grounds of having no basis in actual fact. Try harder.
Also, the phrase "Islamofascism" is hilarious. Islam has nothing to do with fascism, and the very word smacks of racism. You really must overcome your fear of those "gosh-durn heathens".


There aren't any now and there won't be for the foreseeable future.

Or, indeed, past.


Start being a productive citizen before you tell everyone how to save the world.

I house homeless refugees. What do you do that's so much more worthy?

Don't a little sophomoric prick. Get some life experience, if someone will give you a real job and you can move out of mom's basement. Start being a productive citizen before you tell everyone how to save the world.
Flaming. Knock it off, Conservatania, and go read the forum rules. They're stickied everywhere.

If you persist in this behavior, you may end up taking an involuntary vacation from these forums.

Glad I could be there to help you. Now go get a job.
Forget to take your wittiness pills in the morning or something?
The lesson of being a pussy in the face of bullying Islamofacism seems appropriate to revisit with people like you.
Urmm yes... because any of the "islamofascist" states are major world powers...
There aren't any now and there won't be for the foreseeable future.
Where'd they go, then?

And I'll bet (which suggests that I can't prove this) that the US is giving the Iraqi government WP, which is a chemical weapon, and hence a WMD - not the first time the US has made such donations, mind.
Don't a little sophomoric prick. Get some life experience, if someone will give you a real job and you can move out of mom's basement. Start being a productive citizen before you tell everyone how to save the world.
Pardon?

How is it really his fault that he's eighteen and hence has not seen the world as much as you?





For a supposed member of MENSA, you can be an unthinking dumbarse sometimes, you know.

"Single-handed" is an interesting phrase. I'm not sure how many countries have "single-handedly" won any war.
I know that the UK has!

(in the Falklands, mind)
When America is moved to military action it normally does have friends on the side of right.
Usually none, actually, because it's usually not right.

When that does occur, it's usually about two or three years late, and the war has already been won.
France is just rarely one of them.
They've helped you really quite a lot, you know.
Their backing of the US in 1778 was not out of friendship but a strategic decision in a world-wide war with the British.
No shit. Doesn't mean that they didn't save your arse.
I would guess that the French killed far more Americans in the French and Indian war than they did British in the Revolutionary War.
Probably. America still exists, mind. Without the French, it'd still be a part of the British Empire, in all likelyhood.

There isn't any question about whether Saddam *could* make WMDs (he had) or *would* actually employ them against people (he did). Once he threw the UN inspectors out the threat became too great.
And when he let them back in?

Why attack before they could finish their jobs?

We didn't find any....but let''s be real, if we had found SOME, the rest would have probably migrated to Iran or Syria. Maybe it did anyway.

That's about as unreal as you can get. I don't think you would ever see Bush planning to ship WMDs to Vietnam should he ever feel the need for hiding them. Mind you, the relations between Vietnam and the US is better than they were between Syria/Iran and Iraq before the invasion.

The only difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is the Iraq had a religious civil war break out after America took out its pscho government. Had Afghanistan proven to be any real difficulty the same liberals and wimpy lefty Europeans would be saying they were against Afghanistan for all the same reasons.

Really? The only difference?

So, tell me... How's the success-story of Afghanistan going?

That's about as unreal as you can get. I don't think you would ever see Bush planning to ship WMDs to Vietnam should he ever feel the need for hiding them. Mind you, the relations between Vietnam and the US is better than they were between Syria/Iran and Iraq before the invasion.

Iraq sent most of its air force to Iran just before the Gulf War. But don''t get clotted up with facts.

So, tell me... How's the success-story of Afghanistan going?

Pretty well, thanks. Taliban ousted, elected government....of course until everyone is being slaughtered in anarchy someone like you will not be happy.

I know that the UK has!

(in the Falklands, mind)

Oh, fine then, we won Grenada and Panama. Kept all our ships intact too.

Probably. America still exists, mind. Without the French, it'd still be a part of the British Empire, in all likelyhood.


Oh, c'mon even you can't believe that, The British Empire isn't even part of the British Empire anymore.

Iraq sent most of its air force to Iran just before the Gulf War. But don''t get clotted up with facts.
Did they get a single plane back?

You think they might have learned from that experience?

Pretty well, thanks. Taliban ousted, elected government....
My, you're an optimistic one. You know, the country kinda hangs by a thread these days, the Taliban is growing stronger in the south, NATO forces say they don't really have much control outside the bigger cities, violence flairing up... I wouldn't say pretty well, not before some serious improvements are done.

of course until everyone is being slaughtered in anarchy someone like you will not be happy.

Yes, of course. That's what I said, as you can plainly see. Because I'm a right evil bastard, just like you said you were.

Oh wait! :rolleyes:

You know, they really should take some drastic action over at Mensa - they let anyone in these days. Even those who apparently don't know how to debate without resorting to ad-hominem and flame-baiting.

I house homeless refugees. What do you do that's so much more worthy?

I run a food bank that fed a few hundred families this past week. And a business that feeds about 20 souls. And I've paid a few million in taxes to be pissed away by the Hillary-types in Washington.

Who pays your salary? How much do you pay to support your government?

Who pays your salary? How much do you pay to support your government?

How is that even vaguely relevant to the topic at hand? I don't work in America, I don't work with Americans, aside from a Peruvian lass, and I don't get paid by the American government.

Try to keep on topic.

A lot fo countries, like Spain and Britain have been attacked because of the Iraq war. Their populations are still against it.

If you hadn't admitted your age, we just would have thought you were a 45 year old middle-class white guy, and declared open season.

Now we're just going to ignore you.

It's ageist, I know. Sorry. I just can't be as mean to a 13 year old as I can to a 45 year old.

Hatred towards America has little to do with the last 5 years (although that hasn't exactly helped) and a lot to do with the last 60.

1- thier populations were not attacked because of the iraq war, they were attacked because the terrorists dont like them, plain and simple, it is not because of the iraq war, i mean after all if they are not in the war then why would they attack them.

2- The american education system is teaching kids today that are in 6th grade what people 20 years ago were learning in high school. so if you dont have the desency to listen to a 13 year who has the right to speak his mind, thanks to our constitution, just shut up and leave him alone.

3- THE PAST 60 YEARS!!! The AMERICANS were in all of the major wars in the past 60 year, because they were trying to help out their frikin allied countries, and yet today you guys have the "balls" enough to bad angry with us?!?! The americans got their As*es beat the hell out of, and held up agaisnt all odds until finally the "allied" countries got off their as*es and decided to give our troopes a break, movies dont do our troopes any respect, our soldiers were in those wars without propper equipment helping countries that they did not have to help in the first place, so before you guys decide to hate us think about what we have done to try and help you.

our country is civilized, respectful, and are willing to help out so called allies who "population" hates us, we are people who dont have teenagers revolting against the govenment, we dont hide in corners and wait till the last minute to do anything,

I am 16 years old and if anybody wants to say anything to me, bring it on.

1- thier populations were not attacked because of the iraq war, they were attacked because the terrorists dont like them, plain and simple, it is not because of the iraq war, i mean after all if they are not in the war then why would they attack them.

And why don't the terrorists like them? Could the invasion of Iraq have turned the Muslim opinion against the west in general? Could the removal of Saddam have destabilized the region to make it a breeding ground for terrorists?

2- The american education system is teaching kids today that are in 6th grade what people 20 years ago were learning in high school. so if you dont have the desency to listen to a 13 year who has the right to speak his mind, thanks to our constitution, just shut up and leave him alone.

Ah! The irony! It burns! :D

3- THE PAST 60 YEARS!!! The AMERICANS were in all of the major wars in the past 60 year, because they were trying to help out their frikin allied countries, and yet today you guys have the "balls" enough to bad angry with us?!?! ...

O RLY?

Let's see... wars the past 60 years...


1945-1949 Chinese Civil War
1945-1949 Indonesian National Revolution
1946-1954 First Indochina War
1947 Paraguayan Civil War
1947-1949 Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
1948 Costa Rica Civil War
1948-1949 First Arab-Israeli War
1948-1960 Malayan Emergency
1949-1959 Chineses Invasion and Occupation of Tibet
1950-1953 Korean War
1952-1960 Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya
1954-1975 Second Indochina War
1954-1975 Vietnam War
1959-1975 Laotian Civil War
1962-1975 Secret War
1967-1975 Cambodian Civil War
1954-1962 Algerian War of Independence
1955-1972 First Sudanese Civil War
1956 Suez War (Second Arab-Israeli War)
1956 Hungarian Uprising
1956-1959 Cuban Revolution
1957-1958 Ifni War
1958 Lebanon crisis of 1958
1960-1965 "Congo Crisis"
1960-1996 Guatemalan Civil War
1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion
1961-1975 Angolan War of Independence
1962-1975 Guinea-Bissauan War of Independence
1962-1963 Sino-Indian War
1963 Sand War
1962-1966 Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation
1962-1970 Yemen Civil War
1962-1975 Dhofar Rebellion
1964-1975 Mozambican War of Independence
1965 Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
1965-1996 Chad Civil War
1965-1966 Indonesian Civil War
1966-1988 Namibian War of Independence
1966-1979 Second Chimurenga(Rhodesian Bush War)
1969-Present Communist and Islamic Insurgency in the Philippines
1967 Six-Day War (Third Arab-Israeli War)
1967-1970 Nigerian Civil War
1968-1970 War of Attrition
1969 Football War
1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict
1969-1994 The Troubles in Northern Ireland
1970 Black September
1971 Bangladesh Liberation War
1971 Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
1973 Yom Kippur War (Fourth Arab-Israeli War)
1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus
1974-1991 Ethiopian Civil War
1975-1989 Angolan Civil War
1975-1991 Western Sahara conflict
1975-1991 Lebanese Civil War
1975-1998 War of Independence in East Timor
1975-1992 Mozambican Civil War
1975-2006 Independence War in Cabinda
1977 Libyan-Egyptian War
1977-1978 Ogaden War
1977-1991 Cambodian-Vietnamese War
1978 1978 South Lebanon conflict
1978-2005 The Aceh War
1978-1988 Ugandan Civil War
1979 Sino-Vietnamese War
1979-1989 Soviet war in Afghanistan
1980-1987 Libya-Chad War
1980-1992 El Salvador Civil War
1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War
1981 Paquisha War
1982 Falklands War
1982 1982 Lebanon War
1983 Invasion of Grenada
1983-2000 Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka
1983-2005 Second Sudanese Civil War
1984-present Free Papua Movement
1984 Siachin War
1985 Christmas War
1987-1993 First Intifada
1988-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh war
1989-1991 Mauritania-Senegal Border War
1989-1990 Invasion of Panama
1989-1997 First Liberian Civil War
1989 Romanian Revolution
1990-1991 Gulf War
1990-1994 Rwandan Civil War
1990-1998 Tuareg Rebellion
1991-2002 Algerian Civil War
1991-2001 Yugoslav Wars
1991 Slovenian War
1991-1995 Croatian War of Independence
1992-1995 Bosnian War
1998-1999 Kosovo War
2001 Macedonia conflict
1991-1993 Georgian Civil War
1991-1992 Georgian-Ossetian Conflict
1992-1993 Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict
1991-1997 Sierra Leone Civil War
1992-1997 Tajikistan Civil War
1993-1999 Burundi Civil War
1994 1994 Yemeni Civil War
1994-1996 First Chechen War
1995 NATO bombing of Republika Srpska
1995 Cenepa War
1996-1997 First Congo War
1996-2006 Nepal Civil War
1998-2000 Ethiopia-Eritrea War
1998 December 1998 bombing of Iraq
1998-2002 Second Congo War
1999 Kargil War
1999 Dagestan War
1999-2003 Second Liberian Civil War
2000-Present Al-Aqsa Intifada
2001-Present United States war in Afghanistan
2001-Present Civil War in Côte d'Ivoire
2002 Gujarat violence
2003-present Balochistan conflict, Pakistan
2003-present Darfur conflict, Sudan
2003-present Iraq War
2004 Haiti rebellion
2004-present Central African Republic Civil War
2004-2006 Waziristan War, Pakistan
2005-2006 Chad-Sudan conflict
2005 Western Sahara Independence Intifada
2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict


How many of these have the US been involved in? I'm guessing not all. Then again, who knows how you define a MAJOR war? Maybe one in which the US participates...? Or maybe the "great" US education system chooses to only teach about those wars that are interesting?

1- thier populations were not attacked because of the iraq war, they were attacked because the terrorists dont like them, plain and simple, it is not because of the iraq war, i mean after all if they are not in the war then why would they attack them.

I think they were attacked because of the war in Iraq. Afghanistan could be seen as a retaliation for 9/11. Iraq however probably scared many people in the Middle East, because it was the second time in a short while a muslim country was being targeted. It looked imperialistc and, like it or not, even terrorist need somewhat of an excuse to blow stuff up.
Spain and Britain were part of the stabilization of Iraq when Madrid and London were attacked, so your only argument is void.

3- THE PAST 60 YEARS!!! The AMERICANS were in all of the major wars in the past 60 year, because they were trying to help out their frikin allied countries, and yet today you guys have the "balls" enough to bad angry with us?!?!
I'm sowwy, we'll be good puppets now. Okay?

The americans got their As*es beat the hell out of, and held up agaisnt all odds until finally the "allied" countries got off their as*es and decided to give our troopes a break
What war are you talking about? I don't know any war were the US didn't get help from the start, even if they acted 100% in their own interests.

, movies dont do our troopes any respect, our soldiers were in those wars without propper equipment
Did you just say that American soldiers are portrayed bad in movies? So every American soldiers was worth even more than a one-man army?

Without propper equipment? Compared to what other armies?

helping countries that they did not have to help in the first place, so before you guys decide to hate us think about what we have done to try and help you.
The Allies got their As*es beat the hell out of, and held up agaisnt all odds until finally the "Usa" got off their as*es and decided to give our troopes a break

3- THE PAST 60 YEARS!!! The AMERICANS were in all of the major wars in the past 60 year, because they were trying to help out their frikin allied countries, and yet today you guys have the "balls" enough to bad angry with us?!?! The americans got their As*es beat the hell out of, and held up agaisnt all odds until finally the "allied" countries got off their as*es and decided to give our troopes a break, movies dont do our troopes any respect, our soldiers were in those wars without propper equipment helping countries that they did not have to help in the first place, so before you guys decide to hate us think about what we have done to try and help you.

our country is civilized, respectful, and are willing to help out so called allies who "population" hates us, we are people who dont have teenagers revolting against the govenment, we dont hide in corners and wait till the last minute to do anything,



If I remeber rightly America was late tyo both World Wars so I feel that you are being hugely disrespectful to the allied troops who fought before the Americans even turned up. I don't remeber the American's at the Somme, at Ypres, at Stalingrad or during the German invasion of France or Poland in World War Two. If the allies were so lazy why did fight all of those battles without American intervention? And why did Russia defeat Hitler on the Eastern Front on her own without America if she was, as with the other allies, "dependant" upon America. Please research the World Wars before you are able to comment upon them as you clearly have a limited knowledge of the events that occured.


I am 16 years old and if anybody wants to say anything to me, bring it on.

What does your age have to do with anything. I'm 17 and that has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to research an event before forming an opinion on it or argue my point.

Oh, c'mon even you can't believe that, The British Empire isn't even part of the British Empire anymore.
Because of the US' influence after the second world war. If you were just a part of the empire, we probably wouldn't have had to deal with that.

1- thier populations were not attacked because of the iraq war, they were attacked because the terrorists dont like them, plain and simple, it is not because of the iraq war, i mean after all if they are not in the war then why would they attack them.


The Terrorists don't like France, Canada or Germany but I don't see them being attacked.

Will people still like it if OBAMA or CLINTON are elected?

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/zombie_smiley.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/zombie_smiley.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/zombie_smiley.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/zombie_smiley.gif
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/zombie_smiley.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/zombie_smiley.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/zombie_smiley.gif
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/zombie_smiley.gifhttp://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/zombie_smiley.gif
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/zombie_smiley.gif

I think the real question is, Whats America's views of the World?:upyours:

:p

This whole thread made me sad. Its just a circle jerk of flag wavers who think America is this city on a hill, paragon of human virtue and greatness...


...next to a circle jerk of Eurocentric nationalists who hate America for equally suspect reasons, typically ignoring that everything America has done their own country has done, and in many instances, was worse.


Most people in this thread are...well...:(


Neesika was the only poster worth reading with her comment on page one...

Actually, i didnt bother reading any, until yours, KoL...


I was just Spamming/Trolling out of boredom, lol...

Besides, the Circle Jerks rule...

Actually, i didnt bother reading any, until yours, KoL...


I was just Spamming/Trolling out of boredom, lol...

Besides, the Circle Jerks rule...

And your not one of the members of the circle jerk. Some people on here are upsetting. Most are.


But some are actually sane. Or funny.

That, and the nigh analphabetism. One could make comments about substandard schooling systems, but when it's presented like this, one just hasn't the heart to be honest.

Fassitude was cooler.

That, and the nigh analphabetism. One could make comments about substandard schooling systems, but when it's presented like this, one just hasn't the heart to be honest.

Id think that in order to have an opinion worth a damn on a nations school's, one should actually have experiance with said nation's schools.


But don't let that get in the way of your painting. Here is your massive brush.

my current view on america is: thank you for the crap you've landed the rest of the world in with all this credit crunch nonsense. hooray for subprime and sticking a big spoke into what was already a fragile world economy. and thanks for securing your oil interests in the middle east, helping to push oil prices up as much as they have.

at least, that's the picture we're getting over here. not a very positive one.

overall, however, my view is a bit more balanced in the longer term. but right now: not so good at all.

I view my country in the same way I tell people to view France when they get all Francophile; think of the past, not the present.

America was the nation that helped the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom topple Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. America was the nation that fought the USSR when no one else could. Americans were the people doing everything they could to help when the rest of the world was unable to send humanitarian aid to another country. The United States of America, for all it may be doing now, has done as much for this planet as Britain, France, or any of the other great powers ever did.

Granted, it has also done a fair deal of bad in its 200 year history, but I don't think anyone here would contest the statement that were it not for the United States existing, the world would be far worse off now than it is (remember, think of the past, not just the present).

I wanted to know the veiw on us(Americans)
I'd imagine some of you are alright. Pretty stupid bunch to vote in Bush twice, though, and those that voted for him the second time "to show how bad the Republicans could be", also those who voted for Nader in 2000, should be thrown off a bridge into a vat full of tappioca and be forced to eat their way out.
or for you freaks Usains and also will the takeover of the senate and house and mybe a democratic prez in 08' change the world veiw on evil america like they say now.
It won't change anything unless your new president chums up with Europe a bit more. Note that many of us find all of your candidates particularly poor this time 'round, but that Obama is probably the best of a weak field, despite his considerable weaknesses in "actual policy", something shared with Clinton, it must be said.

WOW...I just noticed, this thread was started in 2006, who the hell dug up this relic? I saw all these old names, Fassigen, DCD, King Bodacious....

I married one, so can't say too bad stuff about them :0) Have to say, most Americans are puritan about what everybody else should do, but not about what they do themselves. It really bothers me, which is probably why I have a problem responding to this thread.

I love my American, but even he has some odd shit going on when it comes to Americans as a whole.