NationStates Jolt Archive

How about you stick to being a big brother to your little siblings?

The USA is a country, meaning it's a piece of land in which an internationally recognised government holds the monopoly on violence. That's it.

You can talk about the idea that started America, but then you'd have to abandon any pretext of the modern US being the actual America. I reckon it should be compulsory for every government employee (including politicians and soldiers) to read up on Ben Franklin. He was the only guy who makes me think there once was something to American exceptionalism.

I wasn't speaking of myself as the Big Brother. Yes, I have done violence in the name of my country, but I followed orders and I didn't start shooting until I myself was shot at. Yes, I have the right to stop myself from following orders if I find them to be illegal, however how do we stop the enemy if everything we do is by-the-book. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to get something done. You have to have someone who will get down to the level of criminals to defeat them. However, this does not mean that America is doing anything illegally in Iraq.

LMAO

thats one hell of a quote. might as well read "America is evil and is the root to all things wrong with the world"

and this si coming from someone from Australia.

No, he's absolutely correct, the most succinct definition of a state is an sovereign entity which holds a monopoly on the exercise of organized violence within it's own borders. The most basic authority of any state regardless of politics is the ability to kill or neutralize anyone who challenges the existence of that state.

LMAO

thats one hell of a quote. might as well read "America is evil and is the root to all things wrong with the world"

and this si coming from someone from Australia.

Oversensitive much?

The USA is a country, meaning it's a piece of land in which an internationally recognised government holds the monopoly on violence.No, it does certainly not. Or do you mean in international affairs?

No, he's absolutely correct, the most succinct definition of a state is an sovereign entity which holds a monopoly on the exercise of organized violence within it's own borders. The most basic authority of any state regardless of politics is the ability to kill or neutralize anyone who challenges the existence of that state.1. The state is the people.
2. If the monopoly of force is exercised in a Wild West manner, then there's something wrong.

...and to hear you guys say that anyone supporting the war is evil offended me.Then you should adjust your comfort level, because that's how it is. Whoever takes part in or supports an unnecessary war and thus condones the deaths caused by such a war is evil.

Then you should adjust your comfort level, because that's how it is.

Adjust my comfort level?

Let's talk about comfort levels when you don't piss your pants when you've got bullets flying about you and bombs going off.

And people who support the war are not evil. I support the war, even though I'm fighting in it.

... Whoever takes part in or supports an unnecessary war and thus condones the deaths caused by such a war is evil.

Unnecessary? War is never necessary, but sometimes people are pushed into conflicts. Did you think I want to go back to Iraq! Do you think I enjoyed spending two years of my life there? No. I did it because my country needed me. At least I have the balls to fight for my country. Which is more than I can say for most people. You don't know shit about war until you've been one.

And if you have that attitude, than I suppose that my father who fought in Vietnam was evil. I guess my Grandfather, who engaged in the Korean War and WWII was evil. And if we wanna be really thorough, I guess my Great Grandfather who fought in the trenches of WWI, was evil. I suppose I might come from a long line of evil people, huh?

Excerpt from Evil Americans, Poor Mullahs by Claus Christian Malzahn

Forty-eight percent of Germans think the United States is more dangerous than Iran, a new survey shows, with only 31 percent believing the opposite. Germans' fundamental hypocrisy about the US suggests that it's high time for a new bout of re-education.

The Germans have believed in many things in the course of their recent history. They've believed in colonies in Africa and in the Kaiser. They even believed in the Kaiser when he told them that there would be no more political parties, only soldiers on the front.

Not too long afterwards, they believed that Jews should be placed into ghettos and concentration camps because they were the enemies of the people. Then they believed in the autobahn and that the Third Reich would ultimately be victorious. A few years later, they believed in the Deutsche mark. They believed that the Berlin Wall would be there forever and that their pensions were safe. They believed in recycling as well as in cheap jet travel. They even believed in a German victory at the soccer World Cup.

Now they believe that the United States is a greater threat to world peace than Iran. This was the by-no-means-surprising result of a Forsa opinion poll commissioned by Stern magazine. Young Germans in particular -- 57 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds, to be precise -- said they considered the United States more dangerous than the religious regime in Iran.

The German political establishment, which will no doubt loudly lament the result of the poll, is largely responsible for this wave of anti-Americanism. For years the country's foreign ministers fed the Germans the fairy tale of what they called a "critical dialogue" between Europe and Iran. It went something like this: If we are nice to the ayatollahs, cuddle up to them a bit and occasionally wag our fingers at them when they've been naughty, they'll stop condemning their women to death for "unchaste behavior" and they'll stop building the atom bomb.

That plan failed at some point -- an outcome, incidentally, that Washington had long anticipated. Iran continues to work away unhindered on its nuclear program, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reacts to UN demands with an ostentatious show of ignorance. The UN gets upset and drafts a resolution.

Another item on the Iranian president's wish list is the annihilation of Israel. But that will take a bit longer. In the meantime, just to make sure it doesn't get out of practice, the regime had 15 British soldiers kidnapped a few days ago. But it's still all the Americans' fault -- that much is obvious.

We've known just what they're like for a long time. The 19th-century German author Karl May taught us about the American Wild West, and Karl Marx warned us about unbridled capitalism. Besides, we've all been there at least once -- on vacation, of course. Be it in California or Florida (that's where you get the best deals on rental cars, you know), we can see right through the Americans.

For us Germans, the Americans are either too fat or too obsessed with exercise, too prudish or too pornographic, too religious or too nihilistic. In terms of history and foreign policy, the Americans have either been too isolationist or too imperialistic. They simply go ahead and invade foreign countries (something we Germans, of course, would never do) and then abandon them, the way they did in Vietnam and will soon do in Iraq.

Worst of all, the Americans won the war in 1945. (Well, with German help, of course -- from Einstein and his ilk.) There are some Germans who will never forgive the Americans for VE Day, when they defeated Hitler. After all, Nazism was just an accident, whereas Americans are inherently evil. Just look at President Bush, the man who, as some of SPIEGEL ONLINE's readers steadfastly believe, "is worse than Hitler." Now that gives us a chance to kill two birds with one stone. If Bush is the new Hitler, then we Germans have finally unloaded the Führer on to someone else. In fact, we won't even have to posthumously revoke his German citizenship, as politicians in Lower Saxony recently proposed (more...). No one can hold a candle to our talent for symbolism!

Anti-Americanism is the wonder drug of German politics. If no one believes what you're saying, take a swing at the Yanks and you'll be shooting your way back up to the top of the opinion polls in no time. And on the practical side, you can be the head of the Social Democratic Party and endear yourself to the party's hardcore with a load of anti-American nonsense, and still get invited back to Washington -- just look at Gerhard Schröder. In fact, you could, like leading German politicians in the debate over the planned American missile shield in Europe (more...), be accused of having "an almost unbelievable lack of knowledge" by a former NATO general, and even that wouldn't matter. It's all about what you believe, not what you know.

Anti-Americanism is hypocrisy at its finest. You can spend your evening catching the latest episode of "24" and then complain about Guantanamo the next morning. You can claim that the Americans have themselves to blame for terrorism, while at the same time calling for tougher restrictions on Muslim immigration to Germany. You can call the American president a mass murderer and book a flight to New York the next day. You can lament the average American's supposed lack of culture and savvy and meanwhile send off for the documents for the Green Card lottery.

Not a day passes in Germany when someone isn't making the wildest claims, hurling the vilest insults or spreading the most outlandish conspiracy theories about the United States. But there's no risk involved and it all serves mainly to boost the German feeling of self-righteousness.

Iran is a different story. The last time someone made a joke on German TV about an Iranian leader, the outcome was not pleasant. Exactly 20 years ago, Dutch entertainer Rudi Carell produced a short TV sketch portraying Ayatollah Khomeini dressed in women's underwear. Carell received death threats. The piece, which lasted all of a few seconds, led to flights being cancelled and German diplomats being expelled from Tehran. Carell apologized. Jokes about fat Americans are just safer.

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, the American historian who in his 1996 book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" deprived the Germans of the belief that they didn't know what was going on back in the day, is currently studying the history of genocides in the 20th century. One of the things he has noticed is that the politicians or military leaders who planned genocides and had them carried out rarely concealed their intentions in advance. Whether the victims were Hereros, Armenians, kulaks, Jews or later Bosnians, the perpetrators generally believed that they were justified and had no reason to hide their murderous intentions.

Today, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about a world without Israel while dreaming of an atom bomb, it seems obvious that we -- as Germans of all people -- should be putting two and two together. Why shouldn't Ahmadinejad mean what he says? But we Germans only know what we believe.

The Americans are more dangerous than the ayatollahs? Perhaps the Americans should take the Germans at their word for a change. It's high time for a new round of re-education. The last one obviously didn't do the job.

Adjust my comfort level?

Let's talk about comfort levels when you don't piss your pants when you've got bullets flying about you and bombs going off.

And people who support the war are not evil. I support the war, even though I'm fighting in it.



Unnecessary? War is never necessary, but sometimes people are pushed into conflicts. Did you think I want to go back to Iraq! Do you think I enjoyed spending two years of my life there? No. I did it because my country needed me. At least I have the balls to fight for my country. Which is more than I can say for most people. You don't know shit about war until you've been one.

And if you have that attitude, than I suppose that my father who fought in Vietnam was evil. I guess my Grandfather, who engaged in the Korean War and WWII was evil. And if we wanna be really thorough, I guess my Great Grandfather who fought in the trenches of WWI, was evil. I suppose I might come from a long line of evil people, huh?

You are not fighting for your country, you are fighting for a US president's private agenda. Americans knew nothing about Iraq and they did not care. Iraq is now far worse than it ever was under Hussein. You are evil, because you are part of this deterioration. This is an unnecessary war and the causes given for it have all shown to be lies. The self-styled world policeman has lost all its credibility.

You are not fighting for your country, you are fighting for a US president's private agenda. Americans knew nothing about Iraq and they did not care. Iraq is now far worse than it ever was under Hussein. You are evil, because you are part of this deterioration. This is an unnecessary war and the causes given for it have all shown to be lies.

Believe what you want. You can say whatever you want to someone and never be able to change their mind if they got it in their head that what they think is the right thing? How do you know Iraq is worse than it was? Hussein's sons used to take women, rape them, and then throw them off the top of buildings! They were never arrested. I fought in the Gulf War and we had the chance to take him out then. We didn't. Now, we've got rid of them. And it's by far better than it was without Saddam.

Believe what you want. You can say whatever you want to someone and never be able to change their mind if they got it in their head that what they think is the right thing? How do you know Iraq is worse than it was? Hussein's sons used to take women, rape them, and then throw them off the top of buildings! They were never arrested. I fought in the Gulf War and we had the chance to take him out then. We didn't. Now, we've got rid of them. And it's by far better than it was without Saddam.So car bombs have been exploding under Saddam's rule every day as well? Certainly not. That is the making of the US alone, because they had no plan at all for the time after Saddam was out of power. Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell should all have dangled alongside Saddam, because they did harm the Iraqi people just as Saddam did.

Believe what you want. You can say whatever you want to someone and never be able to change their mind if they got it in their head that what they think is the right thing? How do you know Iraq is worse than it was? Hussein's sons used to take women, rape them, and then throw them off the top of buildings! They were never arrested. I fought in the Gulf War and we had the chance to take him out then. We didn't. Now, we've got rid of them. And it's by far better than it was without Saddam.

Ahem....The Army was disbanded, as well as 99% of the infrastructure of the country. That was done by an act of 'Governor' Bremmer. A great deal of the chaos death and suffering results from those acts. They were done over a year, and were planned. Thus it is worse than under Saddam and it is most certainly Americas fault.

So car bombs have been exploding under Saddam's rule every day as well? Certainly not. That is the making of the US alone, because they had no plan at all for the time after Saddam was out of power.
The influx of terrorists blowing themselves up on a daily basis is not the making of the US alone. It's the making of the terrorists.

You calling the solider "evil" is laughable.. please just be quiet.

You people will blame everything and anything on America if you could.

The influx of terrorists blowing themselves up on a daily basis is not the making of the US alone. It's the making of the terrorists.

You calling the solider "evil" is laughable.. please just be quiet.

You people will blame everything and anything on America if you could.


"You people"? Who are they, when they're at home....?

The influx of terrorists blowing themselves up on a daily basis is not the making of the US alone. It's the making of the terrorists.

You calling the solider "evil" is laughable.. please just be quiet.

You people will blame everything and anything on America if you could.

Right... I wonder why it didn't happen under Saddam, then? Or maybe his government just hushed it up, do you think?

The influx of terrorists blowing themselves up on a daily basis is not the making of the US alone. It's the making of the terrorists.The US kindly let the terrorists in. The US came and brought their own enemies with them, very intelligent strategy :rolleyes:

You people as in the usual crowd that are always there to blame the latest incident on America.


You can't blame terrorists winningly blowing themselves up and murdering dozens of innocent people in the process for some ridiculous reason, on America. You can criticize them for not being well planned enough but you can't blame it on them "alone". It's sort of like blaming rape victims for wearing miniskirts and ignoring the rapist.

You people as in the usual crowd that are always there to blame the latest incident on America.


You can't blame terrorists winningly blowing themselves up and murdering dozens of innocent people in the process for some ridiculous reason, on America. You can criticize them for not being well planned enough but you can't blame it on them "alone". It's sort of like blaming rape victims for wearing miniskirts and ignoring the rapist.

Not quite. If the situation was that there have never been mini-skirts and then suddenly there are coincided with there never having been any rapes and suddenly after mini-skirts appeared rapes happen several times a day, what would you conclude?

Nobody's taking away any blame from the car-bombers, but people do wonder why they've started doing it so massively so suddenly.

You people as in the usual crowd that are always there to blame the latest incident on America.


You can't blame terrorists winningly blowing themselves up and murdering dozens of innocent people in the process for some ridiculous reason, on America. You can criticize them for not being well planned enough but you can't blame it on them "alone". It's sort of like blaming rape victims for wearing miniskirts and ignoring the rapist.If you let a burglar in someone else's house you are to blame for the damage as well as the burglar. And if you take pride in saving the house while you obviously helped the burglar you are an arrogant butthole in addition to being guilty.

They didn't willingly let the insurgents in now did they?

They didn't willingly let the insurgents in now did they?

Their actions destablised the entire region, which means they are directly responsible for the current turmoil.

If you cause a car crash and someone gets killed, you will usually be trialed for that, even if you didn't do it "willingly". It's called responsiblity for your actions.

They didn't willingly let the insurgents in now did they?It doesn't matter whether they did it willingly or not. They did it. And they did it mainly, because they are not smart enough to think through the consequences before attacking another country. But Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell wanted this war under all circumstances, and now the Iraqi people have to pay in blood for US arrogance and pride.

So why don't us yanks have some smoke and you Euros have a beer or two and we'll meet in the middle and be friends again: intoxicated against the world!
How about you guys started making decent beer in the first place?
Maybe then you guys would become more of a happy drunk instead of a pissed-off drunk? :eek:

I know I'd become pretty unhappy fairly quickly had I to drink that bottled urine you guys sell as "beer". :p

(That comic really is funny!)

I don't think, that Maraguista or most of the over American soldiers in Iraq are "evil" or something like that. They do what they have to do, as soldiers do since there are armies. And I also think thats very good, when Saddam isn't the leader of Iraq any longer (but in my opinion, he had to be in prison, not to be hanged...) . The big problem is just the way og waging this war. Faked arguments, no plan what after victory over Saddams troops, and so on. That's not the fault of the soldier in Iraq, that's the fault of the US gouvernment. And because of that and other things US gouvernment do (e.g. Kyoto, Guantanamo), we Germans and other people ask Americans: "What the hell is your Gouvernment doin' there?" If Americans feel forced to justify the policy of US gouvernment because of that, we can't help it. As somebody said in that thread, why you not only say: "I don't know what they doin', I can't belive too..."

I don't think, that Maraguista or most of the over American soldiers in Iraq are "evil" or something like that. They do what they have to do, as soldiers do since there are armies. And I also think thats very good, when Saddam isn't the leader of Iraq any longer (but in my opinion, he had to be in prison, not to be hanged...) . The big problem is just the way og waging this war. Faked arguments, no plan what after victory over Saddams troops, and so on. That's not the fault of the soldier in Iraq, that's the fault of the US gouvernment. And because of that and other things US gouvernment do (e.g. Kyoto, Guantanamo), we Germans and other people ask Americans: "What the hell is your Gouvernment doin' there?" If Americans feel forced to justify the policy of US gouvernment because of that, we can't help it. As somebody said in that thread, why you not only say: "I don't know what they doin', I can't belive too..."The opinion of Americans is irrelevant here. Iraq is about the Iraqi people and it is not just a news issue for US couch potatoes. The US led an assault on Iraq and subsequently its population to appease the incumbent president's inner demons. Every soldier who follows such barbarity is evil or ready to be a tool of evil.

What should the soldier do? Run away, when he gets the order to go to Iraq?

What should the soldier do? Run away, when he gets the order to go to Iraq?Refuse to "serve" a morally bankrupt government.

Could be more difficult as you think.

There is something interesting (and possibly relevant to this thread) that I remember being reported on NewsNight (BBC 1's news analysis program) a few years ago.

It was a survey conducted in the USA about foreign aid / humanitarian policy. One of the questions asked was: How much (in percentage of GDP) should the USA give in foreign aid?

The majority of Americans gave the answer of 10% - which leads to a couple of interesting points.

In reality, this means that Americans are willing to be more generous than they actually are, by a factor of 20 - because the current percentage of GDP the USA gives as foreign aid is just 0.5%.

But on the flip side, they said they wanted the foreign aid budget to be reduced to 10%. Meaning they are mostly misinformed. The Marshall plan ended 50 odd years ago, but they haven't noticed.

Have a think about that one. Interesting, eh?

You are not fighting for your country, you are fighting for a US president's private agenda. Americans knew nothing about Iraq and they did not care. Iraq is now far worse than it ever was under Hussein. You are evil, because you are part of this deterioration. This is an unnecessary war and the causes given for it have all shown to be lies. The self-styled world policeman has lost all its credibility.

I agree with the part of your post saying that Americans did not know anything about Iraq. However I don't agree with you saying that soldiers who's job it is to get placed into these theatres to fight for their government's policy are evil.
I disagree with much of what Maraguista has said, however I cannot villify those who go and fight for their government.
It is very easy to say anyone that goes to fight for George Bush is deluded and stupid, however it has to be remembered that it is not as easy as turning round when war is declared and saying to your commanding officer, I dont like the president, can I stay at home this time please? And then watch your colleagues, friends and I dare say relatives go off to risk their lives in your name.
I hate the war, I hate the people who have started this war, however you cannot lay the blame at the feet of the people who would as soon stand in your street and lay their life down for you to fight off an invading army as soon as they would go into Iraq.
I have always said, that as soon as war is declared, those who declare war should be given rifles and put on the front line. Let them fight the war they started. If it is as just as they claim, they surely will have no problem fighting.

AMK
xxx

I agree with the part of your post saying that Americans did not know anything about Iraq. However I don't agree with you saying that soldiers who's job it is to get placed into these theatres to fight for their government's policy are evil.
I disagree with much of what Maraguista has said, however I cannot villify those who go and fight for their government.
It is very easy to say anyone that goes to fight for George Bush is deluded and stupid, however it has to be remembered that it is not as easy as turning round when war is declared and saying to your commanding officer, I dont like the president, can I stay at home this time please? And then watch your colleagues, friends and I dare say relatives go off to risk their lives in your name.
I hate the war, I hate the people who have started this war, however you cannot lay the blame at the feet of the people who would as soon stand in your street and lay their life down for you to fight off an invading army as soon as they would go into Iraq.
I have always said, that as soon as war is declared, those who declare war should be given rifles and put on the front line. Let them fight the war they started. If it is as just as they claim, they surely will have no problem fighting.

AMK
xxx
So the US is not the land of the free after all? Certainly not of free minds and free decisions.
And please save us the rubbish about the heroism of those who are ready to lay their life down for anyone to fight off an imaginative invading army. Especially not when the US army is that invading army as in Iraq. They are not at all lying their lives down for those they claim to save, they lay it down because a loony president tells them to. There is no heroism in blindly following orders.

The opinion of Americans is irrelevant here. Iraq is about the Iraqi people and it is not just a news issue for US couch potatoes. The US led an assault on Iraq and subsequently its population to appease the incumbent president's inner demons. Every soldier who follows such barbarity is evil or ready to be a tool of evil.
Are you even actually aware of what actually happens in Iraq? What have you been smoking with dishing out these "evil" statements?

Lets not blow things wildly out of proportion.

Why do none of the anti-Americans disclose their country? It's nice being able to talk constant shit about a different country without letting people know where you're from isn't it? A reason most likely being is that they're from a country who's government supports the US administration.. or they're from a country with a chequered past and don't want to look like hypocrites.

There is no heroism in blindly following orders.

I agree, but you cannot claim the heroism to not-follow false orders from everybody, when it will have very, very bad consequences for them. This too much, I think.

So the US is not the land of the free after all? Certainly not of free minds and free decisions.
And please save us the rubbish about the heroism of those who are ready to lay their life down for anyone to fight off an imaginative invading army. Especially not when the US army is that invading army as in Iraq. They are not at all lying their lives down for those they claim to save, they lay it down because a loony president tells them to. There is no heroism in blindly following orders.

A hell of a lot more heroism out there than your bitching on anonymous internet forums about something you know NOTHING about. But keep fighting the good fight.

A hell of a lot more heroism out there than your bitching on anonymous internet forums about something you know NOTHING about. But keep fighting the good fight.
What a rubbish. There is no heroism whatsoever in the US led invasion of Iraq or in what came of it. Whoever thinks that the US needed defending on the banks of the Firat is a moron.
Tell me, why was it so hard for the US to find allies to follow them into the Iraq adventure? Because the necessity of such an invasion was self-evident? Why did the US have to fabricate evidence to show to the UN ?

So the US is not the land of the free after all? Certainly not of free minds and free decisions.
And please save us the rubbish about the heroism of those who are ready to lay their life down for anyone to fight off an imaginative invading army. Especially not when the US army is that invading army as in Iraq. They are not at all lying their lives down for those they claim to save, they lay it down because a loony president tells them to. There is no heroism in blindly following orders.

Did you even read what I wrote?
The problem is the people giving the orders, you would not have been so upset at the soldiers had you been living in France in 1943. The soldiers then were no different than those now. They were following orders and doing what they were told.
I am not trying to lord up soldiers, I hate war, i am a pacifist, but I have no hatred for the squaddies on the ground who are getting shot at, mortared and blown up on a daily basis. Yes it is their choice, but once they are in there, its not as easy as just turning round and walking away because you don't fancy it anymore.
And on your other point, no, America is not the land of the free, has not been for a long time. You get Jailed for travelling directly to Cuba from the US. You get jailed for being a communist. Thats not exactly free is it? If you went down to the South and wrote "Country music is rubbish" on the side of your Pick up, you end up with a van full of angry, armed, locals chasing after you. Thats not free is it?
However the point is moot. When joining the armed forces, which lets face it, someone has to, you agree to sacrifice some freedoms. That is part and parcel of the job and if you don't like that, you don't join in the first place.
You may want to question the sanity of people who do join up, but calling them evil is ridiculous and only serves to marginalise the debate as opposed to furthering it.

AMK
xxx

Yes it is their choice, but once they are in there, its not as easy as just turning round and walking away because you don't fancy it anymore.

And if there is a compulsory military service, it's not even their choice...

Did you even read what I wrote?
The problem is the people giving the orders, you would not have been so upset at the soldiers had you been living in France in 1943. The soldiers then were no different than those now. They were following orders and doing what they were told.
I am not trying to lord up soldiers, I hate war, i am a pacifist, but I have no hatred for the squaddies on the ground who are getting shot at, mortared and blown up on a daily basis. Yes it is their choice, but once they are in there, its not as easy as just turning round and walking away because you don't fancy it anymore.
And on your other point, no, America is not the land of the free, has not been for a long time. You get Jailed for travelling directly to Cuba from the US. You get jailed for being a communist. Thats not exactly free is it? If you went down to the South and wrote "Country music is rubbish" on the side of your Pick up, you end up with a van full of angry, armed, locals chasing after you. Thats not free is it?
However the point is moot. When joining the armed forces, which lets face it, someone has to, you agree to sacrifice some freedoms. That is part and parcel of the job and if you don't like that, you don't join in the first place.
You may want to question the sanity of people who do join up, but calling them evil is ridiculous and only serves to marginalise the debate as opposed to furthering it.

AMK
xxx

I gotta agree with you, man. Just ignore UB, you won't get anywhere with him and he's just an asshat.

And if there is a compulsory military service, it's not even their choice...

When did it become compulsory in the US?

And if there is a compulsory military service, it's not even their choice...

Indeed you are right.
However, in the US, as far as I am aware, there is not. Thats one thing the americans can be glad of I guess...

Oh, I forgot, US don't have compulsory military service. The analogy with German Wehrmacht confused me, sorry.

What a rubbish. There is no heroism whatsoever in the US led invasion of Iraq or in what came of it. Whoever thinks that the US needed defending on the banks of the Firat is a moron.
Tell me, why was it so hard for the US to find allies to follow them into the Iraq adventure? Because the necessity of such an invasion was self-evident? Why did the US have to fabricate evidence to show to the UN ?

Why is feeding trolls so much fun? Because they are easily beaten.


"We now have a coalition of the willing that includes some 30 nations who publicly said they could be included in such a listing, and there are 15 other nations, for one reason or another, who do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition."


U.S.: 250,000 invasion--140,000 current (3/07)
U.K. 45,000 invasion--7,100 current (2/07)
South Korea: 3,300 invasion--2,300 current (2/07)
Poland: 194 invasion--2,500 peak--900 current (2/07)
Australia: 2,000 invasion--550 current (2/07)
Italy: 1,800 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 11/06)
Ukraine: 1,650 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 12/05)
Netherlands : 1,345 troops 15 current (2/07)
Spain : 1,300 troops (withdrawn 4/04)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04 - withdrawn 7/06)
Romania: 600 current (2/07)
Denmark: 540 invasion--460 current (2/07) announced reduction and redeployment to Afghanistan, 03/2007
Georgia: 500 invasion--900 current (2/07) announced increase to 2000, 03/09/2007
Bulgaria : 462 troops 155 current (2/07)
Thailand: 423 troops (withdrawn 8/04)
El Salvador: 380 troops (2/07)
Honduras: 368 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Czech Republic: 300 peak--99 current (2/07)
Hungary: 300 troops (withdrawn 3/05)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (withdrawn 2/04)
Singapore: 192 troops (withdrawn 3/05)
Azerbaijan: 150 troops (2/07)
Norway: 150 troops (withdrawn 8/06)
Latvia: 136 peak--125 current (2/07)(deployed 4/04)
Mongolia: 131 troops--160 current (2/07)
Portugal: 128 troops (withdrawn 2/05)
Albania: 120 troops (2/07)
Slovakia: 103 troops 103 current (2/07)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03 - withdrawn 9/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 7/04)
Lithuania: 53 troops (2/07)
Armenia: 46 current (2/07)
Tonga: 45 troops (deployed 7/04 - withdrawn 12/04)
Bosnia and Herzogovina: 36 troops (2/07)
Estonia: 35 current (2/07)
FYRO Macedonia: 40 troops (2/07)
Kazakhstan: 27 troops (2/07)
Moldova: 24 invasion--11 current (2/07)
Slovenia: 4 current (2/07)
Iceland: 2 troops (withdrawal date unknown)


We clearly had difficulty finding allies to support the Iraqi invasion. As a matter of fact, it included more nations than Gulf I. You are talking out of your depth here.

To address the rest of your inflammatory and uninformed post.

Yes, it is clear that the US did not need defending on the banks of Firat or that invading Iraq was necessarily a matter of self-defense. It wasn't. I suggest you research the definitions of preemption and prevention; Iraq II was a case of the former. Thus, you are creating a strawman, and one that is easily burned. And I implore you to provide proof that the US fabricated "evidence" for the UN. Please. I need a good laugh.

Now, something you need to understand. Heroism does not come from following orders, you are correct. But what you fail to grasp is that herosim exists on the battlefield, in the line of fire, when it is split-second thinking that can mean victory or defeat. Life, or death. Carrying a wounded comrade halfway across the country, or running through a barrage of fire to save a life, or sacrificing yourself to get the rest of your unit out of harm's way. It come sin many forms, and not just on the battlefield. But the most common expression of heroism--the most well-known--is on the field of battle. You choose your battleground wisely, or should I say foolishly?

I gotta agree with you, man. Just ignore UB, you won't get anywhere with him and he's just an asshat.

Cheers doode,
Just to make a point, I am anti-american policy. I am Scottish, living in Scotland and despise the stance that the USA takes with the world and its attitude to worldwide citizenship, however all soldiers are human beings, and if the are bloodthirsty idiots then they are blood thirsty idiots, that is not because they are soldiers, that is because they are idiots.
However your average squaddie is just in it because its something they are good at and they want to serve their country. Even if you don't like the country in question, you cannot criticise that.

AMK
xxx

Dear Europeans:

I actually LIKE you guys. I really I do.

I like the British cause we're cousins.

I like the French cause they are so cool.

I like the Germans because they are such good scientests and engineers.

I like the Norse because they are so mellow, the Sweeds and the Danes because they are so hot.

I like the Dutch and Belgiums because they are so friendly and the Spainards because they are so tough.

I like the Italians because they are Italian- and that is reason enough.

I like the Greeks and I like the Turks, but never at the same time: they fight because they are so much alike: honorable to a fault.

I like the Poles and I like the Irish: they are both so much fun when they are drunk!

I like the Czechs and I like the Slovaks- beautiful people every one.

I like the Austrians and Hungarians, their Alps are awesome beauties!

If I missed a country or two, I hope that you will forgive me.
If I were to live to one hundred and two, my wish would be to meet you all.

Indeed you are right.
However, in the US, as far as I am aware, there is not. Thats one thing the americans can be glad of I guess...

In my opinion, there are some good causes for compulsory military service. (Here in Germany it is currently a big discussion about that, but it doesn't really fit into that thread.)

I like the Germans because they are such good scientests and engineers.

If that not only includes the natural scientists, but also the classical philologists, I like you, too. ;)

Cheers doode,
Just to make a point, I am anti-american policy. I am Scottish, living in Scotland and despise the stance that the USA takes with the world and its attitude to worldwide citizenship, however all soldiers are human beings, and if the are bloodthirsty idiots then they are blood thirsty idiots, that is not because they are soldiers, that is because they are idiots.
However your average squaddie is just in it because its something they are good at and they want to serve their country. Even if you don't like the country in question, you cannot criticise that.

AMK
xxx

Indeed. I live in America, born and raised, and I agree.

I like the Greeks and I like the Turks, but never at the same time: they fight because they are so much alike: honorable to a fault.

There was a fighting Greek and a Turk on MASH once. :p

Turk: I am reasonable man. Talk to Greek, offspring of camel and goat!
Greek: Pig! Dog! Donkey!
Hawkeye: We don't need a priest, we need a veterinarian.

Cute, LC, but no matter how many times you say something again and again, it does make it true.

Fixed for accuracy. Unless you are not a US Citizen then you would be right.

And religious crackpots trying to push theocratic ideas as science.

Can not argue with that.

What should the soldier do? Run away, when he gets the order to go to Iraq?
Reject to follow his orders and face the consequences, just like that soldier form Hawaii did.
He would have volunteered to serve in Afghanistan instead.
(...)however it has to be remembered that it is not as easy as turning round when war is declared(...)
When was the last time one nation really declared war on another one instead of simply starting to drop bombs?
And if there is a compulsory military service, it's not even their choice...
That's why I consider the crap that went on in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam differently.

Those people who joined the U.S. forces got exactly what they bargained for. So don't start complaining about being stuck in the shit. You should've and could've known that beforehand.
I mean, honestly, if you take a look at U.S. history you simply have to know that rather sooner than later your ass will be on the frontline, dodging incoming fire.

And while I pity those dumb enough to join the military in the first place and feel for their loss of life and limbs, it's their own damn fault to begin with.
I like the Poles(...)
Wow! You didn't forget Poland. :D

I suggest you research the definitions of preemption and prevention; Iraq II was a case of the former. Thus, you are creating a strawman, and one that is easily burned. And I implore you to provide proof that the US fabricated "evidence" for the UN. Please. I need a good laugh.
I'm still waiting for proof for the reasons you went in there...

There's no way to disprove something that wasn't there in the first place! To quote our former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer: "I am not convinced."

I wasn't and still ain't. It's up to you to give damn good reasons to wage war - for the reasons not to go to war are far more valid and numerous.

Those people who joined the U.S. forces got exactly what they bargained for. So don't start complaining about being stuck in the shit. You should've and could've known that beforehand.
I mean, honestly, if you take a look at U.S. history you simply have to know that rather sooner than later your ass will be on the frontline, dodging incoming fire.

And while I pity those dumb enough to join the military in the first place and feel for their loss of life and limbs, it's their own damn fault to begin with.

Yeah, but is that a reason to call them "evil"?

Yeah, but is that a reason to call them "evil"?
Show and tell me where I did that. (Hint: I didn't.)

If the USA sucks so fucking much then why does it seem to be such a popular destination?

Meh, about as popular as most EU countries, and slightly less popular than Canada. Pretty average, actually.

If the USA sucks so fucking much then why does it seem to be such a popular destination?

Reject to follow his orders and face the consequences, just like that soldier form Hawaii did.
He would have volunteered to serve in Afghanistan instead.

When was the last time one nation really declared war on another one instead of simply starting to drop bombs?

I don't really know where to start on this one. Save me writing about 2 screens of text. But I think the fact there is only one example of somoene who has refused to follow orders and faced the consequences speaks for itself with regards the reality of that proposition.

If dropping bombs on a country is not a declaration of war, what is? No matter how it may be spun. Also the point you made there is totally moot as it does not serve to disprove or change what was said originally.

AMK
xxx

Show and tell me where I did that. (Hint: I didn't.)

This discussion is currently based on whether or not the soldiers who serve in Iraq are evil or if any inherent evilness is manifest in the command structure that decided to go into Iraq in the first place.
So I dare say it was not an attack on you more the fact that the original question has been avoided and it appeared as if your answer was perhaps suggesting otherwise.

AMK
xxx

Show and tell me where I did that. (Hint: I didn't.)

You didn't, I know, but other did, and that's what I argued against.

And while I pity those dumb enough to join the military in the first place and feel for their loss of life and limbs, it's their own damn fault to begin with.

Do we have to go into this again? Due to the nature of the system here, as in excessively expensive university costs and such, the military is a very attractive option for a great many poor Americans to have a better life. Take my situation, for example.

I came from a very poor family, as in my parents' combined earnings were in the vicinity of $20,000/year, with 5 of us in the family. We ran a very small dairy farm when I was growing up, and my grades suffered because I had to help with the farm work from 4 in the afternoon until midnight and from 5 in the morning until I got on the bus to go to school. Since I didn't qualify for many scholarships the only way I could have gone to college is through taking a large amount of student loans. The problem was that the Federal subsidized and unsubsidized student loans wouldn't cover my costs. To cover my costs my parents would have to take out loans, and given their abysmal credit score and income they couldn't and wouldn't take any out.

So what was I to do? I could have worked at the local KFC for $5.15/hour for the rest of my life, or I could join the Army, do my 4 years and be able to go to university. Not a hard choice, eh?

Of course, I enlisted in 1999, before anyone outside of Texas had even heard of George W. Bush.

Of course, given your history on threads about the US military you'll probably skim over what I've read and assume I said something about how awesome the military is and how great George Bush is and just give my some angry, pissed off reply.

Honestly, you're generally one of the more rational posters here but any mention of the US military seems to put you into an irrational rage. I understand you're pissed about Iraq, so am I, but when Iraq and/or the US military is brought up it's like waving a red cape at an angry bull.

I'm still waiting for proof for the reasons you went in there...

So am I, incidentally. Unless you believe they were shipped out prior '03, I think we'll be waiting for a very long time.

There's no way to disprove something that wasn't there in the first place! To quote our former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer: "I am not convinced."

I wasn't and still ain't. It's up to you to give damn good reasons to wage war - for the reasons not to go to war are far more valid and numerous.

And why not? I couldn't agree more. Iraq was a mistake. Containment would have been less deadly and more effective.

The evidence was there. What we presented to the UN was reasonable evidence. We had suspicions, and we acted on them. Were we wrong? Yes. It was a fucking huge mistake for several reasons, not least of which the outmoded ideas of Rumsfeld and Cheney--both of whom should have been replaced by more forward thinkers after Bush's reelection.

So what the hell are we to do? Arguing about the reasons for war is kind of irrelevant now. Sure, Bush continues to use those reasons to validate the current operations. To maintain public support. But the countries that are still there, the public, everyone who knows of the war knows, or at least believes, what they will about the origins of the war, abut the motive. As long as Bush continues to provide excuses for being there, by creating ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, by linking a past trauma to a present one to provide support for this one, his opposition will grow stronger. Whereas if we admitted we were wrong in the first place, but affirmed that leaving now would create a power vacuum that would result in a Middle East power struggle that would fuck world oil supplies and political Mid East stabilization even more would at least be honest. Rhetoric doesn't do much when everyone hates you. Abandon the pretense and acknowledge the facts. Assess the situation. Get politics the hell out of warfighting. That's the way to win, that's the way to end it all. But short of that, we're fucked.

The evidence was there. What we presented to the UN was reasonable evidence. We had suspicions, and we acted on them.

Nope. According to a British Prime Ministers briefing in July 2002 -

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

Thats Libya "lost a war to Chad" Libya they refer to up there btw.

Nope. According to a British Prime Ministers briefing in July 2002 -





http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

Thats Libya "lost a war to Chad" Libya they refer to up there btw.

Whatever. Doess't change the factuality of the evidence; we had pictures, diagrams, intelligence briefings from fifteen years back, confirmed by the Clinton and Bush administrations. "Fixed around the policy" means that evidence was selected that would support the particular course of action. Sounds like a lot of arguments here...

Nodinia,

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

Reveals planners believed Saddam possessed WMD, based on the available facts and evidence.

I don't really know where to start on this one. Save me writing about 2 screens of text. But I think the fact there is only one example of somoene who has refused to follow orders and faced the consequences speaks for itself with regards the reality of that proposition.
To me, it just shows how unquestioning your people are, willing to go abroad to fight wars when they don't even know why they are fighting there in the first place.
If dropping bombs on a country is not a declaration of war, what is? No matter how it may be spun.
That's not a proper declaration of war, though - no matter what you say.
This discussion is currently based on whether or not the soldiers who serve in Iraq are evil or if any inherent evilness is manifest in the command structure that decided to go into Iraq in the first place.
So I dare say it was not an attack on you more the fact that the original question has been avoided and it appeared as if your answer was perhaps suggesting otherwise.
I didn't take it as a personal attack on me. But since I didn't say the US soldiers were evil, that's not the topic I'm arguing.
You didn't, I know, but other did, and that's what I argued against.
Are they misguided? Probably. Do they not want to be there? I guess so.
But joining the US military and participating in its wars does not make them innocent, either.
Each and every single one is directly responsible for their own actions.
Do we have to go into this again? Due to the nature of the system here, as in excessively expensive university costs and such, the military is a very attractive option for a great many poor Americans to have a better life.
Well, then take my comments as a criticism of your system that forces its (poor) people into the armed forces instead of giving them a different choice to pay for their education in the first place.
Take my situation, for example. I came from a very poor family, as in my parents' combined earnings were in the vicinity of $20,000/year, with 5 of us in the family. We ran a very small dairy farm when I was growing up, and my grades suffered because I had to help with the farm work from 4 in the afternoon until midnight and from 5 in the morning until I got on the bus to go to school. Since I didn't qualify for many scholarships the only way I could have gone to college is through taking a large amount of student loans. The problem was that the Federal subsidized and unsubsidized student loans wouldn't cover my costs. To cover my costs my parents would have to take out loans, and given their abysmal credit score and income they couldn't and wouldn't take any out.
You're not the only person I know stating exactly those reasons for joining the military.
And were I in your situation, I'd have probably had to consider making that choice myself.
I just don't see how serving your country in the military and taking the risk of dying for it is worth it when it's your country's system that forces you to volunteer to get anywhere.
So what was I to do? I could have worked at the local KFC for $5.15/hour for the rest of my life, or I could join the Army, do my 4 years and be able to go to university. Not a hard choice, eh?
Nope, and that's where your country has serious flaws - for it only offers you a Hobson's choice...
Of course, I enlisted in 1999, before anyone outside of Texas had even heard of George W. Bush.
Then let me ask you this out of curiosity: Would you consider working at KFC now or would you bite the bullet and join the armed forces were you to make that choice now?
Of course, given your history on threads about the US military you'll probably skim over what I've read and assume I said something about how awesome the military is and how great George Bush is and just give my some angry, pissed off reply.[QUOTE]
Don't you mean skim over what you've said? And assuming never gets you anywhere... And right now it's making an ass more out of you than it is out of me... :p
[QUOTE]Honestly, you're generally one of the more rational posters here...
Thanks. :p
...but any mention of the US military seems to put you into an irrational rage. I understand you're pissed about Iraq, so am I, but when Iraq and/or the US military is brought up it's like waving a red cape at an angry bull.
It's mostly frustration because it was and is so obvious to see what's wrong with your country and its actions from an outside perspective whereas not a small amount of your fellow citizens either don't care or are completely oblivious to the scale of impact the US's actions have on the rest of the world.
I simply expect more from such a great nation - and its leaders. But seeing how your public has managed to even re-elect that guy, I guess I had my hopes up too high and there's a lot of disappointment when I regard the US now.
That, and of course the fact that there is absolutely nothing I can do about it but voice my concern and opinion here and anywhere else I encounter one of you guys (to come back to the original topic of this thread... ;))
I mean, I've visited the US on a regular basis (last time 2004 to visit my sister who went to Berkeley on a scholarship for a year) - but I'm not going to return any time soon. That's my personal little boykott. ;)
So am I, incidentally. Unless you believe they were shipped out prior '03, I think we'll be waiting for a very long time.
Interesting.
The evidence was there. What we presented to the UN was reasonable evidence. We had suspicions, and we acted on them.
That's where I simply have to agree. I could've made up a better power-point presentation than that. That was no evidence, that were made-up constructs based on hear-say and anticipatory obedience by your "intelligence" services.

Had it been real evidence, the following would no apply - but it does:
Were we wrong? Yes. It was a fucking huge mistake for several reasons, not least of which the outmoded ideas of Rumsfeld and Cheney--both of whom should have been replaced by more forward thinkers after Bush's reelection.

So what the hell are we to do? (...) we're fucked.
Hunt Bush and his cronies out of office. Vote with your brains. Get more people to vote responsibly. Change the system. Don't wage wars. Don't wage wars that are unwinnable. Realize that with great power comes great responsibility (I know it's a Spiderman-quote - but that doesn't make it any less valid; it rather speaks for Stan Lee to use it!) - and live up to that responsibility.

And stop selling weapons to countries in the Middle East! (Mind you, I also oppose any sales that Germany does) That place is a powder keg already - adding more powder only makes the boom bigger once it goes off... :(

Whatever. Doess't change the factuality of the evidence; we had pictures, diagrams, intelligence briefings from fifteen years back, confirmed by the Clinton and Bush administrations. "Fixed around the policy" means that evidence was selected that would support the particular course of action. Sounds like a lot of arguments here...

Taken in context with the statement concerning not threatening others in the region, and the comparison with other states, I think its fairly clear what it says.

If there was "factuality" in the evidence, he would have had serious WMD by the way.

Reveals planners believed Saddam possessed WMD, based on the available facts and evidence.

Mustard gas is taken as being "WMD". Thats what Libya had, and what they presumed he had a few cans of somewhere. As it turns out, he never even had that.

Tell me how many Germans know their leaders personally? How many have their lips wispering into the ears of their representatives? Yes we are a democratic republic but we don't have unlimited access to our leaders. We do not write policy and it is painfully obviouse not all of us agree with our current policy.

So is it fair for them to bash our citizens relentlessly like that? No. Its even less fair when they are atacking those who can't even vote.

That's where I simply have to agree. I could've made up a better power-point presentation than that. That was no evidence, that were made-up constructs based on hear-say and anticipatory obedience by your "intelligence" services.

And yours too, I might add. ;)


Hunt Bush and his cronies out of office. Soon enough...Vote with your brains. Get more people to vote responsibly. Change the system. Don't wage wars. Don't wage wars that are unwinnable. Realize that with great power comes great responsibility (I know it's a Spiderman-quote - but that doesn't make it any less valid; it rather speaks for Stan Lee to use it!) - and live up to that responsibility.

And stop selling weapons to countries in the Middle East! (Mind you, I also oppose any sales that Germany does) That place is a powder keg already - adding more powder only makes the boom bigger once it goes off... :(

It is of course a great quote, and one well worth remembering. As for selling weapons to the MidEast, I would that it were so simple. It should be, yes, but politically...it's a globalized world. If we don't sell to them, someone will fill the gap. I'd rather we didn't. But political relations in that area are tenuous, and if we don't maintain what influence we have, it will be filled. China? Russia? Hell, even the EU. Perhaps a multi-polar world is better. I know a lot of non-Americans think so.

I was referring to the situation in Iraq currently, but future change should be just as important. Power needs to be used, or else it ceases to be had. If the US stops wielding its power irresponsibly, which is definitely desirable, will the definition of what is responsible change? Will a less militarized US necessarily be better for maintaining global peace and security? As long as the US is a hegemonic power, there will be dissatisfaction. There will be conflict. But as far as hegemons go, would you rather see a Soviet Union in power? A WWII Germany? A modern China? Who has power and who yields it say much. Given the strength the US has, it's interesting how little we do compared to what we could do.

And yes, we can do much more that would benefit the world and not just our national interest. And we have the voting voice to change that.

If there's been such a dramatic change since 2000, then it really shows that the "anti-Americanism" that has supposedly appeared is not so deep-rooted. Most people are fairly fickle. I suppose if Obama became president, mindsets would changes radically again. I'm a student in a British university, and we're supposedly in a "special relationship" with the USA. However, all I ever see is virulent anti-American sentiment from the Student Union, the academics themselves, and most of the student press. I think it's probably just fashionable at the moment.

Taken in context with the statement concerning not threatening others in the region, and the comparison with other states, I think its fairly clear what it says.

If there was "factuality" in the evidence, he would have had serious WMD by the way.

What would you say it says? I said they were selecting evidence to support their suspicions. Works in context, too. And yes, there was factuality in the evidence. Or do you not know what the evidence was?

Mustard gas is taken as being "WMD". Thats what Libya had, and what they presumed he had a few cans of somewhere. As it turns out, he never even had that.

Really? This is what he used on the Iranians? The Kurds?

Sure sounds like WMD to me...

To me, it just shows how unquestioning your people are, willing to go abroad to fight wars when they don't even know why they are fighting there in the first place.

That's not a proper declaration of war, though - no matter what you say.

Firstly, its this sort of ideallistic utopian nonsense that really harms a good debate in these fora. You have quite honestly got no idea of what the reality is for those soldiers in that situation.
You paint the picture of some phenomenal land where people can just wander off because what is happening does not fit in with their belief structure and they can do so with impunity. Not even your country is like that. How do I know? Just trust me, I have enough family members either in service or having gone through national service in the country that takes its name from yours.
As for in the UK. If you were in the armed forces and you saw your comrades going off to risk their lives in a situation and you walked away, then thank god you did, because you are obviously not suited to the sort of situation that you would be placed in. The poor fuckers in Iraq etc need our sympathy, admiration and support. They are in a hell that few of us can even comprehend, and yes, the motives for sending them there are nothing short of criminal. But now they are there, they are still our brethren and they need our thoughts and support. That is not to say we cannot speak out against the war and against the forces that put them there in the first place.

On the second point, proper declarations of war are totally pointless. So its ok to kill 10000000 people because you wrote and said you were going to do it? I don't think so.

AMK
xxx

Really? This is what he used on the Iranians? The Kurds?

Sure sounds like WMD to me...

Amazingly enough, having something over a decade prior does not mean that you still have it now. Especially when it has a shelf life of several years and you have no means of getting any more.

How about you guys started making decent beer in the first place?
Maybe then you guys would become more of a happy drunk instead of a pissed-off drunk? :eek:

I know I'd become pretty unhappy fairly quickly had I to drink that bottled urine you guys sell as "beer". :p

(That comic really is funny!)
:D
Try reading through the archive, the guy who draws it is brilliant.

Firstly, its this sort of ideallistic utopian nonsense that really harms a good debate in these fora.
Dude, if you don't like it, feel free to leave. Nobody's keeping you here or forcing you to participate.

You have quite honestly got no idea of what the reality is for those soldiers in that situation.
You paint the picture of some phenomenal land where people can just wander off because what is happening does not fit in with their belief structure and they can do so with impunity. Not even your country is like that.
Nice to see you're making assumptions.
My country at least doesn't force anyone to fight - even if they have joined the army before, they can still decide differently should the occasion really arise.
Sure there will be consequences, but that's still better than having someone "watch" your back while he couldn't care less.
How do I know? Just trust me, I have enough family members either in service or having gone through national service in the country that takes its name from yours.
What, where? Which country takes its name from Germany?!?
As for in the UK. If you were in the armed forces and you saw your comrades going off to risk their lives in a situation and you walked away, then thank god you did, because you are obviously not suited to the sort of situation that you would be placed in.
Which is another reason why drafting people who really do not want to fight is a stupid concept to begin with. And that is true for every army everywhere.
The poor fuckers in Iraq etc need our sympathy, admiration and support.
Well, too bad.
Nobody forced them to get stuck there. They signed up voluntarily. They will get a certain amount of sympathy and pity from me - but definitely no admiration, nor my support. They choose to go there, they suffer the consequences.
That's what happens if you decide to pick up a weapon a fight in a war. Any war. It's not like they couldn't have known that when they signed up.
On the second point, proper declarations of war are totally pointless. So its ok to kill 10000000 people because you wrote and said you were going to do it? I don't think so.
The difference is that the civil population would at least have some short notice before the bombs started dropping.
And it's the proper thing to do. Besides, if you don't declare war, there are enough people out there not calling it a war (Vietnam "conflict" anyone) and thus not feeling obliged to follow the rules (conduct of war).

:D
Try reading through the archive, the guy who draws it is brilliant.
:cool: I shall do so! :)

Really? This is what he used on the Iranians? The Kurds?

Sure sounds like WMD to me...

Except that the mustard gas that was dumped on the Kurds in the 80s had been long since stale around the 21st century, to where one canister would barely have enough power to make your eyes water, much less eat your lungs.

And don't kid yourself Bushevik. When Beloved Dear Leader was chanting WMD like it was a college football chant, he was implying Saddam had Nuclear and Biological Weapons primarily, deliverable to the continental United States within 48 hours by ICBM. Which of course Saddam didn't really have any of.

Except that the mustard gas that was dumped on the Kurds in the 80s had been long since stale around the 21st century, to where one canister would barely have enough power to make your eyes water, much less eat your lungs.

And don't kid yourself Bushevik. When Beloved Dear Leader was chanting WMD like it was a college football chant, he was implying Saddam had Nuclear and Biological Weapons primarily, deliverable to the continental United States within 48 hours by ICBM. Which of course Saddam didn't really have any of.

I? A Bushevik? If studying the facts makes me one, then so be it. Why not a Clintonite? Even though his administration confirmed and supported the intelligence that Saddam had the capacity to produce WMD, I am still a "Bushevik." Nevermind I didn't even vote for him in that last election.

But why argue? You obviously have no grasp of reality. That second paragraph merely displays your ignorance--both of what we actually gave Saddam credit for and how blind cattle tactics of following the propaganda machine can create such an uninformed opposition. Implication of nuclear and biological weapons supported by significant evidence, built upon throughout the '90s and supported by major intelligence agencies around the world...including the German BND and American CIA. But wait...facts don't mean anything to you, so long as you have an unsubstantiated opinion and can label your opponents "Busheviks" in a weak attempt to strengthen your floundering argument. So go on. Call me a Bushevik, if it makes you feel better--because unlike you, I argue with facts, not supposition.

when it has a shelf life of several years and you have no means of getting any more.

Which we now know. Then, it was strongly supported by current evidence that he did have the capacity to produce more.

I think I will say what needs to be said on this, the US public has supported the interventionist policies of their government for decades now, whether through apathy or indifference to public affairs or international relations is quite frankly irrelevant, the US prides itself on being a democracy - so I would say to Americans that your elected representatives are only doing what you want ultimately.

It's easy for the Americans to now see how bad Bush's administration has become, and how bad the decision to invade Iraq was, but ultimately it was you the American people who allowed Bush to hijack the post-9/11 hysteria and pursue said course, the polls clearly show you all supported the invasion at the time, and Congress acted on your delegated will. So it's easy for Americans to say 'Don't hate me, hate my government', but in all likelihood you voted for that government, and you delegated your popular sovereignty to them knowing the GOP (and Democrat) pension for war. You were the people who in the majority supported the war, it wouldn't have happened if you didn't support it, and Congress followed suit.

I know representative democracy has it's faults, and I am the first to point them out, but the facts are the facts, and until you Americans can stop being hostages to the fear-mongering politics of the creeps you elect, and being so partial to demagogic hysteria (Red Scare anyone?), history will inevitably repeat itself. The problem is apathy to politics, and the unwillingness of the US people to offer themselves a different opinion who will end stupid policies, other than the GOP/Dems you are exactly the same.

So in conclusion, Americans: You have no one to blame for Iraq but yourselves.

What would you say it says? I said they were selecting evidence to support their suspicions. Works in context, too. And yes, there was factuality in the evidence. Or do you not know what the evidence was?...

There was little concrete evidence, and thus little chance of "factuality". And yes, I know what the evidence was, because the British released an indepth report on the matter. The author that report (Lord Butler) later stated

.....neither the United Kingdom nor the United States had the intelligence that proved conclusively that Iraq had those weapons. The Prime Minister was disingenuous about that. The United Kingdom intelligence community told him on 23 August 2002 that,

“we ... know little about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons work since late 1988”.
The Prime Minister did not tell us that. Indeed, he told Parliament only just over a month later that the picture painted by our intelligence services was “extensive, detailed and authoritative”. Those words could simply not have been justified by the material that the intelligence community provided to him.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70222-0009.htm#07022239000740




Really? This is what he used on the Iranians? The Kurds?

Sure sounds like WMD to me...


Yet that wasn't what Colin Powell was talking about when he was waving a small canister at the UN. Or what the implication was when the fradulent documents pertaining to Uranium in Niger surfaced. Thats because its a battlefield weapon of limited effectiveness.

Implication of nuclear and biological weapons supported by significant evidence, built upon throughout the '90s and supported by major intelligence agencies around the world...including the German BND and American CIA....

Nope. Butler read the evidence and produced an official report that said otherwise. Tis crap. They wanted to invade Iraq for a plethora of reasons, none of which were justification in law or enough to garner support, so they just bullshitted and exaggerated.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,496731,00.html


I'm not sure I have a lot to add to it, the article seems to cover all the bases. Nonetheless, I think it's worth posting.

The thing that I found interesting is that in 2000 the US had a 78% approval rating, which since then has absolutely plummeted. That suggests to me that it's all about politics and especially the headlines created by it.

If the Republicans were to lose the next election and the successor were to pull out of Iraq and give up on the "change the world" doctrine, maybe contribute a bit more to the global campaign against climate change...how much do you think that would change things?

Gee, I remember being there in 1989, and almost every German I met had something rotten to say about Americans.

That is, except the bar owners outside of bases, and the young girls who flocked to the bases to fuck American soldiers.

Other than that, all bad news. I see that nothing has changed, except that there are far fewer soldiers stationed in Germany to go to bars and fuck young German women.

Amazingly enough, having something over a decade prior does not mean that you still have it now. Especially when it has a shelf life of several years and you have no means of getting any more.

Also, the nerve gas was only used to disrupt Iranian troop movements and to destroy a small Kurdish village, the amount he had or the delivery methods certainly didn't count as 'mass destruction' weapons on the level of nuclear weapons or the like.

By that argument, since the weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't true "strategic yield thermonuclear weapons" (they weren't H-bombs in the 200kt and up yield), but barely qualified as "tactical atomic weapons", they shouldn't count as weapons of mass destruction...

He will find a way to say otherwise. Watch for his crackpot excuse. I am sure it is going to be funny as hell.

Also, the nerve gas was only used to disrupt Iranian troop movements and to destroy a small Kurdish village, the amount he had or the delivery methods certainly didn't count as 'mass destruction' weapons on the level of nuclear weapons or the like.

By that argument, since the weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't true "strategic yield thermonuclear weapons" (they weren't H-bombs in the 200kt and up yield), but barely qualified as "tactical atomic weapons", they shouldn't count as weapons of mass destruction...

Amazingly enough, having something over a decade prior does not mean that you still have it now. Especially when it has a shelf life of several years and you have no means of getting any more.

Of course, it wouldn't be a problem if certain Western nations hadn't sold Saddam his weapons in the first place, only to recoil when he used them on the "wrong" people.

Okay, for all the head-in-the-sand pseudo-experts like andaras and his ilk, download this handy time line of Iraq, starting with August 1990.

*WARNING* Contains facts, quotes and other bits of conveniently glossed over goodness. May cause headache, nausea and/or explosive diarrhea in far-left/anti-American douchebags.

http://www.4shared.com/file/20974151/2203163/timeline.html

He will find a way to say otherwise. Watch for his crackpot excuse. I am sure it is going to be funny as hell.

Wow, aligning yourself with DK, as he would say, your NSG reputation is now in the toilet.

Also, comparing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
= Fail.

Wow, aligning yourself with DK, as he would say, your NSG reputation is now in the toilet.

Also, comparing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
= Fail.

I suggest reading comprehension 101.

Also, the nerve gas was only used to disrupt Iranian troop movements and to destroy a small Kurdish village, the amount he had or the delivery methods certainly didn't count as 'mass destruction' weapons on the level of nuclear weapons or the like.

Basically you are saying that the nerve attack can not be considered as mass desruction even though a hell of a lot of people died.

Then when RO points out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki can not be considered mass destruction because it barely registers as "a tactical nuclear weapon", all you can come up with is a wikipedia article that does not refute what RO is saying.

Forum credibility? Yours has been gone for sometime. Thank God you are going into the ADF. Maybe they will talk some sense into you.

Okay - for all you factually-challenged far left tards, here's a handy timeline of Iraq, complete with dates, quotes, and... *gasp* FACTS.

Download, read, learn.

http://www.4shared.com/file/20974151/2203163/timeline.html

I'm trying to be cynical and point out the stupidity in saying that nerve gas used on a village is "not a WMD" is a pretty stupid thing to say.

If you can say that's not a WMD, then neither is the small nuke used on Hiroshima.

To bad AP missed the obvious.

Then when RO points out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki can not be considered mass destruction because it barely registers as "a tactical nuclear weapon", all you can come up with is a wikipedia article that does not refute what RO is saying.

I'm trying to be cynical and point out the stupidity in saying that nerve gas used on a village is "not a WMD" is a pretty stupid thing to say.

If you can say that's not a WMD, then neither is the small nuke used on Hiroshima.

Gee, I remember being there in 1989, and almost every German I met had something rotten to say about Americans.



Course you were there. Nowhere you havent been, nothin you havent done.

I'm trying to be cynical and point out the stupidity in saying that nerve gas used on a village is "not a WMD" is a pretty stupid thing to say.

If you can say that's not a WMD, then neither is the small nuke used on Hiroshima.

If it was genuinely that internationally dangerous, why wasnt that the example powell used to the UN?

Course you were there. Nowhere you havent been, nothin you havent done.

Schwabisch-Gmund, to be exact...

Schwabisch-Gmund, to be exact...

Course. Thousands of children born there in those years resemble you greatly.....







.....Though I believe theres a surgery that can remove that from the forehead without a hint of scarring.....

Which we now know. Then, it was strongly supported by current evidence that he did have the capacity to produce more.
Posting another strip from IDT...
http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20050119badexample.gif
The first panel applies, I think. :D

Course. Thousands of children born there in those years resemble you greatly.....

.....Though I believe theres a surgery that can remove that from the forehead without a hint of scarring.....

Ask the residents there if they remember the guy who broke one of the anti-nuke protester's arms backwards through the elbow (a young woman who got on the launcher) at a protest at Mutlangen in 1989.

Ask the residents there if they remember the guy who broke one of the anti-nuke protester's arms backwards through the elbow (a young woman who got on the launcher) at a protest at Mutlangen in 1989.


Yep, he's shot muslims, got a legal degree, and beaten up women. What a guy.
Lucky for us he has time to entrall us with his tales of yore....

She didn't have to put her hands on the warhead. According to the commander, I exercised great restraint in only breaking her arms and throwing her to the pavement, rather than shooting her on the spot, as orders dictated.

Why not put in your book "Women Protestors I have beaten up"? It would make an interesting sequel to "Evil Muslims mistreatment of Women".

Yep, he's shot muslims, got a legal degree, and beaten up women. What a guy.
Lucky for us he has time to entrall us with his tales of yore....

She didn't have to put her hands on the warhead. According to the commander, I exercised great restraint in only breaking her arms and throwing her to the pavement, rather than shooting her on the spot, as orders dictated.

Then let me ask you this out of curiosity: Would you consider working at KFC now or would you bite the bullet and join the armed forces were you to make that choice now?

Actually, I am working at KFC right now (for a whole $7.50/hour since Michigan raised it's minimum wage). Of course, I'm not in the same situation I was 7 years ago. I honestly don't know, especially given that the state's economy is much worse than it was back then.

Don't you mean skim over what you've said? And assuming never gets you anywhere... And right now it's making an ass more out of you than it is out of me... :p

Yep, that's what I meant. Also, I must apologize, I'd been up for about 36 hours at that point resetting my sleep schedule after working late for several weeks, so I was a bit cranky.

She didn't have to put her hands on the warhead. According to the commander, I exercised great restraint in only breaking her arms and throwing her to the pavement, rather than shooting her on the spot, as orders dictated.

You had enough control over her to break an arm but not to just yank her off the thing?

She (....)exercised great and commendable restraint.

Yep, you're great. Did they give you the silver "BitchWellSlapped" with leaves for it?

You had enough control over her to break an arm but not to just yank her off the thing?

She swung her right arm at me after I asked her to get off the launcher. I was up there at the warhead.

I caught the right wrist in my right hand, and pulled it down across the front of her body, and punched with my open left hand into her elbow, while pulling the arm up again. Then I spun her around, pulled her right wrist up behind her head, and tossed her into the crowd of her friends below.

Rules of engagement REQUIRED me to shoot her. I didn't feel like it.

There was even a hearing in German court - the protesters claimed that I had brutally attacked her. It was found that not only was I within the law (we were within 2 meters of a nuclear warhead), but that I had exercised great and commendable restraint.

Yep, you're great. Did they give you the silver "BitchWellSlapped" with leaves for it?

With oak leaf clusters, for sure.

Actually, I am working at KFC right now (for a whole $7.50/hour since Michigan raised it's minimum wage). Of course, I'm not in the same situation I was 7 years ago. I honestly don't know, especially given that the state's economy is much worse than it was back then.
Thanks for your honest answer. :)
Yep, that's what I meant. Also, I must apologize, I'd been up for about 36 hours at that point resetting my sleep schedule after working late for several weeks, so I was a bit cranky.
;) I know what you mean... Cranky is my second forename recently. Guess it happens to the best of us. So we're doing okay after all.

Yep, he's shot muslims, got a legal degree, and beaten up women. What a guy.
Lucky for us he has time to entrall us with his tales of yore....
And I'm so glad he has chosen to do so in the the thread called Anti-Americanism... Just in case anyone has forgotten why there are good reasons for it to exist, and if only they come in the form of RO.:rolleyes:

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/americancat.jpg

Rules of engagement REQUIRED me to shoot her. I didn't feel like it.
As weird as that might sound, I actually agree with RO on this one. Not necessarily that breaking her arm was a good idea, but that she was acting way out of line and could have had it much worse.

In the German army (which is supposed to be a great example of moderation) you're taught in basic training how to guard the baracks. And that includes using force to stop people from entering, up to the point of shooting them dead. And this is just a normal baracks...if you're going to climb on a nuclear warhead you can count yourself lucky not to get blown up with a tank shell for coming within 100m of the thing.

Though I suppose the question remains why they had nuclear warheads sitting outside where people could put their hands on them.

Though I suppose the question remains why they had nuclear warheads sitting outside where people could put their hands on them.

With Remote Observer ruthlessly defending them, why not?

DK as a soldier? Na I don't buy it, he strikes me more as a stay-at-home soldier like all the war-mongering neocon types.

DK as a soldier?
There's a few of them around. DK, Myrmidonisia, Marrakech II, Lunatic Goofballs, Eutrusca of course (though he's not around anymore :(). Mostly first Gulf War types.

It's hard to prove, of course.

EDIT: Oh, and that guy on tour in Afghanistan right now. Can't think of his name though.

So we're doing okay after all.

Certainly. You're just lucky I hadn't been up for more than 72 hours because my little rant may have been in a combination of English and French that didn't mean anything in either language.

Certainly. You're just lucky I hadn't been up for more than 72 hours because my little rant may have been in a combination of English and French that didn't mean anything in either language.
;) While I do speak both, I might have had to ask you about it... And I would have! :D

I’m a bit late coming in, but what’s wrong with Remote Observer breaking someone’s arms to stop her getting to a Nuke Warhead, especially since he was supposed to shoot here. If there was even the slightest chance of her setting of the Bomb I would have shot her.

Because he can grab her and yank her off (as he did) without breaking her arm Well he could, but then she is still a risk. And you cant really tolerate risks around nuclear warheads.

I’m a bit late coming in, but what’s wrong with Remote Observer breaking someone’s arms to stop her getting to a Nuke Warhead, especially since he was supposed to shoot here. If there was even the slightest chance of her setting of the Bomb I would have shot her.

Because he can grab her and yank her off (as he did) without breaking her arm

;) While I do speak both, I might have had to ask you about it... And I would have! :D

And I probably couldn't have explained. When I was on active duty I could handle staying up for a few days rather well, but since I haven't had to do it for a while, it's not much fun. I find it's a lot like drinking, if you don't keep up a tolerance you'll be "inebriated" quickly.

And I probably couldn't have explained. When I was on active duty I could handle staying up for a few days rather well, but since I haven't had to do it for a while, it's not much fun. I find it's a lot like drinking, if you don't keep up a tolerance you'll be "inebriated" quickly.
While I worked as a paramedic we had 24-hour shifts and usually that meant working for 24 hours without getting sleep or break (longer than to restock, grab some chow if we were lucky, and maybe have a smoke).

But I was a lot younger then and think that also has to do with it. I mean, at sleepovers, we watched movies the whole night and went to school the next day without any problems or feeling tired - If I watch more than one movie at night now, I'll fall asleep in no time.

But your body adapts to what you put him through, that's right. :p

But your body adapts to what you put him through, that's right. :p

I stay up like every night to watch movies or chat with friends. My life consists of nightly activities (and some occasional sleep) but I'm still the most tired person in Europe all the time.

I think it depends on how much your body is prepared to adapt to rather than what you put it through.
Or something like that, anyway, I'm tired.
Xx.