Iraq

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The 1 trillion figure was for the war, the reconstruction, and the occupation for ~10 years. If you look at S. Korea, ten years is not a very long time.

Without two of the three largest economies (France and Germany) out, help isn't coming in large amounts. The "billions" in deals are miniscule in comparison to the economies. Eastern Europe's support is worth about two nickels, economically. It's only value is political.

As for Afganistan, they have nothing. Germany and Japan had huge industrial, economic, and educational foundations. Afganistan has dirt. Economics is what it is all about. Iraq is oil rich, so the chances are better there. Neither has the cultural cohesion of Germany or Japan. Too many factions at odds. Besides, we still have troops in Japan and Germany. It's still al large expense to us.
I agree.

You can't compare the fact the we have troops still in Germany and Japan as a reconstruction force. They're only there as strategic forces and have been for years. Supposedly we will be removing our 70,000 troops from Germany in the near future. It's about time too. No sense in keeping them there, supporting an economy where they're not wanted and since the Soviet Union no longer exists - we don't need to waste money protecting Germany anymore. Just hope without our military presence they don't get any ideas of WWII grandeur again and decide they want to rule the world.

[Cirdan]

Iraq will be strategic until the oil runs out or we switch to a new fuel source or the ME is completely pacified. None of the things will happen in the next ten years. It will be similar to waiting for the USSR to fold.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No sense in keeping them there, supporting an economy where they're not wanted and since the Soviet Union no longer exists - we don't need to waste money protecting Germany anymore. Just hope without our military presence they don't get any ideas of WWII grandeur again and decide they want to rule the world.

lol :D.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Iraq will be strategic until the oil runs out or we switch to a new fuel source or the ME is completely pacified. None of the things will happen in the next ten years. It will be similar to waiting for the USSR to fold.


OMG! It is not about oil for the zillionth time!!!!

[The Lady of Ithilien]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You might find this interesting...
Protesting the Protesters (http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html)

Some of his questions really had them stumped. I like how he confronted them about the war for oil and asked them why the US just didn't go in during the Gulf War and take the oil. That is a good movie. Thanks, JD.

One woman did answer his question, unfortunately: "Because we didn't have such a bastard for president then." Then there was the group of three women that shouted him down.

Scary.

But to balance them, there is this guy himself, going out there and posing the question. You could see he got some of them thinking seriously...maybe for the first time. I also like the point he made at the end -- that most of these were people he'd be glad to call friends, but that the extremist language, name-calling, etc., really hurt their cause.

It's like that link here a few pages back to the comical "Weapons of Mass Destruction Not Found" page -- I enjoyed it, too, but wouldn't pass it along because of the gratuitous things about President Bush, in particular, and Mr. Rumsfeld. Dumb stuff. Spoiled the whole thing.

BTW, UPI was reporting yesterday that the Chronicle's count of the number of protestors in San Francisco was way below that of the march organizers and the police -- more like 65,000 than 200,000. Both organizers and police disagreed, but both protestors and police had vested interests, the former to show their ability to call up huge numbers of people and the latter to show their ability to handle huge numbers of people relatively peacefully. I tend to believe the Chronicle, at least until I can figure out if they've got a vested interest in it. :)

[L@ur@y Elven Warrior]

I don't want the war in Iraq because in Iraq the people are still sufring from the last war and because if Donreay gets bomded I'll be died.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by L@ur@y Elven Warrior
I don't want the war in Iraq because in Iraq the people are still sufring from the last war
The Iraqi people will CONTINUE to suffer even if sanctions are lifted - as long as Hussein is there. That argument against war is like saying that we shouldn't have gone into Bosnia because the people there were suffering and some innocent people might die during the attack.


and because if Donreay gets bomded I'll be died.

The US has plans to prevent any Iraqi missiles from attacking outside Iraq. I'm not saying that some won't get through. But if he continues his weapons programs - do you really think you'll be safe once he feels he has enough of them to control the Middle East? It might be 2 years from now, 5 years or 10 years - but sooner or later he will have enough weapons where he won't be afraid to take the offensive against the surrounding countries - and I'm sure he wouldn't think twice about attacking Israel. Currently he gives about $15,000 to each family of a suicide bomber.

Are you living by Donreay Scottland? If so - how do you think he'll attack you there? or even why? I'm assuming it's because of the Nuclear Power Plant. At first I was thinking you were from Israel or another neigboring country, where your fear would be more understandable.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
OMG! It is not about oil for the zillionth time!!!!

Saying it more often doesn't make it true.

It may not be only about oil, but you'd have to be pretty naive to think it doesn't play an important roll. Strategic interests, baby! Even when the administration talks about rebuilding, they mention using oiil revenue to finance it. It's part of the plan. Iraq threatens the oil producing nations of the ME. If there were no oil we wouldn't be talking about this. If Saddam were Idi Amin, slaughtering his people, but had no oil, do you really think we would bother? Think Namibia, Cambodia, Angola, Sudan, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, China, Tibet, N. Korea. If there were no oil, and it was only a matter of terrorism, then why not just invade as we did in Afganistan? Oil. The fact that the are large assets in the country makes the situation more complicated. Like it or not, the Iraq situation has always been about the oil.

We meddled in Iran until the revolution soured it. We supplied arms to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war, hoping to maintain a standoff, preventing a single power from controlling the oil supply, and punishing the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran. We defended Kuwait because of the oil. George H. W. Bush didn't bother to deny that was ther reason for the first Gulf war. His son is just putting a better political spin on his reasoning.

Terrorism does tip the scales. Not everything has changed since 9/11, however. The Middle East is a disaster because of the politics of oil over the last 100 years.

[Lief Erikson]

Cirdan, all of those arguments have already been answered. We could have taken the oil during the Gulf War, we could have lobbied to lift the sanctions on Iraq so that we could continue trading. In the face of all history and all evidence to the contrary, your thinking that oil is a major factor in this is naive.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Think Namibia, Cambodia, Angola, Sudan, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, China, Tibet, N. Korea. If there were no oil, and it was only a matter of terrorism, then why not just invade as we did in Afganistan? Oil. The fact that the are large assets in the country makes the situation more complicated.

Those places you've mentioned either aren't building WMDs or they are too powerful to bother any more. Iraq is a threat that we can deal with, so we are. North Korea and China we obviously can't just declare war on; those situations already are threats that have become fully developed, and thus must be treated more delicately.

We also didn't in the past have a strong enough president to lead us against countries that were becoming a threat to world peace. Ronald Reagan led us against Communism and rallies went up all over the place against him, but he helped to protect the world from a dangerous threat. Only President Bush since then has taken similar steps against evil, and just like Ronald Reagan, he's getting pounded for it.

[markedel]

Was Ronald Reagan so undiplomatic? I would't know it was before my time, but Bush and his administration are abrasive, even if they are right. Explains why him and Ariel SHaron get along so well. The IDF was never good at PR either.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by markedel
Was Ronald Reagan so undiplomatic? I would't know it was before my time, but Bush and his administration are abrasive, even if they are right. Explains why him and Ariel SHaron get along so well. The IDF was never good at PR either.
Reagan was criticised for calling the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire". it was felt that his tough stand against the Soviets at that time was going to incite WWIII and nuclear holocaust. As it turned out - his tough stand was the catalyst that pushed the Soviet Union into non-existence.

Similar to Bush - Reagan said how it was and what he was going to do. Very few Europeans liked his tough talk. Margaret Thatcher was heavily criticised for standing side by side with Reagan.

There was a similar feeling of patriotism during the 80's and the similar outpouring of anti-American demonstrations throughout Europe, particularly in Germany - as there is now.

[Cirdan]

LE, none of those questions have been answered. "Coulda" meeans zip. "Couldn't" would be more appropriate. Certrainly we have the military power to destroy any nation. That does not add up to political power. We "could" have invaded Iran in 1979 but we feared a Soviet counter-invasion from Afganistan.

We "could" have invaded Iraq alone in 1991 except we lacked the political power to go it alone. We could have saved the Kurds from the post-war retalliations of Saddam for working overtly with coalition forces but we weren't that concerned for thier welfare while they we still alive. The Regan administration "could" have decided not to give Saddam's regime $10 billion in military aid including chemical and biological weapons.

The idea that one must invade weak nations and tolerate stronger ones regardless of the threat they pose is morally bankrupt. War should be the last resort, not just a matter of convenience.

Finally LE, your tactic of brushing aside arguements by saying they have been answered is pointless and a bit lazy. If you have nothing to say about them, that is what you should say, nothing.
It turns debate into contradiction.

There would never have been US invovlement in Iraq had oil not been a strategic concern.

Reagan was very diplomatic through administrative channels. The SALT agreements are a good example. While he threatened a good deal, he was genuinely negotiating for peace from a position of strength. The "Evil Empire" but was pretty funny since we were allying ourselves with the pretty evil empire of China at the time. Evil Empire Lite. The current administration would be disappointed with a peaceful solution, if it meant leaving Saddam in place. A moot point since war and/or death are the only thing that will remove him from power and resolve the current problems.

Did anyone notice that Iran is closer to WMD that Iraq at this point?

Did anyone see SNL last nigt? LOL! The "Hardball" parody with the French diplomat was too funny.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
LE, none of those questions have been answered. "Coulda" meeans zip. "Couldn't" would be more appropriate. Certrainly we have the military power to destroy any nation. That does not add up to political power. We "could" have invaded Iran in 1979 but we feared a Soviet counter-invasion from Afganistan.

We "could" have invaded Iraq alone in 1991 except we lacked the political power to go it alone. We could have saved the Kurds from the post-war retalliations of Saddam for working overtly with coalition forces but we weren't that concerned for thier welfare while they we still alive. The Regan administration "could" have decided not to give Saddam's regime $10 billion in military aid including chemical and biological weapons.

The idea that one must invade weak nations and tolerate stronger ones regardless of the threat they pose is morally bankrupt. War should be the last resort, not just a matter of convenience.

War is a last resort in the case of Iraq. Evidence points to their actively foiling the UN weapons inspectors whenever they start doing things that aren't convenient for Saddam Hussein (Mainly evidence that hasn't been covered up or is difficult to cover up). I assume you've heard or read Colin Powell's speech which described some of the evidence available? If so, then good. Call me lazy :D, but I'd rather not recite all of what he already said.

As for it being morally bankrupt to ignore bigger countries while dealing with little ones, I think that it sometimes only makes sense.

If a bad situation has fully developed, like North Korea or China, we can't just barrel in there anymore. A solution that would work with the developing situation isn't the same solution that will work for the fully developed situation. A different way of dealing with the problem is called for.

Meanwhile, if there is a smaller country that is (A bad solution developing) that is turning into one of the big solutions but is not yet too big for you to deal with, then it is your perogative to go and deal with it before it as well becomes out of hand. It's simple logic, not moral bankruptcy. Certainly we wish that China and North Korea weren't the problems they are now, and we still should do something about it. But we cannot go to war with either without huge risk to ourselves, and that cost must be taken into account.

Besides, China isn't threatening us.
Originally posted by Cirdan
Finally LE, your tactic of brushing aside arguements by saying they have been answered is pointless and a bit lazy. If you have nothing to say about them, that is what you should say, nothing.
It turns debate into contradiction.
You might want to look again at my post. After reminding you that those points were already answered, I went back and covered some of the main points that undermine that argument. Those were points that jerseydevil brought up in an earlier post, but you might not have been there at that time.

As for your refutation of the 'coulda', :) I want to point out that although you're right about some of the things that in the past we could have done, you're also right that there were always reasons for our not doing those things. Those evidences you quoted don't equal anything, all they do is describe things we could have done but it was too risky or the costs made it not worth it.

This is another issue that I've described, two points in time where we could have taken the oil (As you've claimed it is our motive to take). We obviously didn't do it, and I'm giving the reason why we didn't do it. That's the obvious reason, that even though we could have taken it, we didn't, because it wasn't what we were after. You as yet have not offered an alternative reason as for why we didn't take it that is reasonable.

[jerseydevil]

Well my personal feeling is that we need to deal with the smaller countries while they ARE small - instead opf waiting for them to blow up like they do when they develop into a North Korea.

I agree that oil plays a role in the Middle East - of course it does. There is also no problem with dealing with situations that are in a nation's self interest before dealing with others. Others may have a problem - but I elect our leaders to look after America - not after Europe or other countries. I want OUR leaders working for us - not foreign interests.

We've done the appeasement thing, the negotiation thing, the isolation thing, history shows that this does not really work. It just postpones the inevitable to the point where it is much more difficult to deal with.

[Cirdan]

From Bush's 1991 SotU address:Our purpose in the Persian Gulf remains constant: to drive Iraq out from Kuwait, to restore Kuwait's legitimate government, and to insure the stability and security of this critical region.

And why is the region critical? Anyone?

I agree, JD, these interests should be protected. I just want to call a spade a spade. "Evil" alone is not a prime motivator in US foriegn policy.

Actually the isolation, negotiation thing works with patience (see USSR, China, Cuba). To say negotiation only works when military options are less optimistic is intellectually dishonest. It's pragmatic only if the benefits outweigh the costs. The US has forced the stakes high with the mobilzation of it's forces. It basically can't "fold" now without losing authority. We must show our will to follow through now. Unless we help resolve the Palestinian issue we are treating the symptom and not the disease.

Those evidences you quoted don't equal anything, all they do is describe things we could have done but it was too risky or the costs made it not worth it.

My point was that "coulda" is a meanless arguement. It usually involves ignoring reality.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
And why is the region critical? Anyone?

I agree, JD, these interests should be protected. I just want to call a spade a spade. "Evil" alone is not a prime motivator in US foriegn policy.

I agree the region is critical because of oil. Without oil it is a barren wasteland. We would not be risking American lives over sand.

There is another problem now though and that is the militant terrorists which come out of that region. In this case - even if there was no oil - it would be in American's best interest to get inolved to put an end to this. Many "have nots" blame the "haves" for all their problems and feel like they deserve something. This breeds resentment. Unless we can improve the conditions of the Middle Eastern people - we will always have terrorism. We need to get these governments to change and I think that Afganistan and Iraq are good places to start.

My main concern is not the result of the war - but just making sure that we don't isolate the iraqi people and that we truly work to establish a democracy in Iraq. Not a puppet government or one that does not represent the people. We can successfully execute the war - and I think it is necessary - but we must do the post war properly and not half-way.

Actually the isolation, negotiation thing works with patience (see USSR, China, Cuba).

I don't think we have time to wait. Solving the Middle East problems quickly and decisively is a requirement to stop terrorism. Cuba, China and the Soviet Union were not sending in suicide bombers (although there was that attempted bombing attack on the Capitol Building 30 - 40 years ago) to the US or killing US diplomats or blowing up restaurants, night clubs, shooting passenger jets out of the sky with missile launchers, ect.

No matter what the PC thing to say is - this is a war against the Middle East extremists. Iraq is just the first phase of this. The rest may not be militarily - but we do need to take an active role and not just passively hope that the Middle East will come into the 21st Century and change. People should be outraged that Middle Eastern schools teach hatred - including Saudi Arabia.

To say negotiation only works when military options are less optimistic is intellectually dishonest. It's pragmatic only if the benefits outweigh the costs. The US has forced the stakes high with the mobilzation of it's forces. It basically can't "fold" now without losing authority. We must show our will to follow through now.

Hans Blinx in an interview which will be in this week's Time magazine said that without US pressure on Hussein - he would never have allowed inspectors into Iraq. He also stated that force may be necessary to force the issue on Iraq.

Unless we help resolve the Palestinian issue we are treating the symptom and not the disease.

I agree that we need to solve the palestian issue - but as long as Hamas supports suicide bombers - there will be NO peace in that region. Whether it's a fringe group or the majority who supports civilian bombings - peace will be impossible. it also doesn't help that Middle Eastern countries - including Iraq pay suicide bombers money. Israel will continue to retaliate, the Palestinians will then retaliate. It's a cycle that seems impossible to break without some sort of world intervention. Something more than just negotiations.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I know it's not that easy and I'm not saying attack with an army.

I disagree with you that it is Israel's fault. I'm not saying that they don't always have a role to play. After the agreement was established to develop a Jewish "homeland" and give the other section to the Palestinians - the Arabs weren't satisfied. They tried to take over all the land. Israel almost lost everything. Israel eventually gained the upper hand and ended up gaining land. The Palestinians started a war to take over Israel in order to destory Israel - now that they lost they call the land Israel gained control of during the conflict as the "occupied territories". If Jordan, Egypt Syria, etc didn't start the war with Israel - there would be NO occupied territories. The Palestinians are hellbent on reclaiming land they lost in a war THEY started. In other words - it's SEVERE case of being a sore loser.

In terms of the poverty and so forth. The Palestinians are in pverty because they'd rather support the suicide bombers than support the peace. There are Palestinian groups that support peace - but it's Hamas that gets all the support. Saddam Hussein even pays somethine like $15,000 to every family of a suicide bomber.

Given a chance - the Middle Eastern countries would wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

All right, I guess I'd better respond to this now. I'd like to go earlier than your first statement, "after the agreement was established to develop a Jewish homeland."

When the Jewish state was first established, there were many, many Palestinians in Israel. Because of that, the Jewish leaders were aware that if they were going to have the majority in their democracy, they knew that they had to expel many of the Palestinians that were currently living there.

The war waged between the Arabs and the Israelites gave them a good excuse. Many Palestinians were exported from their homes and from their lands during that time. Many eyewitness accounts and other evidences exist of this from the Palestinian side, but the Israelies claim that these expulsions never happened. It is true that some Palestinians were terrified into fleeing because of the reports given by the Arab army, in the hopes that it would raise up support for them. The Palestinians rather than becoming furious and attacking the Israelies, fled in terror. Also Jewish terrorists assisted others that wouldn't make this move. Some land was bought as well, but not much. Most of the people were expelled.

As I said, the Israelites deny that these expulsions ever happened, but those claims seem rather dubious due to the fact that the UN said that the Palestinians could return to their homes, but Israel never allowed it.

The logic of this move of expelling the Palestinians and the evidence for such a move is strong. America's support of the Sharon government causes us to be villified in the Middle East. Many European and nonEuropean countries can see the justice of their claims; America is Israel's prime supporter.

Now we see the more recent side of this. Israel has in the past taken land and expelled Palestinians without permitting them to return, so it's logical that we'd see the same strategy in place today. And I wasn't surprised.

Rather than accepting Bush's overtures of peace, Israel has taken an extremely tough stance against the Palestinians, not willing to yield an inch until the Palestinians yield (Something that at this point seems very unlikely to happen, particularly as the Muslim nations see them as unjustly treated and support them). Notice Israel's behavior when it entered into Palestinian territory. They were targeting the 'terrorist infrastructure'. The only possibility of this being true is if the whole economy was supporting and building up terror, something that seems unlikely to be true. In entering these territories, the Israelite army destroyed huge amounts of infrastructure and targetted the economy. Video tapes were taken of what was destroyed- electrical facilities, education materials and other things that plainly had nothing to do with terrorism but which millions of dollars were spent on by the UN and by America for the building up of the Palestinian economy.

They targeted specifically and destroyed that which was giving the Palestinians hope in the land they occupied. It is in keeping with their overall strategy of taking land and expelling the Palestinians from what they want. They also have much greater media coverage of their problems, like the suicide bombers, then the Palestinians do of all the things that have happened to them.

I realize that Israel has a lot of good and compassion in it as well; I've been painting it in a rather bad light here. But I think that there are two sides to the story and that the Israelite government's tactics have caused much of the terrorism from which they now suffer.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I realize that Israel has a lot of good and compassion in it as well; I've been painting it in a rather bad light here. But I think that there are two sides to the story and that the Israelite government's tactics have caused much of the terrorism from which they now suffer.
Well I disagree. First of all it was England and UN which created the Israeli state of Israel and divided up the land. Second - the Palestinians were screaming genicide during the Jenin affair. That ended up beig proved false by human rights organisations who went in there ot investigate the claims.

After the Passover massacre and the Bar Mitzvah attack - Israelis have a right to defend themselves. I was hoping for peace before - but now I feel that israel needs to take action. Whenever anything would calm down - israel would pull back their troops - and as soon as they did that - there would be another suicide bombing.

Until the suicide bombings stop against innocent civilians - I will not support the palestinians. They must stop the bombings.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I disagree. First of all it was England and UN which created the Israeli state of Israel and divided up the land. Second - the Palestinians were screaming genicide during the Jenin affair. That ended up beig proved false by human rights organisations who went in there ot investigate the claims.

I know that England and the UN created Israel. And about the Jenin affair . . . They weren't screaming genocide, but they were stating that many Palestinian civilians were killed in this strike. They have large amounts of evidence for this in eye witness reports. You can ignore those if you wish, or state them as unreliable.

But after the Jenin affair was over, the Israelites would not permit human rights organizations or anyone into the whole area for a large amount of time, regardless of the fact that numerous governments and agencies were demanding access. Video tapes were taken by the Palestinians of the bodies being taken out.

In any case though, what I was describing to you was history, showing that the Israelites have historically and in the present had a system of taking land for themselves. I'm not claiming that all the fault lies on them, but the situation is easy for violent or right wing Islamic fundamentalists to take advantage of. People like Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others are easy to find support, and groups like Hamas can gain support in the surroundings that Israel created.
Originally posted by jerseydevil
After the Passover massacre and the Bar Mitzvah attack - Israelis have a right to defend themselves. I was hoping for peace before - but now I feel that israel needs to take action. Whenever anything would calm down - israel would pull back their troops - and as soon as they did that - there would be another suicide bombing.

Until the suicide bombings stop against innocent civilians - I will not support the palestinians. They must stop the bombings.

I agree with you that the Israelites have a right to defend themselves. I agree that the situation is very, very difficult and complex at this point in time and there are no easy answers. What I disapprove of is the way they are handling the situation currently, using the conflict to gain the land they desire and consequently making the volatile situation worse.

[gimli7410]

a war would suck because if it was nuclear it would affect us all

[L@ur@y Elven Warrior]

Yes it would effect the lot of us but if they bomb Donreay the People in Caithness will died straight away.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by L@ur@y Elven Warrior
Yes it would effect the lot of us but if they bomb Donreay the People in Caithness will died straight away.

How are they going to bomb you in Scottland?

[BeardofPants]

I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps Saddam has paid out N. Korea to tunnel up into Scotland? :rolleyes:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I just thought I'd introduce this (http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf) amusing clip into the discussion.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I just thought I'd introduce this (http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf) amusing clip into the discussion.

:D

hehe.....catchy tune;)

[markedel]

*Sigh*

Israel was formed by a UN vote-alongside a Palestinian state that the palestinians and their allies rejected, because Israel did too. Instead they decided to go into a war they lost, largely because of their own disunity and incompetance, and not thanks to foreign support. I doubt the UN would have mourned a stillborn Israel in 1949. Regardless it wouldn't mourn a dead one next year, I don't believe partition won that large a majority.

The war began because the Palestinians wanted-in the land originally allotted by the UN there was a Jewish minority (albeit a thin one). The IDF was not without its flaws, this is true, but to put it in perspectives the Jewish communities in the areas occupied by Jordan and Egypt were destroyed by the war and restored in 1967. In violation of armstice agreements no Jews were allowed in the Old city (whose Jewish community fell to siege, and then was obliberated, quite literally-the buildings were dynamited) until after the 6 day war. The conflict does not exist because of Israeli expansionism but Israeli existance. The Israelis did not create the situation-if the palestinians accepted the UN resolutions they would have had a state, a larger state then any they will get now, barring wholesale conquest of Israel.

Besides which-Israel was no U.S ally in 1948. Its only foreign support (aside from kind words) was from Communist Czechoslovakia, whose guns kept the IDF afloat. In fact Israel got little American support until after 1967, at which point it became obvious how much material the Soviets were shipping to Israel's neighbors.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I just thought I'd introduce this (http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf) amusing clip into the discussion.

That is funny. It's funny that that was posted on September 2nd and we still haven't done anything though. I give Saddam until March 28th - then I think we're going in there.

Here are some others...

"Saddam Has Got The Bombs, Baby!" (http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=2064)

Here is a game...
"War On Terror Game - Play It Now" (http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=2057)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I suck at that game! :eek: OK, missile guidance is out as a career.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I suck at that game! :eek: OK, missile guidance is out as a career.

So do I.

Here are some others.

"The Saddam Palace Game" (http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=1892)

"Saddam Is F#@%ED!" (http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=1627)

"Saddam Is Full Of Camel Sh%t" (http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=1655)

"Saddam Is Playing Games" (http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&display=1636)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Ok, I'm starting to get a bit worried here... :eek:

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by markedel
The conflict does not exist because of Israeli expansionism but Israeli existance. The Israelis did not create the situation-if the palestinians accepted the UN resolutions they would have had a state, a larger state then any they will get now, barring wholesale conquest of Israel.

Jerseydevil brought across much of what you were saying quite well in his posts on the subject. I know that the wars were started by the Arabs and that the Israelies were at a severe disadvantage through most of them. However, you're refusing to see that there's more than one side to the story. History and present day evidence points to a policy in the Israeli government. There is reason plainly visible for it having happened and there is evidence plainly visible that it has happened. Much of this evidence I sited in my previous post, and you didn't respond to it. I agree with you and jerseydevil that the Arabs were fighting to annihilate the Jews. That was plainly expressed by the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem in 1947 when he said, "Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" and vowed to drive them into the sea.

But as I demonstrated in my previous post, there is evidence, present day and historical, for the Jews having such a method of expulsion and land taking. Oh, one question, do you automatically discount all of the eye witness accounts from the Palestinian side? And the Israelies have ignored the UN and don't even allow the Palestinians they expelled for "safety reasons" back into their own homes. Because of the danger, they have everyone leave a block of land. Then, when the danger is over, they deny these people reentry and populate the area with Jewish settlers.


Besides which-Israel was no U.S ally in 1948. Its only foreign support (aside from kind words) was from Communist Czechoslovakia, whose guns kept the IDF afloat. In fact Israel got little American support until after 1967, at which point it became obvious how much material the Soviets were shipping to Israel's neighbors.

I was saying that America is Israel's primary ally now.

[markedel]

I did admit the IDF expelled palestinians (though in 1967 they did undertake a limited family reunification program). My argument is that when you start a war you have to reap what you sow. (It is my feeling the U.S isn't prepared for such an eventuality with Iraq-which is why an invasion, for all its merits is likely a bad idea). Israel, after all, is not asking for compensation for all the Jews expelled out of Arab countries directly because of the War of Independence, but is in fact offering money to compensate Palestinian refugees. There is the striking difference-the current president of Israel is from such a family of expelled refugees as they were integrated (not always successfully) into the state. The Palestinians sit in U.S funded refugee camps while their Arab brethren fund Hamas and Hizbollah rather then new housing.

Most of the state of Israel is from legally bought land (unfortunetly I don't have the numbers, but if you like I can look and PM at some point). I also deplore the way Israel expropriates land, and has done so, especially in the West Bank. On the other hand, if Camp David was signed then there'd be a Palestinian state, and Israel would not be stealing land. Whether a Palestinian state is enough to stop the suicide bombings is, in my view, rather questionable, and I think the fact Israelis are willing to take such a risk after an obvious Palestinian rejection of the land for peace principle as quite commendable. Israel is obviously not perfect, but I don't see people asking for perfection from the palestinians in such debates.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by markedel
I did admit the IDF expelled palestinians (though in 1967 they did undertake a limited family reunification program). My argument is that when you start a war you have to reap what you sow.
No, because as you probably know, the Jews weren't fighting the Palestinians as their primary foe. Originally got along well with the Palestinians and the two groups lived peacefully alongside each other. You can't round all the Palestinians into a group and say that they were all involved or in support of the war. They lived in Israel and among the Jews, but were scared out or expelled. It isn't fair to say that the Israelies taking advantage of the situation is all right (or at least relatively) because they were in a state of war. They were using the situation they were in to gain land and votes; I'm afraid I just don't see that punishing citizens of their country is justified. Their enemies weren't those they were expelling.


(It is my feeling the U.S isn't prepared for such an eventuality with Iraq-which is why an invasion, for all its merits is likely a bad idea). Israel, after all, is not asking for compensation for all the Jews expelled out of Arab countries directly because of the War of Independence, but is in fact offering money to compensate Palestinian refugees. There is the striking difference-the current president of Israel is from such a family of expelled refugees as they were integrated (not always successfully) into the state. The Palestinians sit in U.S funded refugee camps while their Arab brethren fund Hamas and Hizbollah rather then new housing.
I'm not saying that the Arab nations have behaved well or that their wars were good or right. I'm not saying that they can explain away their share in the blame. Both you and I see the situation at hand now as caused by faults on both sides. But the Palestinians were primarily only victims; note that those who were pushed out of their homes were pushed out of their homes. These weren't soldiers and they weren't against Israel. What I'm frustrated at is Israel's taking advantage of the Palestinians because of their wars.

If you can show me some documentation that shows the Palestinians were rising up in revolt on a large scale as the Arab nations hoped they would, I'll be more inclined to agree with you that their being expelled was simply a consequence of war.

Most of the state of Israel is from legally bought land (unfortunetly I don't have the numbers, but if you like I can look and PM at some point). I also deplore the way Israel expropriates land, and has done so, especially in the West Bank. On the other hand, if Camp David was signed then there'd be a Palestinian state, and Israel would not be stealing land. Whether a Palestinian state is enough to stop the suicide bombings is, in my view, rather questionable, and I think the fact Israelis are willing to take such a risk after an obvious Palestinian rejection of the land for peace principle as quite commendable. Israel is obviously not perfect, but I don't see people asking for perfection from the palestinians in such debates.

Mmm, actually quite a lot is demanded of the Palestinians. Sharon determined not to negotiate until the terrorism stopped- something highly unlikely to happen. Terror is being bred in those refugee camps and Sharon's invasions of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank only intensified the hatred and despair. You can't just leave them in the conditions that breed terror and tell them that they have to stop the terrorism before you'll negotiate with them.

As I see it, an end to terrorism has to happen by an end coming to the factors that inspire terrorism. Those things that inspire terrorism in the refugee in the refugee camps are generally anger, hunger and intense poverty.

Israel's enemies are taking advantage of the injustice done to the Palestinians to push their own ends. It isn't in the interests of the Arab nations to house the Palestinians, for this would eliminate a motive for war against Israel and regaining strong dominion in the Middle East. I strongly disapprove of their attitude and of their refusal to help the Palestinians out of their trouble in any way but war with Israel, but I don't think that this excuses Israel's conduct.

[BeardofPants]

Erm. Anyhoo. Back to Iraq:

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html

Btw: I LOVE the push for use of chemical warfare during combat from the United States' side. Oh the hypocracy!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Erm. Anyhoo. Back to Iraq:

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html

Btw: I LOVE the push for use of chemical warfare during combat from the United States' side. Oh the hypocracy!

BoP - find a news source other than one which obviously has an agenda...


The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at...UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq.

They are obviously not impartial in their views when they make editorial comments in their news stories.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Btw: I LOVE the push for use of chemical warfare during combat from the United States' side. Oh the hypocracy!
yeah - tear gas and pepper spray is on the same level as Vx nerve gas. You're really trying to prove the the US is the evil one in the world - aren't you?

Try this news article - which at least give a more BALANCED view...



U.S. tear gas use in Iraq may violate weapons treaties (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/03/02/35175-ap.html)

SAN FRANCISCO - Army Maj. Gen. David Grange is proud to have ordered his troops to use tear gas on hostile Serb crowds in Bosnia six years ago.

"We didn't kill anyone," said the now-retired Grange. "It saved lives."

His only complaint was that red tape prevented him from using tear gas more often.

The Pentagon is drafting guidelines under which American solders could use riot control agents such as tear gas and pepper spray in Iraq to control unruly prisoners and separate enemy soldiers from civilians, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress earlier this month.

While countries may use nonlethal chemicals domestically for law enforcement and crowd control, the Chemical Weapons Convention that took force in 1997 and has been ratified by 149 countries including The United States, specifies: "Each state party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare."

That provision was hotly contested during the 15 years it took to craft the treaty. It arose as an objection to the United States' reliance on tear gas to flush out Viet Cong fighters and kill them during the Vietnam War.

Whether American "law enforcement" extends beyond a nation's borders is a matter of fierce international debate. The concept will be discussed in April when the treaty comes up for international review in The Hague, Netherlands.

Weapons-control activists cite myriad reasons for banning nonlethal chemical weapons in war.

The agents can actually kill, they argue, when used in war environments. They could also put militaries on a slippery slope to using nastier, deadlier chemicals.

Irritants such as tear gas and pepper spray are tame in comparison to other agents under development.

The U.S. military has explored mind-altering drugs such as opiates, along with genetically engineered microorganisms that can destroy objects like runways, vehicles and buildings.

The research is spearheaded by the U.S. Marine Corps' Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, which was created in 1997 to equip soldiers on overseas peacekeeping and other non-combat duties.

The directorate's mission is to help troops deal with panic-stricken or hostile crowds, like those faced in a failed peacekeeping mission in Somalia.

In one 1993 street battle in Mogadishu, 19 U.S. soldiers and more than 1,000 Somalis were killed. Some military experts say the death toll would have been far lower had soldiers fired nonlethal chemical weapons.

A Pennsylvania State University institute prepared a 50-page report with Pentagon funding in October 2000 that explored a range of drugs - including Prozac, Valium and Zoloft - for use as "calmatives" for crowds.

The researchers found "use of non-lethal calmative techniques is achievable and desirable."

Despite the endorsement, Marine Capt. Shawn Turner of the nonlethal weapons directorate said the military stopped "calmative" research because such drug-weapons may violate international law.

Turner said much of the directorate's $25 million annual budget is spent developing "directed energy" weapons such as laser or microwave guns that stun rather than kill.

"With all these technologies starting to surface in security and the military, maybe there is a real need to revisit these international conventions to reassess if they are still applicable," said Andrew Mazzara, director of the Penn State institute that prepared the calmative report.

But even boosters of nonlethal technology concede that the United States has a perception problem on its hands if it uses chemicals on Iraqis.

"The initial emotional and visceral response are that chemical weapons are bad," said retired Col. John Alexander, a member of a National Research Council panel that urged the United States to continue nonlethal weapons research. "And it's so contentious because one of our big points is that Iraq has chemical weapons."

Weapons control activists, though, see more at stake.

"I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush administration pushes against the treaty as far as it can," said Barbara Rosenberg, chairwoman of the bioweapons group for the Federation of American Scientists.

Rosenberg and others fear the U.S. military wants to weaponize more dangerous chemicals - like the drug used in November to end a hostage crisis at a Moscow theater.

[BeardofPants]

JD, says BoP sweetly, ALL news media has an agenda. :)

And for the upteenth time, I don't think the US is evil. And have you heard of a slippery slope? What makes you think they'd stop at tear gas?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
JD, says BoP sweetly, ALL news media has an agenda. :)

Sorry - but some media is more biased than others. You have a real knack for picking out articles that obvioulsy have an anti-american slant to them. Why would they find it necessary to say..." (minus US and GBR, of course)"

And for the upteenth time, I don't think the US is evil. And have you heard of a slippery slope? What makes you think they'd stop at tear gas?
What makes you think we won't stop there? isn't using NON-LETHAL methods preferrable to using lethal means. It seems sort of ironic - you can shoot people during war - but you can't use tear gas to subdue them so you don't kill them.

You've said that you don't think the US is evil - so shouldn't you trust us to be more responsible than other countries have been.

Do you think we're stupid? Do you think we don't KNOW the world is watching how we handle Iraq. That if we WERE to use chemical weapons, kill untold civilians or anything else that there would be a backlash against us. Don't you think that we are doing EVERYTHING in our power to not kill innocent civilians, not to do anything that anyone can use against us (besides Osama of course, we could bomb israel and he would come up with some excuse to hate us).

If you ever gave the US credit for doing anything right or if you ever showed any faith in America - it would be the sure sign that hell was freezing over.

[Coney]

What makes you think we won't stop there? isn't using NON-LETHAL methods preferrable to using lethal means.

Can you say depleted uranium?

Yes?....Good:)

Missiles?

Very good!:)

Now, put the three words together and what do you get?

Iraqi people still dying from radiation poisoning and cancer from the Gulf Conflict:mad:

If you ever gave the US credit for doing anything right or if you ever showed any faith in America - it would be the sure sign that hell was freezing over.

More ice in your Long Island Ice tea Mr Bush........erm, I mean lucifer?:)

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sorry - but some media is more biased than others. You have a real knack for picking out articles that obvioulsy have an anti-american slant to them. Why would they find it necessary to say..." (minus US and GBR, of course)"




Because it was in the original memo, if you'd bothered to read it.
It was NOT the Observer saying this, it was the author of the memo.

The home affairs editor of the Observer said he had had agreed to interviews with CNN, NBC and Fox News Channel- but all three called back to cancel- I wonder why?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Because it was in the original memo, if you'd bothered to read it.
It was NOT the Observer saying this, it was the author of the memo.

The home affairs editor of the Observer said he had had agreed to interviews with CNN, NBC and Fox News Channel- but all three called back to cancel- I wonder why?
You are right - it is quoted. The Observer still is very biased in their reporting.

As for why they cancelled - there could be many reasons. One is they may not have been able to verify the truth of it. I know what you are implying - that the government put a stop to it. If that is the case - then it is also just as possible that the memo was a fake. I seriously doubt The Observer will go through the trouble of retracting the story if it was found to be a lie.

I have mixed feelings about it if it is true. I'd actually have to hear about it from a different source than just The Observer.

[Cirdan]

I'd be surprised if it wasn't true, even if the memo is a fake. The CIA needs to do something all day. :rolleyes: Spying on our allies is more common than spying on the enemy. They are spying on us as well. Nothing new here.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I'd be surprised if it wasn't true, even if the memo is a fake. The CIA needs to do something all day. :rolleyes: Spying on our allies is more common than spying on the enemy. They are spying on us as well. Nothing new here.

True - as I've said in the past.

By the way - I did find some of the past threads....

Gallup Poll, Saddam, and other matters. (no US bashing!) (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5208)

Gah politics! Middle East discussion (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3711)

[The Lady of Ithilien]

besides Osama of course, we could bomb israel and he would come up with some excuse to hate usNice one, JD. :D

As G.K. Chesteron said of another group,

"They are under no illusions;
they are too intellectual to think that man upon this earth
can ever be quite free of original sin and the struggle.
And they mean death. When they say that mankind shall be
free at last, they mean that mankind shall commit suicide.
When they talk of a paradise without right or wrong,
they mean the grave."

Saddam is of that ilk and has the vast resources of an oil-rich nation to bring it all about. That is one big reason why he is so dangerous to us all.

But it gives some segments of the "civilized" world conniptions when one of its most prominent leaders, President Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union Address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html) tells it like it is:

"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

All these decades, evil has been been downplayed or rewritten as really not such a bad thing after all. Those ten words undercut it all. And a good thing, too.

[Linaewen]

I leave you with the best strip yet to come from Aaron McGruder's Boondocks comic: they're talking about how some world leaders have come under fire for comparing Bush to Hitler for his warmongering, and Huey says: "That's ridiculous! Even I wouldn't compare Bush to Hitler. After all, Hitler was democratically elected."


LOL! I'm very anti-war but i just find that type of dry humour so funny. That quote was from the protest's thread but i think what i'm posting might suit this one more.

I think i would support the war effort if they could just JUSTIFY it. Get some conclusive evidence. But wait, i've found an article of a newspaper web site regarding evidence against Iraq.. I'll just post the first couple cos it's pretty long.

Here's the proof: (ps. sorry if any of you have seen it already)

A collection of Colin Powell's useful facts relating to the proposed actions in the Gulf region:

A: Seven proofs of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
1. On an audiotape, Osama bin Laden calls Iraq a "stinking cesspit of socialist debauchery". This criticism is much less hostile than the sort of thing he says about America, thus proving al-Qaeda has warm feelings towards Saddam Hussein.
2. Our surveillance has picked up chatter from al-Qaeda operatives talking about organising a "rendezvous". "Rendezvous" is a French word, and France has constantly obstructed American attempts to impose regime change in Iraq. So again, we see a clear connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
3. Our spy planes have photographed Saddam's deputy prime minister being driven in a motorcade of Mercedes cars. Mercedes is a German car, and Germany is in league with France to destroy America, like al-Qaeda. Therefore, etc.

If anyone wants, i'll post the rest up later

[The Lady of Ithilien]

I think i would support the war effort if they could just JUSTIFY it. Get some conclusive evidence. It could hardly be more conclusive. The UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, calling on Saddam Hussein to "'fess up" and get rid of the WMDs or face the consequences, and he didn't do it. Simple.

Likely the last 12 years have given him the impression he can get away with that, and indeed, a considerable amount of energy in the western world is being focused right now on just that: letting him get away with it.

Countries who should know better, too; countries who learned the hard way what happened when the world let Hitler get away with it one or two times too many.

No, the matter is this, as Colin Powell has said quite clearly: "It's a question of intent on the part of the Iraqi leadership. The answer to that question does not come from how many inspectors are present or how much more time should be given or how much more effort should be put into the inspection process. It's not a question of how many unanswered clusters of questions are there, or are there more benchmarks that are needed, or are there enough unresolved issues that have been put forward to be examined and analyzed and conclusions reached about.

"The answer depends entirely on whether Iraq has made the choice to actively cooperate in every possible way, on every possible manner in the immediate and complete disarmament of itself of its prohibited weapons. That's what 1441 calls for."

And he hasn't done it. So he's going to face serious consequences. That's not a matter that requires justification. That is a matter that affects all our safety and security, and that of our children and the world we are going to leave them.

To expand upon the "evil has no meaning" business a bit more, President Bush's entire statement was: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

That's conclusive. There is more, if you are interested, at the Irag Foundation (http://www.iraqfoundation.org) online, particularly in its human rights and the Iraq Research section there, which documents "I. Oppression by Procedures II.Detention, Arrest and Deportation III.Execution IV.Systematic Deportation and Elimination of Villages V.Psychological Warfare VI.Fertility Campaign VII.Security Intelligence."

And virtuous people opposed to war....laugh? Make jokes, offer witty slogans, and host dry cutting-edge Web sites on the ridiculousness of it all, but never, ever raise their voices against or make a target of Saddam Hussein?

Just what are you all going to say to the Iraqi people after their relief from this oppressor? Some of them may feel strongly enough about this to seek you out personally after this is all over, so they can look you straight in the face as they ask: what were you thinking?

What will you say to them?

But that's "just" human rights stuff. As for NBC -- the triad of weapons of mass destruction -- Hussein undeniably has C, chemicals -- he's used them on his own people. That's enough right there to start with, though the biological (which Hussein admitted to in 1995) and nuclear components are not negligible, of course.

He's not supposed to have those chemical weapons: that's what the last 12 years of UN resolutions have been about. He hasn't accounted for those weapons. Indeed in his remarks (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030307-10.html) to the UN Security Council recently, from which the above quote was also taken, Secretary Powell said the recent report by the UN inspectors "conclusively shows that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture these kinds of weapons; that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture, not only chemical, but biological weapons; and that Iraq had and still has literally tens of thousands of delivery systems, including increasingly capable and dangerous unmanned aerial vehicles."

And that's not even getting into the terrorist networks which Saddam finances and shelters in Iraq and elsewhere, networks which we have seen can strike even in the heart of America.

As the Secretary told the Council, the clock continues to tick, and it will either turn out to be a bomb that blows up under us all, or it will mark the final countdown to the end of a very dangerous and very bad man and his regime.

[GrayMouser]

To expand upon the "evil has no meaning" business a bit more, President Bush's entire statement was: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured.

And of course after he had done this, and had been known to have done this, the U.S. government under Ronald Reagan continued to support his manufacturing of poison gas.

First, the U.S. tried to claim that both Iran and Iraq was responsible, even though they knew from their ownintelligence it wasn't true.

Then in1988, in response to the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja Senators Claiborne Pell, Jesse Helms and Al Gore sponsored the "Prevention of Genocide Act", which passed the Senate unanimously. The Reagan Administration, which had been supporting Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran (providing equipment for making chemical and biological weapons and intelligence to enable him to use gas against the Iranians), saw this as a threat to U.S security and commercial interests and strongly opposed the Act.

V-P George H. W. Bush was dispatched to the House of Representatives to lobby against it; Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell (at that time National Security Adviser) and then-Congressman Richard Cheney also worked to torpedo the Act and continue to do business as usual with Saddam.

I'm in favour of war to take out this butcher, but I don't believe for one minute these scumbags with their crocodile tears care in the least what happened to the Kurds- look how quickly they were willing to sell them out to the Turks in exchange for use of their bases.

[Dúnedain]

Someone want to type a summary for me since I've missed about 10 pages of this, ugh :D

Oh well, I will just pick up here :D

Today I ran across this article from the Daily Mirror, in the UK. From what I gather, and any British people can back me up, the DM doesn't isn't usually supportive of the "Colonials" across the Atlantic. Anyway, I think this article just about sums everything up for the USA.

---------

Tony Parsons Daily Mirror September 11, 2002

ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting
---- the mass murder of thousands, live on television.

As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps.

An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent,the perpetrators truly evil.

But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the last year.

There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country - too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic. And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach.

America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to the US by culture,language and blood. A little over half a century ago,around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon? And exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not just Americans, but from dozens of countries - were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics.

Are we so quick to betray them?

What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on the planes was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives, and children, Some unborn. And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?

These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission.

The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11. Remember, remember.

Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive.

Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers. Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive. Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum.

Remember, remember - and realize that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.

[continued]

[Dúnedain]

[continued]

So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray? Pass the Kleenex...

So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they
should stick to confetti.

America could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot. That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?

When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that - and didn't push the button.

We should thank the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism." A real war.

The fundamentalists are talking about "opening the gates of hell" if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't
believe. The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of the earth.

The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived. But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched countries.

How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand - assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.

I love America, yet America is hated. I guess thatmakes me Bush's poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh.

Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open, and optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or religion,
or some caste system. America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start remembering that.

Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire Department.

To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein. Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save me the orange center, oh mighty one! Remember, remember, September 11.

One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against America.

No, do more than remember.

Never forget

[jerseydevil]

That was a really good post Dúnedain. Isn't it ironic that these "anti-war" people are the same who said that the US shouldn't take action against Osama Bin Ladin after our embassy bombings because he hadn't directly attacked us and civilians would die in the process. We were expected to wait until Bin Ladin actually did something to us - Americans were also at fault in requiring this proof of danger. I wonder how many other counties would have held back and not lashed out immediately. That post also reminded me of the school kids from Washington DC who were on a school trip. They were on the Dulles flight - their plane crashed into the Pentagon.

I think all the people who demonstrated against action being taken against Bin Ladin - prior to 9/11 - should be made to pay for the rebuilding of the Twin Towers and should pay each of the families. Part of the reason we backed down - which I disagreed with it - was the outcry of demonstrators. We should have tracked Bin Ladin harder - we won't make the same mistake twice.


Linaewen - there ARE links between Hussein and terrorism. He gives $25,000 - $50,000 to each family of a palestinian suicide bomber. He coudl be putting that money into supporting schools or other benefits for his people.

However, I personally wish the Bush administration would lay off the Al Qaeda/Iraq link. I don't think that argument is necessary for us to go into Iraq. If we don't do something about Iraq now - then they will be just like North Korea - except instead of heavy weaponry - they'll have aresol cans which can kill thousands of people on subways, in malls, trains.

I'm not as afraid of a nuclear bomb as I am of dying from small pox or ebola. I live just 30 miles from Newark Libery Airport - if someone comes in carrying a biological disease as a walking, living biological bomb there is a good chance I will get it.

Also - do you reaslise how quickly someone getting on a plane infected with a biological disease can spread that around the country? around the world? Newark Liberty is one of the busiest airports in the US. About 10% of the US population lives within a 200 mile radius of that airport.

By the way - the post office which processed all the Anthrax letters after 9/11 - was my processing center. It's still closed. It's wrapped in plastic and they said it should finally be cleaned up by the end of the year.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm not as afraid of a nuclear bomb as I am of dying from small pox or ebola. I live just 30 miles from Newark Libery Airport - if someone comes in carrying a biological disease as a walking, living biological bomb there is a good chance I will get it.

Also - do you reaslise how quickly someone getting on a plane infected with a biological disease can spread that around the country? around the world? Newark Liberty is one of the busiest airports in the US. About 10% of the US population lives within a 200 mile radius of that airport.

By the way - the post office which processed all the Anthrax letters after 9/11 - was my processing center. It's still closed. It's wrapped in plastic and they said it should finally be cleaned up by the end of the year.

I hear ya bro, I live about 10-15 minutes from the White House, Capitol Hill, Regan National Airport, Dulles International Airport and every other major US Governmental building/agency in the DC Metro Area!

[The Lady of Ithilien]

That was a good post, Dúnedain.The fundamentalists are talking about "opening the gates of hell" if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe.Exactly. And we didn't. Instead we built a coalition and freed a country so that it could, among other things, rebuild its heritage. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2777437.stm)

Re: the biologicals, have you checked out the information at the Homeland Security Web site (http://www.dhs.gov)? There's a good selection of information on all threats, some of it detailed for experts, some written for the general public. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.

[Coney]

Well, I've been away from this thread for a while now but from a UK standpoint I must say that things are looking marvelous:)

Our MP's are starting to actually voice their opinions agains the Prime Minister.....and Tony Blair has recently called to the UN to give more time to allow Iraq more time to disarm.

With any luck, this'll carry on until the UK decides not to use it's troops in the attack:D

I must say that I agree with a lot of the Americans on these boards, it is high-time that America dissacociated itself from the UN.

Well, have a lovely war folks! And hope one of those MOAB bombs doesn't accidentaly hit Iran's nuclear power plant......in fact pray like hell that Iraq hasn't hidden a missile that is capable of reaching the plant.............Try not to cause another Chernobyl, ;)

Oh, and keep an eye on the Shi'ite people...I don't think that they have forgotten that America armed them, then left to suffer......

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm not as afraid of a nuclear bomb as I am of dying from small pox or ebola.


Well I keep thinking about that nuclear bomb personally. Yes its less likely of a scenerio but all it takes is one and Washington DC is vaporized in an atomic cloud. No warning. Nothing falling from the sky. Just a normal day and then suddenly you and 300,000 of your neighbors have their bodies reduced to atoms in an instant. Thats quite a way to go. I dont mind getting bloody as long as I can see death coming. Not to mention the seat of government is completely anihilated. Dúnedain DC would be ground zero as you well know so we would be the ones most likely to catch a nuke. I can handle planes and even horrifc nasty scary diseases. But one nuke spoils the party. And you know thats the terrorist's ultimate dream. But I fear we are becoming like the boy trying to plug the dike with his fingers as more and more countries get nukes. Sooner or later we wont be able to check the spread of nuclear technology and anyone who wants one will be able to get one. Then what.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Well I keep thinking about that nuclear bomb personally. Yes its less likely of a scenerio but all it takes is one and Washington DC is vaporized in an atomic cloud. No warning. Nothing falling from the sky. Just a normal day and then suddenly you and 300,000 of your neighbors have their bodies reduced to atoms in an instant. Thats quite a way to go. I dont mind getting bloody as long as I can see death coming. Not to mention the seat of government is completely anihilated. Dúnedain DC would be ground zero as you well know so we would be the ones most likely to catch a nuke. I can handle planes and even horrifc nasty scary diseases. But one nuke spoils the party. And you know thats the terrorist's ultimate dream. But I fear we are becoming like the boy trying to plug the dike with his fingers as more and more countries get nukes. Sooner or later we wont be able to check the spread of nuclear technology and anyone who wants one will be able to get one. Then what.

While the threat of a nuclear attack does worry me, I do think you are underestmating what the terrorists are capable of.

9/11 was indeed a horrific event but it was mostly a symbolic attack......those planes could just have easily been flown into a chemical plant, an oil refinary or a nuclear power plant....hell, they could have been flown into a nuclear missile base! Millions dead would have been the result.

Now that is a prospect that I find scary, I only hope that the next terrorist attacks (and I think everyone agrees there will be more) don't follow those lines. Somehow tho', I think they will.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Well, I've been away from this thread for a while now but from a UK standpoint I must say that things are looking marvelous:)

Our MP's are starting to actually voice their opinions agains the Prime Minister.....and Tony Blair has recently called to the UN to give more time to allow Iraq more time to disarm.

Well then you better hope that the resolution doesn't get vetoed. If France or Russia vetoes- the US isn't waiting around for the UN to get it's head out of it's a$$.


With any luck, this'll carry on until the UK decides not to use it's troops in the attack:D

Or until Hussein is another North Korea and is a much bigger problem or until the world loses interest and let's Hussein go with his viro-lab experiments???

Britain has over 40,000 troops right now in Kuwait - do you really think they won't be used?

I must say that I agree with a lot of the Americans on these boards, it is high-time that America dissacociated itself from the UN.

Yeah - it would save a hell of a lot of tax money considering we pay for 25% of the UN expenses. I know you guys complain about us not paying our dues - but we pay A LOT more than dues.


Well, have a lovely war folks! And hope one of those MOAB bombs doesn't accidentaly hit Iran's nuclear power plant......in fact pray like hell that Iraq hasn't hidden a missile that is capable of reaching the plant.............Try not to cause another Chernobyl, ;)

Well - just hope that Hussein doesn't give a terrorist some of his biological or chemical weaponry and decide to attack the London Underground. Wouldn't there be hell t pay for the PMs who are against war with Iraq and then in a couple of years he launches a bio-attack. Sort of reminds me of how Churchhill was treated prior to WWII. He lost his job because he wanted to take preventive action against Hitler - and then was called back after WWII started.

Oh, and keep an eye on the Shi'ite people...I don't think that they have forgotten that America armed them, then left to suffer......
I'm not sure - the Arab countries seem to have forgotten who actually used their "countries" as political pawns.

I'm sure over there they're only showing all the Iraqis and Arabs who don't like the US. They don't show you the mothers, wives and sisters who are raped in front of their family members who are in jail. Or what about the Marsh Arabs - do you know anything about them? Look up the AMAR Foundation, run by the British Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne if you want to know what they went through.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Well I keep thinking about that nuclear bomb personally. Yes its less likely of a scenerio but all it takes is one and Washington DC is vaporized in an atomic cloud. No warning. Nothing falling from the sky. Just a normal day and then suddenly you and 300,000 of your neighbors have their bodies reduced to atoms in an instant.

The key word is instant there. You'd be vaporized in a second. No pain - no long hours of suffering as viruses eat at your flesh from the inside. Eyes filling with blood, or stomach and internal organs slowly turning to mush.


Thats quite a way to go. I dont mind getting bloody as long as I can see death coming. Not to mention the seat of government is completely anihilated. Dúnedain DC would be ground zero as you well know so we would be the ones most likely to catch a nuke. I can handle planes and even horrifc nasty scary diseases. But one nuke spoils the party. And you know thats the terrorist's ultimate dream. But I fear we are becoming like the boy trying to plug the dike with his fingers as more and more countries get nukes. Sooner or later we wont be able to check the spread of nuclear technology and anyone who wants one will be able to get one. Then what.
Well that's why we should work on a missile defense shield while we have a chance. Chances are a stuitcase bomb isn't going to be able to do that kind of damage. That at most right now would be a dirty bomb.

I remember people saying we didn't need a missile defense system because of the downfall of the Soviet Union. North Korea I think is making California think twice about their vocal opposition to that idea now.

[Coney]

Well then you better hope that the resolution doesn't get vetoed. If France or Russia vetoes- the US isn't waiting around for the UN to get it's head out of it's a$$.

Oh, I do still hope that the move is towards a veto. That way everything stands of the shoulders of Tony Blair. If he goes to war then we remain America's allies, if he doesn't go to war then our standing with Russia, China, Germany and France is strengthened in the UN...when America does leave the UN, we have allies on both sides......The UK seems to be coming out of this in a win/win situation:cool:

Or until Hussein is another North Korea and is a much bigger problem or until the world loses interest and let's Hussein go with his viro-lab experiments???

NKorea is already a much bigger problem....certainly wouldn't fancy sitting in a Tokyo restaurant at the mo'.

Iraq is currently disarming, and yes, yes..I know the whole conspiracy theory of hidden weapons....but he can hardly use them can he?....Even Saddam isn't mad enough to let his entire country be destroyed in the backlash.

Britain has over 40,000 troops right now in Kuwait - do you really think they won't be used?

Well, we can hope not....it's usually our lads that end up doing the fighting tho'.

Well - just hope that Hussein doesn't give a terrorist some of his biological or chemical weaponry and decide to attack the London Underground.

Oh I'm pretty sure that Saddam already has terrorists working for him all over the world......In fact I can see terriorist attacks happing immediatly after the Iraq invasion.....I'd be surprised if they didn't go on for decades.

I'm not sure - the Arab countries seem to have forgotten who actually used their "countries" as political pawns.

I'm sure over there they're only showing all the Iraqis and Arabs who don't like the US. They don't show you the mothers, wives and sisters who are raped in front of their family members who are in jail. Or what about the Marsh Arabs - do you know anything about them? Look up the AMAR Foundation, run by the British Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne if you want to know what they went through.

JD I just love your use of history to give emphasis on the justification of an attack:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
While the threat of a nuclear attack does worry me, I do think you are underestmating what the terrorists are capable of.

Underestimating? I thought your argument has always been that we're just paranoid Americans. I think a bunch of fanatics are capable of anythign and will go to any lengths to destroy America. I think the whole Middle East has to be changed and cleaned out of a terrorists and if that means taking out Hussein and working down - so be it.


9/11 was indeed a horrific event but it was mostly a symbolic attack......
Let me put this in the paper around here so the 1000's of family members of the victims who live around me can read that "9/11 was mostly a symbolic attack". I have to remember that everytime I go on the Turnpike or go to New York or to Liberty State Park or whereever I used to see the Twin Towers rising into the sky.

those planes could just have easily been flown into a chemical plant, an oil refinary or a nuclear power plant....hell, they could have been flown into a nuclear missile base! Millions dead would have been the result.

I know that -but they weren't. Now we must fight to prevent that as well as other things from happening. I live within 90 miles of 3 Nuclear Power Plants. Indiana Point in New York is under heavy guard - It's just across the northern border of New Jersey.

Now that is a prospect that I find scary, I only hope that the next terrorist attacks (and I think everyone agrees there will be more) don't follow those lines. Somehow tho', I think they will.
No - I think their next plan of attack is movie theaters, restaurants, malls, etc. It's easy to get a bomb into one of those areas. it's easy to infect thousands of people with a deadly disease there. It's much easier than dealing with nuclear.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Well I keep thinking about that nuclear bomb personally. Yes its less likely of a scenerio but all it takes is one and Washington DC is vaporized in an atomic cloud. No warning. Nothing falling from the sky. Just a normal day and then suddenly you and 300,000 of your neighbors have their bodies reduced to atoms in an instant. Thats quite a way to go. I dont mind getting bloody as long as I can see death coming. Not to mention the seat of government is completely anihilated. Dúnedain DC would be ground zero as you well know so we would be the ones most likely to catch a nuke. I can handle planes and even horrifc nasty scary diseases. But one nuke spoils the party. And you know thats the terrorist's ultimate dream. But I fear we are becoming like the boy trying to plug the dike with his fingers as more and more countries get nukes. Sooner or later we wont be able to check the spread of nuclear technology and anyone who wants one will be able to get one. Then what.

I'm not worried about Nuclear Weapons, because there isn't a way for transportation. As JD said in his above post, the best they could do now is a suitcase bomb or something small like that and that just wouldn't do much, of course it would do something though, I am not discounting that. In order for anything to happen on the number level you described it would have to be dropped from an aircraft and there is absolutely no way we would sit back and watch a big bomber nonchalantely come into American Airspace...

[Coney]

The key word is instant there. You'd be vaporized in a second.

Actually, the vapourisation isn't instantaneous.

The blast goes up first, then the city is sucked towards the bomb blast as 3,000, mph winds are sucked in to feed the fire......so most likely your crushed by a building, or if your outside your skin is ripped from you by the force of the winds, then your carried by the winds.....then the blast occures and your vapourised....so it's not instant death......still pretty quick tho....

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
Oh, I do still hope that the move is towards a veto. That way everything stands of the shoulders of Tony Blair. If he goes to war then we remain America's allies, if he doesn't go to war then our standing with Russia, China, Germany and France is strengthened in the UN...when America does leave the UN, we have allies on both sides......The UK seems to be coming out of this in a win/win situation:cool:


Plain and simple, if the UN votes against supporting the war, and the US goes against the UN decision, the UN crumbles. It will then be shown to the world as a weaker organization than it is already seeming to be. Think about it, the only reason the US hasn't declared war yet is because we realize how important the UN is for that part of the world and for stability purposes. That is why we are giving them more time, we know that if we go against the UN that we will also be leaving the UN, most likely, and if that happens it will basically be smacking the UN in the face and showing that it is actually a weak organization. Also, the UN isn't really helping it's own cause by going against regulations and resolutions that they passed, It is like telling the world that their words are only that, words, and those said words will not be followed up with action. Now how is an organization supposed to survive if they treat themselves that way?

[Coney]

Underestimating? I thought your argument has always been that we're just paranoid Americans.

You've been misunderstanding me.....power-mad, not paranoid

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
You've been misunderstanding me.....power-mad, not paranoid

LOL you are unbelievable

[Coney]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Plain and simple, if the UN votes against supporting the war, and the US goes against the UN decision, the UN crumbles. It will then be shown to the world as a weaker organization than it is already seeming to be. Think about it, the only reason the US hasn't declared war yet is because we realize how important the UN is for that part of the world and for stability purposes. That is why we are giving them more time, we know that if we go against the UN that we will also be leaving the UN, most likely, and if that happens it will basically be smacking the UN in the face and showing that it is actually a weak organization. Also, the UN isn't really helping it's own cause by going against regulations and resolutions that they passed, It is like telling the world that their words are only that, words, and those said words will not be followed up with action. Now how is an organization supposed to survive if they treat themselves that way?

Hmmm...I'm not sure if the UN will crumble if the US leaves.......I can see dramatic changes within' the UN tho', probably the UN will concentrate on looking to the affairs of the member countries instead of trying to police the world.......but hey!, we'll have America to do that for us:D

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
but hey!, we'll have America to do that for us:D

No actually you won't and you will be damn sorry we aren't...

[Coney]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
LOL you are unbelievable

;):D

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Coney
Actually, the vapourisation isn't instantaneous.

The blast goes up first, then the city is sucked towards the bomb blast as 3,000, mph winds are sucked in to feed the fire......so most likely your crushed by a building, or if your outside your skin is ripped from you by the force of the winds, then your carried by the winds.....then the blast occures and your vapourised....so it's not instant death......still pretty quick tho....

oh well in that case bring on the bomb!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Oh, I do still hope that the move is towards a veto. That way everything stands of the shoulders of Tony Blair. If he goes to war then we remain America's allies, if he doesn't go to war then our standing with Russia, China, Germany and France is strengthened in the UN...when America does leave the UN, we have allies on both sides......The UK seems to be coming out of this in a win/win situation:cool:

Oh - and those countries will really come running to help you if England is attacked by a terrorist or anything? The UN wouldn't be left standing if we left the UN.


NKorea is already a much bigger problem....certainly wouldn't fancy sitting in a Tokyo restaurant at the mo'.

Let's think about HOW they became a bigger problem. I don't know - there were inspectors there. There was diplomacy. There were agreements. It's also amazing - I don't see the UN trying to fix the North Korea problem. Maybe because the UN is irrelavent and can't do anything unless pushed by the US.

By the way - my brother is stationed in Japan. So I'm aware of his situation with North Korea - I just think that we have to deal with Iraq first. If we leave Kuwait - the next time we go to deal with iraq - the problem will be like trying to deal with North Korea.


Iraq is currently disarming, and yes, yes..I know the whole conspiracy theory of hidden weapons....but he can hardly use them can he?....Even Saddam isn't mad enough to let his entire country be destroyed in the backlash.

See tha's the problem - you just view it as a conspiracy theory - even when the UN says they have the chemical and biological weapons. In terms of being prevented form using them - are we supposed to keep 250,000 troops in Kuwait to prevent him from using them? Is France, Germany and Russia going to pay for our military or are they going to continue benefitting from their smuggling operations?


Well, we can hope not....it's usually our lads that end up doing the fighting tho'.

I'm sure that's what your soldiers and media try telling you. :rolleyes:

Oh I'm pretty sure that Saddam already has terrorists working for him all over the world......In fact I can see terriorist attacks happing immediatly after the Iraq invasion.....I'd be surprised if they didn't go on for decades.

And if we don't go in.....? You seriously think that the outcome will be any different. Well yeah it will be - but instead of the terrorists not having a ready supply of Hussein's weapons and support from him - they will have to go somewhere else. I guess we really shouldn't go after Bin ladin. We should probably let the person we just captured a couple of weeks in Pakisatn go - the terrorists might get upset and attack us. We don't want to get them all upset at us and take revenge. :rolleyes:


JD I just love your use of history to give emphasis on the justification of an attack:rolleyes:
I just love how you choose to ignore history. :rolleyes:

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Oh - and those countries will really come running to help you if England is attacked by a terrorist or anything? The UN wouldn't be left standing if we left the UN.


Let's think about HOW they became a bigger problem. I don't know - there were inspectors there. There was diplomacy. There were agreements. It's also amazing - I don't see the UN trying to fix the North Korea problem. Maybe because the UN is irrelavent and can't do anything unless pushed by the US.


Also, North Korea only wants to deal with the US and they have specifically stated they don't want to deal with the UN. That right there tells a lot about the weakness of the organiztion that the UN is...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Actually, the vapourisation isn't instantaneous.

The blast goes up first, then the city is sucked towards the bomb blast as 3,000, mph winds are sucked in to feed the fire......so most likely your crushed by a building, or if your outside your skin is ripped from you by the force of the winds, then your carried by the winds.....then the blast occures and your vapourised....so it's not instant death......still pretty quick tho....
I've seen videos of nuclear bomb blasts. If your in the area - it's pretty much instantaneous. And it's a lot quicker than spending a week in agony. I'll just feel sorry for the people who have to live through the radiation poisoning - that'll be similar to the a biological/chemical attack. I'm very glad I'm right in between New York and Philadelphia.

But North Korea is NOT going to attack the US - especially with a Nuclear weapon. We have A LOT more nuclear weapons than they do which we would use them if they did that.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


But North Korea is NOT going to attack the US - especially with a Nuclear weapon. We have A LOT more nuclear weapons than they do which we would use them if they did that.

Who said anything about NKorea nuking the states?

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
But North Korea is NOT going to attack the US - especially with a Nuclear weapon. We have A LOT more nuclear weapons than they do which we would use them if they did that.

Actually, I don't even think NK has a nuke yet. I believe they are in the process of making one, but from the articles I've been reading it doesn't appear that they currently have one, I could be wrong though *shrug*

Also, it's horrible that the Pres. of NK is more concerned about trying to blackmail the world instead of helping his own people. There is one city in NK that has average living standards, everything else is below the poverty line. An attack would be stupid on their part anyway, because any retaliation from the world would just be at that one city where their nuke plant sites.

Anyway, back to Iraq :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Who said anything about NKorea nuking the states?
Well then why can't North Korea wait until we handle Iraq? All North Korea is right now is a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum. We gave them what they wanted before - now they're demanding more. We have military in the region. Stealth Bombers went out there today. We'll handle them after Iraq. While the world is waiting for the US - the UN can take up that problem. We know the UN has done SO much these last 20 years.

[Linaewen]

Linaewen - there ARE links between Hussein and terrorism. He gives $25,000 - $50,000 to each family of a palestinian suicide bomber. He coudl be putting that money into supporting schools or other benefits for his people.

That's not what i was trying to get at. I wanted to show how 'conclusive' their evidence is. Without any solid evidence, the war is illegal. Of course i want to get rid Hussein, but why do they choose to do so now? Especially seeing as the links are not clear. Are they? I'm not sure.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Linaewen
Without any solid evidence, the war is illegal.

Illegal to who? All I have to say is this:

"When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."
--George Bush, 3/6/03

[Linaewen]

Illegal for a country to attack another for no clear reason
America is so hyprocritical- they were the ones who wanted the League of Nations to be set up- to 'settle disputes between countries peacefully
Now the ignore the UN
They should at least allow a little more time for the weapons inspectors and for the UN to come up with the best decision, so that the least lives are taken (especially innocent ones). Because we know that America bombs countries, then spends tiny amounts to repair it compared to the cost they spend on military, i.e. Afghanistan

In the words of my fabulous history teacher 'war gives a whole new generation of people another reason to hate', as will this one

[Spock]

The US should return to the policy of isolationism. Return troops from all EU countries, cut foreign aid out, and put troops on our borders to protect our country. Let the rest fight amongst themselves as to how they'll stop a dicator .
As for the UN, it is UNimportant and we should pull out of it and have it shipped to France. We don't need it as it's ineffectual, highly critical of all the US does and is run by such giants as K.A. and giant states like Angola, Cammeron and Syria. What a joke.
Lets see how the world does without our presence.

[Linaewen]

And how will you stop the evil dictator? By bombing innocent Iraqis he evidently cares nothing about? Like in Afghanistan, how you bombed schools etc?

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well then why can't North Korea wait until we handle Iraq? All North Korea is right now is a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum. We gave them what they wanted before - now they're demanding more. We have military in the region. Stealth Bombers went out there today. We'll handle them after Iraq. While the world is waiting for the US - the UN can take up that problem. We know the UN has done SO much these last 20 years.

That's true..
It's probably best to let an actual dictator who holds nuclear weaponry wait while he happily blackmails your govenment for aid:rolleyes:

[Coney]

Originally posted by Spock
The US should return to the policy of isolationism. Return troops from all EU countries, cut foreign aid out, and put troops on our borders to protect our country. Let the rest fight amongst themselves as to how they'll stop a dicator .
As for the UN, it is UNimportant and we should pull out of it and have it shipped to France. We don't need it as it's ineffectual, highly critical of all the US does and is run by such giants as K.A. and giant states like Angola, Cammeron and Syria. What a joke.
Lets see how the world does without our presence.

That's the spirit! Get those borders closed!

Why don't you build a nice foritified wall around the country while your at it?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Linaewen
Illegal for a country to attack another for no clear reason

We have multiple of reasons - you just don't like them. You'd rather believe a tyranical liar that he doesn't have chemical or biological weapons and that he is a leader for peace.

America is so hyprocritical- they were the ones who wanted the League of Nations to be set up- to 'settle disputes between countries peacefully
Now the ignore the UN

The UN and the League of Nations are too different things. The League of Nations went down because they were just as ineffective. We have never had to go to the UN before - we didn't go for Bosnia and we don't have to go for now.

They should at least allow a little more time for the weapons inspectors and for the UN to come up with the best decision, so that the least lives are taken (especially innocent ones).

Oh - you mean 12 years wasn't enough time? 17 ignored resolutions weren't enough?? How much time is enough??? How many resolutions??? Do you honestly think Hussein would be doing anything without the threat of war looming over the border?? He point blank said back in September that he would NOT allow any weapons inspectors in. It took America's show of force to make him realise the mistake in this thinking.

Because we know that America bombs countries, then spends tiny amounts to repair it compared to the cost they spend on military, i.e. Afghanistan

Don't even start with whether we should have gone into Afganistan. They're lucky we just didn't lob a nuclear bomb down on them after the Taliban decided to protect Al Qaeda. No - instead the US military worked around the civilians and spent billions more to try protecting the Afgan citizens.

In the words of my fabulous history teacher 'war gives a whole new generation of people another reason to hate', as will this one
I guess we shouldn't have gone into Bosnia. By the way - I don't if you';ve bother listening to Bin Ladin's earlier speeches - but he had always indicated that it wasn't because we were strong that we were being attacked - it was becuase when the going got tough - we'd turn tail and run. This time - the middle East fanatics have taken the war to our shores and we're going to take them down on their's. We're NOT going to back down just because the world thinks we should. This is for OUR national interests - and the only people our representative have to listen to are the AMERICAN people.

In conclusion - are saying that it was right - in hindisght - to wait for 9/11 to happen before getting the worlds "permission" to take on Bin Ladin?? The world was outraged we were attacking him after he blew up our embassies.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
That's true..
It's probably best to let an actual dictator who holds nuclear weaponry wait while he happily blackmails your govenment for aid:rolleyes:
So we're supposed to give in to his blackmail? If the weapons inspectors were doing their jobs - he wouldn't have had a nuclear program on the side. So much for containment working.

I love how the world thinks that the US should work unilaterally with North Korea - but seems so upset with us at even the hint that we would act unilaterally with Iraq.

[Spock]

...."I love the smell of napalm in the morning":D

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Linaewen
Illegal for a country to attack another for no clear reason
America is so hyprocritical- they were the ones who wanted the League of Nations to be set up- to 'settle disputes between countries peacefully
Now the ignore the UN
They should at least allow a little more time for the weapons inspectors and for the UN to come up with the best decision, so that the least lives are taken (especially innocent ones). Because we know that America bombs countries, then spends tiny amounts to repair it compared to the cost they spend on military, i.e. Afghanistan

In the words of my fabulous history teacher 'war gives a whole new generation of people another reason to hate', as will this one

You are so in the dark it isn't even funny. How can you say the US isn't helping Afghanistan? First of all read the report Kharzi released a few weeks back how he commented on how things were better than 6 months earlier because of the help of the US. We liberated those people for christ's sake. Also your history teacher needs a history lesson. I have a history degree and any right-minded Historian knows that war is a necessity to survive. War is a tool to provide a means to achieve peace for the greater good. If your history teacher knows anything about History, then he/she should look back upon the countless years where war has garnered peace...

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Spock
The US should return to the policy of isolationism. Return troops from all EU countries, cut foreign aid out, and put troops on our borders to protect our country. Let the rest fight amongst themselves as to how they'll stop a dicator .
As for the UN, it is UNimportant and we should pull out of it and have it shipped to France. We don't need it as it's ineffectual, highly critical of all the US does and is run by such giants as K.A. and giant states like Angola, Cammeron and Syria. What a joke.
Lets see how the world does without our presence.


/me stands up and claps!!

I never have agreed with Isolationism, until I've seen opinions by people across the world. The world would be lost and would become a barren wasteland full of warlords if the US closed itself off from everyone. Maybe that is what we need to do just to show the world how important we really are to them...

[congressmn]

nah, u r pushing it too much.

America gives aid n all. but not so much as to stall the economies if it cuts it.

and its policeman like attitude is rather just a menace. nothing to be proud pf.

In fact on the other hand, AMerica needs to be taught a lesson. How important the world is to America, will be made clear when America indeed is isolated.

so get ready America. your time has come.

*i have nothing against america, i speak here as a world citizen*

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by congressmn
nah, u r pushing it too much.

America gives aid n all. but not so much as to stall the economies if it cuts it.

You think not. 25% of the support that the UN gets - comes from America. What are they going to do if we cut off all aid and start looking at ourselves. What is India going to do with Pakistan if we just let everything go???

and its policeman like attitude is rather just a menace. nothing to be proud pf.

Well then the rest of te world should stop hiding behind our military. The rest of the world treats the US like we're a bully - until they need us to help them beat up someone who is causing problems. Europe is like a scared quivering child on the play ground hiding behind it's protector and just points to the problems that they want us to take care of (Bosnia as an example - we tried getting Europe to handle it). If we try taking care of any problems that affect us - then we're just being a bully.

In fact on the other hand, AMerica needs to be taught a lesson. How important the world is to America, will be made clear when America indeed is isolated.

You think the world won't go to hell in a hand basket if we stopped putting out all the fires around the world???

so get ready America. your time has come.

Our time has come for what? Sounds like something Bin ladin would spew out.

*i have nothing against america, i speak here as a world citizen*
Sure - you and everyone else that has to say "honest I'm not anti-american - I just want to see you fail and fall flat on your face."

I've thought the US should become more isolationist for a LONG time and no Coney - nothing was mentioned about closing our borders. It would be more difficult to come in - we can't have every refuge from the war torn world knocking our door. If that happened - we really would have to become imperialist - so we could be more land in order to give homes to all of them.

We should pull our military out of the world arena - let France defend the world. It is sort of funny though - before North Korea started acting up - there were anti-American protests repeatedly throughout South Korea. Now they've had huge pro-American demonstrations. Maybe they realised again - with the help of North Korea - that without us there - there isn't too much to prevent NK from coming over the border. Who's going to come to their rescue - France? Europe? They can't even protect their own backyards without our help.

[congressmn]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You think not. 25% of the support that the UN gets - comes from America. What are they going to do if we cut off all aid and start looking at ourselves. What is India going to do with Pakistan if we just let everything go???

Well then the rest of te world should stop hiding behind our military. The rest of the world treats the US like we're a bully - until they need us to help them beat up someone who is causing problems. Europe is like a scared quivering child on the play ground hiding behind it's protector and just points to the problems that they want us to take care of (Bosnia as an example - we tried getting Europe to handle it). If we try taking care of any problems that affect us - then we're just being a bully.

You think the world won't go to hell in a hand basket if we stopped putting out all the fires around the world???

Our time has come for what? Sounds like something Bin ladin would spew out.

Sure - you and everyone else that has to say "honest I'm not anti-american - I just want to see you fail and fall flat on your face."

I've thought the US should become more isolationist for a LONG time and no Coney - nothing was mentioned about closing our borders. It would be more difficult to come in - we can't have every refuge from the war torn world knocking our door. If that happened - we really would have to become imperialist - so we could be more land in order to give homes to all of them.

We should pull our military out of the world arena - let France defend the world. It is sort of funny though - before North Korea started acting up - there were anti-American protests repeatedly throughout South Korea. Now they've had huge pro-American demonstrations. Maybe they realised again - with the help of North Korea - that without us there - there isn't too much to prevent NK from coming over the border. Who's going to come to their rescue - France? Europe? They can't even protect their own backyards without our help.



Christ Jdevil, Bin Laden was the result of America.

Bosnia eh? thats why they are still struggling huh?

America only cares for itself. which is alright.

on India, doing things tp pakistan. They would do it ne way. America or otherwise.

America is important, but not something the world will die without.

There is hunger and poverty on earth.

America spends in luxury.

on a second note, i think the world can well do without all this, evryhting going america's way. evrything. the natural resources, the money.

think about it Jdevil.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by congressmn
Christ Jdevil, Bin Laden was the result of America.

Oh - your one of those people who think that we caused Bin ladin to attack us. Do you know that everytime something new happens he blames it on America? He even used bosnia as a way of saying Americans hated Muslims. He seemed to be leaving out the part that we were PROTECTING them from slaughter. We housed many muslim refuges here in New Jersey and New Jerseyans donated tons to help them out.

Bosnia eh? thats why they are still struggling huh?

There are still concentration camps and mass executions?? Wow - why doesn't the UN do something then.

America only cares for itself. which is alright.

Glad you approve of us looking after ourselves first. If we didn't - no one else would.

on India, doing things tp pakistan. They would do it ne way. America or otherwise.

Yeah sure - if that's what you want to believe. Both sides would be a sink hole right now because of the nuclear arms race between the two countries if the US didn't always have to come between the two.

America is important, but not something the world will die without.

Maybe not - but the world was a lot worse before America.

There is hunger and poverty on earth.

America spends in luxury.

Why shouldn't we spend on outselves? Are we the donation center for the world? There are homeless people in the US - I care about them first. Sorry - but I'm sure you care about your neighbor or family member before you care about someone you don't know. The rest of the world just looks to the US for handouts - pure and symbol.

on a second note, i think the world can well do without all this, evryhting going america's way. evrything. the natural resources, the money.

think about it Jdevil.
I have thought about it - and you make no sense. We have created society which allows us to make a better life for ourselves. You think the money we have is just handed to us????? or are you claiming we stole it like so many European countries did?

We're not going to cut ourselves off from trading partners - but we should stop protecting the world. I have repeatedly argued that we should pull our troops out of the world, out of Europe, out of the Middle East and out of Asia. We should just worry about the Western Hemisphere. We don't need the Middle East oil - we only get a fraction of our oil there. It's Europe wchih gets over 50% of it's oil from the Middle East and Japan gets over 70%. Most of our oil comes from Canada, Venezuela and ourselves.

[congressmn]

[QUOTE]I have thought about it - and you make no sense. We have created society which allows us to make a better life for ourselves. You think the money we have is just handed to us????? or are you claiming we stole it like so many European countries did?

We're not going to cut ourselves off from trading partners - but we should stop protecting the world. I have repeatedly argued that we should pull our troops out of the world, out of Europe, out of the Middle East and out of Asia. We should just worry about the Western Hemisphere. We don't need the Middle East oil - we only get a fraction of our oil there. It's Europe wchih gets over 50% of it's oil from the Middle East and Japan gets over 70%. Most of our oil comes from Canada, Venezuela and ourselves.

*********************************************

only thing i agree with you so far, of u guys r3eceding from places where u dont belong.

And about the oil. r u sure?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by congressmn

only thing i agree with you so far, of u guys r3eceding from places where u dont belong.

Where exactly don't we belong by the way? We're in South Korea by the invitation of them. We're in Saudi Arabia at the invitation of them. We're in Europe at the invitation of them. If anyone doesn't want us in their countries - then take it up with their governments.

I wish we would pull out our troops - there is talk of pulling our troops out of Germany. 70,000 are stationed. You think that won't have economic affect on the local economy??? Germany's unemployment rate is already 10.5%

And about the oil. r u sure?
Yes I am sure.

[sun-star]

Spock wrote:

The US should return to the policy of isolationism. Return troops from all EU countries, cut foreign aid out, and put troops on our borders to protect our country. Let the rest fight amongst themselves as to how they'll stop a dicator .

And some other Americans agreed.

Fine. Isolate yourselves if you want to. It's your choice. But it would of course confirm every stereotype, every prejudice that the world has of America - that they don't care about anyone other than themselves, that they're selfish and thoughtless and ignorant. So if you don't care about anyone other than yourselves, go ahead and be isolationist.

But I can't seriously believe that you think America should even consider doing this. America is far too great a country to be so inward-looking.

It is of course correct to say that the American government was elected to protect the interests of the American people. That's true of any country - Tony Blair said the same thing about Britain just yesterday. But does that make it right for a nation to ignore the views of any other nation? Or to ignore the views of every nation in the world, which is effectively what isolationism amounts to?

What I'm trying to say (very inarticulately) is that the US does not operate entirely in a vaccuum. Nor can it, even if it wants to. Whatever you do affects the whole world, whether you care about its support or not. That's simply a fact. Therefore, the rest of the world is entitled to an opinion on what you do.

Thank God the current American Government doesn't think like some of you here. They can see the importance of international cooperation, and don't suggest America abandons the rest of us entirely. And I for one am grateful for it.

BTW, just in passing, it does seem like some of you hate Europe far more than Europe hates you. :confused:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by sun-star
Fine. Isolate yourselves if you want to. It's your choice. But it would of course confirm every stereotype, every prejudice that the world has of America - that they don't care about anyone other than themselves, that they're selfish and thoughtless and ignorant. So if you don't care about anyone other than yourselves, go ahead and be isolationist.

Well if we constantly have to hear how terrible we our and how all we try doing is controlling the world and all we get is complaints from everyone - why should we care what happens to other countries?? It's our tax money.

But I can't seriously believe that you think America should even consider doing this. America is far too great a country to be so inward-looking.

Chances of us going isolationist are slim - we're too tied up with our trading partners. If Europe or Japan doesn't get oil - it'll cause economic disaster for those countries. It'll then affect us. Yes - our self interest again.

Self interest is the only reason why France opposes the war - because they get billions in smuggliung deals. Not to mention they would like to be the "ruler" of Europe and they know they can't do that as long as the US stands in the way.

It is of course correct to say that the American government was elected to protect the interests of the American people. That's true of any country - Tony Blair said the same thing about Britain just yesterday. But does that make it right for a nation to ignore the views of any other nation? Or to ignore the views of every nation in the world, which is effectively what isolationism amounts to?

We're not ignoring the views of other countries. If we were doing that we would have had this over with and Hussein would have been ousted back in September. Instead we submitted another resolution which was adopted unamously by the security council. Everyone says that Iraq has not complied and everyone says that he hasn't complied to any of the previous 16. Now the world wants another resolution - which the US has the majority of the security Council on OUR side and France says regardless - they're vetoing. Who is acting more in their self interest? France went as far to tell any European nation who disagreed with them that they should just shut up. I didn't hear much of an outcry from the "ani-war" people on Chirac's beligerance.

What I'm trying to say (very inarticulately) is that the US does not operate entirely in a vaccuum. Nor can it, even if it wants to. Whatever you do affects the whole world, whether you care about its support or not. That's simply a fact. Therefore, the rest of the world is entitled to an opinion on what you do.

You are entitled to an opinion - you just don't have a right to control US interests or to control our government. Our government works for us. Did we not go to the UN? Which by the way - was not required. Thanks to France - allies are fracturing. It'll be some time before the rift with France is mended. Germany wasn't really a hugely close ally and we defeated them during World War II. Of course without our help they would still be living in third world conditions or living under the Soviet Union.

Thank God the current American Government doesn't think like some of you here. They can see the importance of international cooperation, and don't suggest America abandons the rest of us entirely. And I for one am grateful for it.

Well there has been a backlash against France. Also - I thought we policed the world too much??? If we move our troops out - and stop wasting our tax dollars protecting people who obviously have complete contempt for us - why should anyone care? I thought that was what the world wants. I would rather our tax dollars go to helping our own people out - instead of protecting people who march and paint nazi sympols on our flags and compare our president to Hitler - yet turn a blind eye to the real tyrant. It's no secret in America that most Europeans consider us more of a threat than Hussein - so what do we have to lose now?

BTW, just in passing, it does seem like some of you hate Europe far more than Europe hates you. :confused:
If your imply this to me - I don't hate Europe or Europeans. I'm just a little tired of the fact that everything that goes wrong is our fault - anything that goes right is because of someone else.

When people start demonstrating against Hussein and demand that he give up his weapons and disarm, when people demonstrate against the Palestinian Suicide Bombers - and stop only putting the blame on Israel - then I might believe the world appreciates the good the US does.

[Belle]

Nobody wants to go to war, and I was against it at first. But the fact is people in Iraq are suffering and need aid, that just won't get through while Hussein is there. It is about time that something was done and i'm glad that the USA and England are so far working to try and rid the world of a person who is causing so much pain.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by congressmn
Christ Jdevil, Bin Laden was the result of America.

Bosnia eh? thats why they are still struggling huh?

America only cares for itself. which is alright.

on India, doing things tp pakistan. They would do it ne way. America or otherwise.

America is important, but not something the world will die without.

There is hunger and poverty on earth.

America spends in luxury.

on a second note, i think the world can well do without all this, evryhting going america's way. evrything. the natural resources, the money.

think about it Jdevil.

Spend on Luxury? Then why is it, that America is the only country in the world helping war torn and disease ridden Africa? Huh? Tell me that! At least we are helping them out with their poverty levels and the fact that Aids is taking over the continent, we are the only one's actively trying to help them. But of course the wool is drawn over your eyes with that and yet we only spend things for luxury and don't help anyone out. Give it a rest and open your eyes! I am sick of bs coming out of the mouths of people who just don't know. You should be thankful we have warmed the ties between your country and Pakistan and that for a change there might be peace in your region. Believe me, Americans don't want to help people like you anymore, just because of your piss-poor attitudes towards us and how everything is overlooked that we do good for this world. Instead it is always the pointing finger instead of the thank you.

JD made a great point, I noticed it too in everything I've read and saw. One week South Korea wanted us out and was anti-American, the next week when North Korean threats grew stronger, thousands of South Korean people cheered on the American troops and thanked them. Funny how one week could change the opinions of an entire people :rolleyes:

[sun-star]

jerseydevil: why should we care what happens to other countries?? It's our tax money.

Because:

sun-star: Whatever you do affects the whole world, whether you care about its support or not. That's simply a fact.

America is an incredibly powerful country. If you go to war, or become isolationist, it affects everyone. So we care about you, even if you don't care about us. And

I thought we policed the world too much???

I never said that.

If your imply this to me - I don't hate Europe or Europeans. I'm just a little tired of the fact that everything that goes wrong is our fault - anything that goes right is because of someone else.

I wasn't implying that to you specifically at all (if only English had a plural for "you"!). If you hated Europeans I don't suppose you would be replying to me. You're allowed to care more about America than Europe - I certainly care most about Britain, since it's my home :D I was just suggesting that intolerance and prejudice can go both ways across the Atlantic. Americans are not the innocent victims of the evil prejudices of other nationalities. They can make mistakes sometimes. So can the British, even I admit that :D

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by sun-star
Spock wrote:



And some other Americans agreed.

Fine. Isolate yourselves if you want to. It's your choice. But it would of course confirm every stereotype, every prejudice that the world has of America - that they don't care about anyone other than themselves, that they're selfish and thoughtless and ignorant. So if you don't care about anyone other than yourselves, go ahead and be isolationist.

But I can't seriously believe that you think America should even consider doing this. America is far too great a country to be so inward-looking.

It is of course correct to say that the American government was elected to protect the interests of the American people. That's true of any country - Tony Blair said the same thing about Britain just yesterday. But does that make it right for a nation to ignore the views of any other nation? Or to ignore the views of every nation in the world, which is effectively what isolationism amounts to?

What I'm trying to say (very inarticulately) is that the US does not operate entirely in a vaccuum. Nor can it, even if it wants to. Whatever you do affects the whole world, whether you care about its support or not. That's simply a fact. Therefore, the rest of the world is entitled to an opinion on what you do.

Thank God the current American Government doesn't think like some of you here. They can see the importance of international cooperation, and don't suggest America abandons the rest of us entirely. And I for one am grateful for it.

BTW, just in passing, it does seem like some of you hate Europe far more than Europe hates you. :confused:

Please believe me when I say this. I do not want to be isolationist. The only reason I've said it is because people are so ungrateful towards us. No matter what we do we are wrong. It's like you even said, if we become isolationist we get those stereotypes to stick. If we keep up the free trade game and continue with the way we are, we are the big bad evil conquering country. It is a no win situation for America. I realize how isolationism would be bad for us, however it would be just as bad for the world. However, that is the reasons for my statement, just to prove a point out of spite (spite rules by the way :D) to show the world how important we really are. It's like the age old adage, "You don't realize how important something is, until it is gone."

About Europe, I love Europe. My roots come from Europe. I have always felt a tie to my European ancestry, so I don't hate Europe at all, I am just disappointed in a select few countries. I don't classify Europe as the countries I am disappointed in, I am intelligent enough to realize they are all separate entities...

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by sun-star
They can be as annoying as the French sometimes.

Now Sun-star, we know that isn't true :D :p :D

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Now Sun-star, we know that isn't true :D :p :D

Well, it is difficult :D :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by sun-star
America is an incredibly powerful country. If you go to war, or become isolationist, it affects everyone. So we care about you, even if you don't care about us.

Well it's obvious we care about you - if we didn't we wouldn't spend billions in tax dollars to protect you - especially during the cold war.

Given the choice - would you rather have France have it's dream of building a EU controlled by them or deal with America?

I never said that.

Other's have and all any American has to do is watch the 100,00 anti-war "ant-Anmerican" protestors marching in European cities. They say they're not anti-American at the same time as walking around with our flag with a nazi symbol on it - or with our president dressed up as Hitler. I want to see a 100,000 people in ONE European city demontsrate against Hussein instead of sending a busload of "Human Shields" to protect that tyrant.

I wasn't implying that to you specifically at all (if only English had a plural for "you"!). If you hated Europeans I don't suppose you would be replying to me. You're allowed to care more about America than Europe - I certainly care most about Britain, since it's my home :D I was just suggesting that intolerance and prejudice can go both ways across the Atlantic. Americans are not the innocent victims of the evil prejudices of other nationalities. They can be as annoying as the French sometimes. So can the British, even I admit that :D
I admit there are ignorant Americans. People who didn't know how the election process actually worked and then complained about it is one example. But most Eropeans don't realise how large our country is - it is larger than Europe. I mapped out where I would have lived in Europe by comparing the distances of all the places I have lived in the US. I have basically lived in London, Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Sweden and Russia (around the Ural Mountains). Yet Europeans constantly say we don't speak other languages and we don't know passports. I don't need a passport to go to Mexico or to Canada or anywhere in the US. Both the US and Canada are English speaking countries - we don't get a chance to USE our foreign language skills. Don't use it - you lose it. If New York required me to have a passport or they spoke a different language - I would have a passport (although I do because I've been to England) and I would speak New Yorker. In order to go to France from England you still need both of these things.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I would speak New Yorker.

I speak that everyday :D


On a lighter note, I have something for everyone :D

Do you know what time it is? (http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Judging from the name, I think that's been posted twice before. Once by me. :D Quite funny.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Judging from the name, I think that's been posted twice before. Once by me. :D Quite funny.

Damn! I guess that's what happens when I don't view all the threads or read what I missed over the past few weeks :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
I speak that everyday :D

I usually add that New Yorkers actually do speak another language. New York=New Yauk; New Jersey=New Joisey (this one is erroneously attributed to New Jerseyans themselves - but we KNOW how to pronounce our state, unlike the inhabitants across the river.) :D

On a lighter note, I have something for everyone :D

Do you know what time it is? (http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf)
The you missed all my MadBlast ones. You'll have to go back and search for them.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I usually add that New Yorkers actually do speak another language. New York=New Yauk; New Jersey=New Joisey (this one is erroneously attributed to New Jerseyans themselves - but we KNOW how to pronounce our state, unlike the inhabitants across the river.) :D

The you missed all my MadBlast ones. You'll have to go back and search for them.

Well, being a native New Yorker, don't even get me started on Jersey! :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Well, being a native New Yorker, don't even get me started on Jersey! :D
We better not get the New Jersey/New York wars going -let's just stick together on Iraq. :D

Just remeber - the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island are both in New Jersey waters - not New York. :D

And we don't call it Jersey - it's NEW Jersey. New Yorkers are so lazy. :)

[Coney]

Speaking of the Statue of Libertarianism....

Will you be sending it back to France soon?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Speaking of the Statue of Libertarianism....

Will you be sending it back to France soon?
No - it's ours. It doesn't have a French Flag flying near it. Why would we give it back? It represents America - not France. If it represented France then she'd have to have her hands up.

There are a lot of World War II veterans giving their medals back to France though.

[Coney]

No - it's ours. It doesn't have a French Flag flying near it. Why would we give it back? It represents America - not France. If it represented France then she'd have to have her hands up.

Do you deny that the Statue of Liberty was given to the US after the French Revolution........which the US caused by pleading money from French Royalty to fund the colonial war????

That statue is 2000 tons of copper!...The French should at least get scrap value in return:eek:

yeesh you spend half the thread dissing those who made you what you are

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The operative word here being 'given'.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Do you deny that the Statue of Liberty was given to the US after the French Revolution........which the US caused by pleading money from French Royalty to fund the colonial war????

The US didn't cause the French Revolution. I like again something is AMERICA's fault. The overthrow of the British out of America was just as much in French interest - or do you deny that Britain and France were in perpetual war?


That statue is 2000 tons of copper!...The French should at least get scrap value in return:eek:

I guess we shold send them a bill for the liberation of France durign World War II - not to mention their protection during the Cold War. Isn't it ironic that they left NATO during the height of the Cold War and rejoined after it was over???? They enjoyed the protection of NATO without the responsibility.

yeesh you spend half the thread dissing those who made you what you are
Made us what we are? How did they do that? The French didn't even come into the war until after we were winning. At least when we entered World War II - we didn't wait until a sure win and take the easy way of claiming victory. What role did France have in writing our Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? Nothing. The turning point of the Revolution came in December 1776 with the Battle of Trenton and the Battle of Princeton.

It took American ingenuity to build the Panama Canal after the bungling attempt by the French. America finished the job - under budget and ahead of schedule.

[Coney]

ROFLMAO!!!!

How quick you turn history from a pro to a con JD ;)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
ROFLMAO!!!!

How quick you turn history from a pro to a con JD ;)
I'm just stating facts - you can take them anyway you want. You're the one that said we caused the French Revolution and that complete bullsh*t.

[Dúnedain]

From this point forward I refuse to acknowledge Coney. He is a waste of my time [FLAME DELETED] It is clear he is just trying to get crap started and has no clear sense of reality. I will not combat or argue anything he says, . [FLAME DELETED]I welcome JD and anyone else with this common bond of ignoring a useless creature...

I do however welcome intelligent conversation and debate with anyone else :D


Last edited by Sister Golden Hair

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm just stating facts - you can take them anyway you want. You're the one that said we caused the French Revolution and that complete bullsh*t.

*sigh* if you re-read my post you'll find that I said no such thing:rolleyes:

[Coney]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
From this point forward I refuse to acknowledge Coney. He is a waste of my time [FLAME DELETED] It is clear he is just trying to get crap started and has no clear sense of reality. I will not combat or argue anything he says, [FLAME DELETED] I welcome JD and anyone else with this common bond of ignoring a useless creature...

I do however welcome intelligent conversation and debate with anyone else :D



[FLAME BAIT DELETED]


Last edited by Sister Golden Hair

[wahine]

Originally posted by Coney
Do you deny that the Statue of Liberty was given to the US after the French Revolution........which the US caused by pleading money from French Royalty to fund the colonial war????

*goes into motherly scorn mode*America didn't cause the French Revolution, America was the scape-goat. */steps out of motherly scorning Coney mode*

Dunedain
...and has no clear sense of reality.

*psychodelic mode**dramatic* Reality is perception. Perception changes, therefor reality changes. So if by said 'reality' you mean reliably tangible objects and immutable events, then there is no such thing. */psychodelic mode*

I beg you not to ask me what I just said.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by wahine

Dunedain


*psychodelic mode**dramatic* Reality is perception. Perception changes, therefor reality changes. So if by said 'reality' you mean reliably tangible objects ans immutable objects, then there is no such thing. */psychodelic mode*

I beg you not to ask me what I just said.

LOL, huh? Now you are giving me grief like I gave you in the "Protestors" thread, if you haven't seen it yet, I went a little technical on you, lol :D

[Coney]

Originally posted by wahine
*goes into motherly scorn mode*America didn't cause the French Revolution, America was the scape-goat. */steps out of motherly scorning Coney mode*

ROFLMFAO!!!!!

Which history books did you read??:confused: :confused:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
*sigh* if you re-read my post you'll find that I said no such thing:rolleyes:
You never said this...


...the French Revolution........which the US caused by pleading money from French Royalty to fund the colonial war????

Seems like you're accusing us of being the cause of the French Revolution.

[Coney]

You never said this...

Exactly.


ike you're accusing us of being the cause of the French Revolution.

Not exactly...but do you not deny that your country was financed on French money?.....simple question...yes?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Administrative Warning - This thread has had warnings posted in it before, and this will be the final one. If you can not discuss this topic without flame bait and flaming, then it will be closed. NO MORE! One more flame or violation nomatter how small, will result in this thread being closed and other action taken. Discuss this topic civilly or do not discuss it. Enough said.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Not exactly...but do you not deny that your country was financed on French money?.....simple question...yes?
yes - the French helped us. So? It still doesn't mean that we caused the French Revolution - which is what you said. Also - that was 200 years ago. We were also enemies with England for 100 years. Things change.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
yes - the French helped us. So? It still doesn't mean that we caused the French Revolution - which is what you said. Also - that was 200 years ago. We were also enemies with England for 100 years. Things change.

I just love your (now) denial of history JD:rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
I just love your (now) denial of history JD:rolleyes:
I'm not denying anything with history. The frecnh did help us during the American Revolution - but it doesn't mean we caused the French Revolution.

If you want to talk about the American Revolution and it's terrible ramifcations on the world - maybe you should start a whole new thread. That way you can lambast America even more and blame even more stuff on us.

[wahine]

Wow, talk about schizophrenia, and she used to be so sweet.

Anyway, who flamed?

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
If you want to talk about the American Revolution and it's terrible ramifcations on the world - maybe you should start a whole new thread. That way you can lambast America even more and blame even more stuff on us.

I'm sorry, but I've never lambasted America...I may disagree with thier current politcal theory, but pls point out exactly where I've lambasted America as a whole on this thread?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
I'm sorry, but I've never lambasted America...I may disagree with thier current politcal theory, but pls point out exactly where I've lambasted America as a whole on this thread?
I'm not going to go through the 57 pages of this thread and the various other threads where it has been pointed out that most of the worlds problems are the result of America.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Would someone like to tell me what the French or American revolution has to do with the Iraq situation? Get on topic everyone.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Would someone like to tell me what the French or American revolution has to do with the Iraq situation? Get on topic everyone.
Coney brought it up. Didn't you know that America was the cause of the French Revolution too? :rolleyes: :D

[wahine]

Tsk, tsk. Tattletale-tellin' on Coney, pointing the finger of blame...*points her fingers of blame at Coney too*

Okay, ON TOPIC now.

Iraq...what kinda bombs you think they'll use? Something fun! *Sadistic grin* Hee hee hee...*I'm sorry, but it is hard for me to be serious...really...*

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Coney brought it up. Didn't you know that America was the cause of the French Revolution too? :rolleyes: :D

Nah, history did that for me.:rolleyes:

[Coney]

Originally posted by wahine
Tsk, tsk. Tattletale-tellin' on Coney, pointing the finger of blame...*points her fingers of blame at Coney too*

Do you need directions for that finger?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Nah, history did that for me.:rolleyes:
Oh you must be reading the "Blame America First - The Abridged European History Series" that explains it. :rolleyes:

[Sister Golden Hair]

I think considering the sarcam in the last four posts has decided the fate of this thread. Too bad we can't be civil. Closing.

[Rían]

..... and then in my third pregnancy I went full-term, and contractions started mid-afternoon, so I checked into the hospital after dinner, and they gave me a little pitocin to speed things up a bit, then when I got to the point where I couldn't walk the halls anymore, I got an epidural, then...... what? Oops, wrong thread -sorry! :D